FL's Stand Your Ground Law Strikes Again

NationalTitles17

Super Moderator
May 25, 2003
17,172
6,737
253
Mountainous Northern California
I didn't even watch the video or know the races of the parties involved and came to the conclusion the guy claiming SYG shouldn't be able to and should be prosecuted. I'm not sure what race has to do with this. Is there something in the link that leads you to believe the reason the shooter was granted SYG status was because he was white and the guy he shot was black? I'm trying to find the reason to bring race into this particular discussion.
Because perception is reality, in a manner of speaking.

I am challenging the knee-jerk reaction some may have to the situation when they do see the races of the people involved.

Many black men are not able to carry due to our criminal justice system. This occurs more often in this group, often for nonviolent possession convictions. This leaves many without the ability to carry legally. Thus, they are at a "disadvantage" in the wild west. Also, a black man with a gun may be perceived differently.

As much as we wish race didn't matter in a case like this, it does.
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Aug 15, 2004
25,321
1,880
223
44
Where ever there's BBQ, Crawfish & Football
Because perception is reality, in a manner of speaking.

I am challenging the knee-jerk reaction some may have to the situation when they do see the races of the people involved.

Many black men are not able to carry due to our criminal justice system. This occurs more often in this group, often for nonviolent possession convictions. This leaves many without the ability to carry legally. Thus, they are at a "disadvantage" in the wild west. Also, a black man with a gun may be perceived differently.

As much as we wish race didn't matter in a case like this, it does.
Gotcha, you're speaking to a broader issue.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
41,263
7,120
278
51
East Point, Ga, USA
Poor decision making by his father - just like his mother. Both had a responsibility to their children to diffuse the situation.

She could have moved her car (or not parked illegally in the first place ideally) and he could have been more civil when he approached the shooter.

Not absolving the shooter of anything but when you are a parent and you have your children with you - you have to put their safety and comfort first.
are you being serious now?

you are doing nothing but trying to absolve the shooter.
 

NationalTitles17

Super Moderator
May 25, 2003
17,172
6,737
253
Mountainous Northern California
are you being serious now?

you are doing nothing but trying to absolve the shooter.
Black people have a duty to retreat. White people can be as aggressive as they wish and act with impunity. Not sure if blue font is needed.

ETA: Why aren't the black man's actions being regarded as "stand your ground" and the white man's as unlawful use of deadly force?

It seems either race is an issue in this OR last man standing wins every argument.

Either of those is a real problem.
 
Last edited:

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
41,263
7,120
278
51
East Point, Ga, USA
Black people have a duty to retreat. White people can be aggressive as they wish and act with impunity. Not sure if blue font is needed.
black people have a duty to not be inherently threatening. and they should probably enter all interactions with white folks with appropriate deference to avoid these types of situations.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
69,287
7,093
423
Huntsville, AL,USA
I know that if I were a jury member:

I would be severely biased by the knowledge of who got physical first.
You would be directed as to what to consider by the judge. Florida is putting interpretations on the law that other states have not. The pusher actually backs away a step or so when he sees the gun. That would get him prosecuted in the states which are still applying the "reasonable man" test as opposed to the Florida subjective test. He would also probably be convicted here...
 
I don't even have to watch the video because of this here. The guy instigated and escalated the situation. He shouldn't fall under the protection of "Stand your ground" law.
The law of unintended consequences. I think the spirit of the law is to protect the innocent. In this case, the guy started the argument, then couldn't handle it when he was about to get a beat down. He could have left the situation, or tried some way to mitigate the situation. No. He pulled a gun and killed a guy.

I used to have a Glock that I kept in a cloth gun bag under the seat of my truck. I always thought about how quickly a road rage situation could escalate into a shooting. And it does happen. This is a very similar situation.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
41,263
7,120
278
51
East Point, Ga, USA
The law of unintended consequences. I think the spirit of the law is to protect the innocent. In this case, the guy started the argument, then couldn't handle it when he was about to get a beat down. He could have left the situation, or tried some way to mitigate the situation. No. He pulled a gun and killed a guy.

I used to have a Glock that I kept in a cloth gun bag under the seat of my truck. I always thought about how quickly a road rage situation could escalate into a shooting. And it does happen. This is a very similar situation.
i don't think that he was even about to get a beat down (but i think it would have been somewhat justified had it happened). he could have easily stayed down and/or slunk back to his truck, but that wouldn't satisfy his ego.
 

UAH

All-SEC
Nov 27, 2017
1,907
636
123
black people have a duty to not be inherently threatening. and they should probably enter all interactions with white folks with appropriate deference to avoid these types of situations.
I was just attempting to put myself in the place of the parent of a young black man. What would we tell our child to do in such a moment? If he flees he may be shot for fleeing the scene. If he cowers in place and keeps his mouth shut he may be fortunate to survive the situation and only experience being roughed up and humiliated. If he reacts as a normal human would he may be executed on the spot.

