FL Parking Lot Shooting

[HCountyGuy]

I figured this topic warranted its own thread rather than continue in the “Shooting Incidents in the News” thread, simply because of the magnitude of the incident.

For those of you just joining us, here’s the incident:

https://www.wfla.com/news/pinellas-county/stand-your-ground-handicapped-parking-feud-leads-to-deadly-clearwater-shooting/1312474223

I’ll go ahead and say my piece:

I think we’re seeing a second take of the Trayvon/Zimmerman incident to some extent. There’s some glaring similarities:

Guy who is armed goes to confront somebody. Guy gets knocked to the ground and then shoots his assailant. I recognize the details aren’t exactly similar, but they get close. Even the racial divide.

Honestly, I think it was a bad shoot.

Having said that, I think the shooter might just get off. Given what people know and don’t know about self-defense, I can see a jury becoming convinced that the shooting was justified. Guy yelling does not particularly necessitate a violent reaction. Since he was needlessly knocked down and didn’t know what could happen next, he reasonably feared further assault and shot the physical aggressor.

I’d be happy to be proven wrong, though.

[underhook]

It's interesting to look at this incident in the abstract. If we remove that the shooter was being a dick by initiating an argument with someone's girlfriend and the guy who got shot being a dick for smacking someone who was arguing with his girlfirend....

Rewrite as you are standing pumping gas and someone gets behind you and knocks you to the ground. How should you respond from there? In this case the assailant backed off. Do a tactical getup quickly and prepare to deploy OC while moving to check your flanks?

Rewrite as you come out a gas station (you ignored SouthNarc's advice on always parking at the pump) and see some dude is aggressively pan handling your wife stuck in the car. What should you do. Challenge him from the door to get him away from the car? Blindside him by knocking him to the ground? Once you've knocked someone to the ground should you stay with them? If they look like they are drawing should you just stand there and hope they don't shoot you?


In this case it is an ass hole vs an idiot so no humans were involved. However, I think there is some what if analysis we do and learn from it.

[BobLoblaw]

Getting pushed down =/= ground and pound. That is the glaring distinction from the Zimmerman case. This does not seem justified.

[HCountyGuy]

Getting pushed down =/= ground and pound. That is the glaring distinction from the Zimmerman case. This does not seem justified.

I can recall my instructor from my “Officer Survival” class relaying that if you’re knocked to the ground, you’re acknowledged as losing the fight.

Given that, I believe the guy who got pushed to the ground was justified in DRAWING his firearm. The other guy started to back off, and at that point he should’ve gotten to his feet and then left to call the police. Truth be told he shouldn’t have been playing parking lot monitor anyway.

I still reiterate that I think the shooting was bad.

[blues]

As I've said a few times, I'm in the camp that believes this was a bad shoot.

The threat, though real, was no longer imminent nor was grave danger present at the moment the trigger was pressed. The aggressor had backed off. Shooting because you were angry or hurt is not justifiable.

If the aggressor made a move toward him to continue the beat down then I would argue that a shooting would be warranted prior to taking additional damage due to the vulnerable position. (I've successfully justified shootings in the past on FATS machines where my downed partner was about to take a kick to the head or upper torso.)

I don't see it as akin to the Zimmerman / Martin case because when Zimmerman shot he was having blows rained down upon him and taking damage.


A perfect storm of poor decisions all the way around.

[WobblyPossum]

Speaking SOLELY based on what I've seen reported in the news, I believe this was a bad shoot. As others have mentioned, the shooter was knocked to the ground and then the victim disengaged. He did not mount the shooter and "ground and pound him" which would have been an obvious deadly force situation. In this case, as shown in the video, the victim pushed the shooter and then stood there, hands on his hips. When the shooter pulled out his pistol, the victim began backing away from him and started to turn around as if to completely disengage. At this time, the reasonable thing for the shooter to do would have been to stand up and attempt to get away.

I believe the shooter was completely justified in drawing his firearm as he was blindsided by the victim and found himself on the ground. He no longer had the option to retreat had the victim pressed the attack and tried to mount him. The shooter was at a severe position of disadvantage. That isn't what happened though. The victim did not engage in any further physical violence. Drawing the gun did not provoke a violent response from the victim. This conflict was over when the shooter chose to fire at the victim. I cannot see an explanation of deadly force being objectively reasonable under these circumstances as any physical threat had ended when the shooter drew the gun. Even if the shooter had a medical condition that put him at more severe risk of death or serious bodily injury from being pushed onto the asphalt, that wouldn't have mattered at the time he took the shot. The victim posed a POSSIBLE threat to the shooter, not an IMMINENT one.

As I've hear Andrew Branca explain it, "Stand Your Ground" negates one of the five legal prongs of a self defense use of deadly force, Avoidance. The shooter would still need to be able to articulate Innocence, Imminence, Reasonableness, and Proportionality. I'll give him Innocence as he was not the one who initiated the use of physical force. Imminence and Proportionality were not present which means Reasonableness was not present either. The victim did not use or threaten to use deadly force against the shooter. The shooter's use of deadly force against the victim was not a proportional response. I don't see SYG as being a defense in this incident.

[41magfan]

As I've said a few times, I'm in the camp that believes this was a bad shoot.

The threat, though real, was no longer imminent nor was grave danger present at the moment the trigger was pressed. The aggressor had backed off. Shooting because you were angry or hurt is not justifiable.

If the aggressor made a move toward him to continue the beat down then I would argue that a shooting would be warranted prior to taking additional damage due to the vulnerable position. (I've successfully justified shootings in the past on FATS machines where my downed partner was about to take a kick to the head or upper torso.)

I don't see it as akin to the Zimmerman / Martin case because when Zimmerman shot he was having blows rained down upon him and taking damage.


A perfect storm of poor decisions all the way around.

Yep!

I don't know FL law anymore, but in my State the offense committed by the knucklehead doing the shoving would be considered a Misdemeanor. Using DF against and unarmed assailant committing such an offense does NOT satisfy the laws of self defense in any State as far as I know.

Whether he gets charged or not is irrelevant to the question of whether or not his UOF was lawful. That reality still flies over the head of most people.

[45dotACP]

Not a good shoot. It would be hard justifying capping an assailant who is backing off. You have to explain your actions as being done in reasonable fear of imminent death or grievous bodily injury. I suspect this guy will have a real tough time convincing people harm was imminent.

Betcha a prosecutor will argue that he got pissed off that he got knocked over and lost his cool.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[41magfan]

Actually, SYG laws in many states add a level of presumption to three of the (5) elements of self defense: Imminence, Proportionality and Reasonableness. The facts in this case have nothing to do with SYG provisions, regardless of who is spinning it.

[Peally]

When idiots collide...

[RevolverRob]

Stupid.

I'd like to say, all of this over a handicap parking space? But I once had the police come over an 'argument' about a handicap parking space with an irate man. And I thought I might have to shoot him he was sufficiently aggressive. :rolleyes:

<I debated, but I guess I'll tell the story, I may have written about it here before>

I was in college and it was a Saturday and I'd gone out fishing. On my way back home I stopped by the Starbucks my roommate worked at. I didn't normally go to that store, because it was pretty far from our apartment, but it was near the fishing spot. So I pulled up and parked my Mustang out front and