When I see people begin to attempt, at a minimum, to rationalize or justify the completely unnecessary and unjustified murder of a man, I am repelled. I would ask them to attempt for one moment to live in the shoes of the victims family!
 

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
17,541
16
48
48
Birmingham, AL
All parties most likely bear some moral responsibility, but I personally draw the line at physical violence, or the imminent threat of physical violence.
Following someone, talking to them, asking them questions, even yelling at them etc. don't meet my criteria for justifying violent response.
The way I see it, the one to initiate violence loses.

That said, if you intend to walk around armed, you have more than the usual duty of care to not provoke hostilities.

Without witnessing the event, it is hard to say who is actually the "aggressor" in this situation.
 
Last edited:

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Aug 15, 2004
25,321
1,880
223
44
Where ever there's BBQ, Crawfish & Football
The law of unintended consequences. I think the spirit of the law is to protect the innocent. In this case, the guy started the argument, then couldn't handle it when he was about to get a beat down. He could have left the situation, or tried some way to mitigate the situation. No. He pulled a gun and killed a guy.

I used to have a Glock that I kept in a cloth gun bag under the seat of my truck. I always thought about how quickly a road rage situation could escalate into a shooting. And it does happen. This is a very similar situation.
I don't think "starting an argument" is an accurate description of what this man did. Walking up to a total stranger and screaming/yelling at them is an act of aggression that creates a very tense situation and generates emotions of fear which leads to tendencies of self defense in those being yelled at. This guy did much more than start an argument. He started a physical confrontation without throwing the first punch. He should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
 

bobstod

All-American
Oct 13, 1999
2,279
4
48
79
Magnolia Springs, AL. USA
I don't think "starting an argument" is an accurate description of what this man did. Walking up to a total stranger and screaming/yelling at them is an act of aggression that creates a very tense situation and generates emotions of fear which leads to tendencies of self defense in those being yelled at. This guy did much more than start an argument. He started a physical confrontation without throwing the first punch. He should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Totally agree. There is a element in law called "last clear chance'. The shooter pulls the weapon, points it at the victim, who backs up a little, or if you will, stands still. The shooter has a choice. His gun has put an end to any threat. He can get up and walk away, while still protecting himself from any perceived violence; or he can choose to shoot the man in the heart. Guilty of murder.
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Aug 15, 2004
25,321
1,880
223
44
Where ever there's BBQ, Crawfish & Football
this is one of the reasons i favor much stricter laws for folks who want to carry weapons around in public.
Yep. You and I are definitely in agreement on this one. I know it's (I hate this phrase but can't find another one better) a "slippery slope" to start determining who can carry and who cannot that goes beyond non criminal things. But there are some people who have no business carrying a gun whose never even had a traffic violation. Carrying, heck, just owning a gun, comes with GREAT responsibility.
 

MattinBama

Hall of Fame
Jul 31, 2007
9,551
2,172
173
Titus, AL
That was murder, pure and simple.

If the guy doing the pushing hadn't backed up about 3-5 feet once he reached for the gun and instead advanced I might be a bit more agreeable with it being a stand your ground situation. But a person backs up, has his arms at his side, and then you hesitate for a few seconds before pulling the trigger? Murder.
 

day-day

Hall of Fame
Jan 2, 2005
8,048
97
58
Bartlett, TN (Memphis area)
I'm thinking the DA will push to prosecute. Maybe not murder but at least manslaughter.

I also see a wrongful death civil suit coming but the shooter may not have anything to go after.
 
Last edited:

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
69,287
7,093
423
Huntsville, AL,USA
Here is a good summary of Alabama law, with the 2013 amendment clarifying it. As you can see, the shooter would be in a world of hurt here:


  • About to use unlawful deadly physical force.
  • A burglar about to use physical force.
  • Engaged in kidnapping, assault, robbery, or rape.
  • Unlawfully and forcefully entering a home or car, or attempting to remove a person against their will. (There are exceptions for people who used to live there and are under no injunctions or domestic protection orders.)
  • Breaking into a nuclear power plant.
Gun rights and gun violence: The story so far
Follow and interact with reporting as it happens at AL.com/investigates

2013 addition by Alabama Legislature
A person is also justified in the use of deadly force against someone who is "using or about to use physical force against an owner, employee, or other person authorized to be on business property when the business is closed to the public while committing or attempting to commit a crime involving death, serious physical injury, robbery, kidnapping, rape, sodomy, or a crime of a sexual nature involving a child under the age of 12.
 

Latest threads

TideFansStore.com - Wear UA Masks!

Purchases made through our TideFansStore.com link may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.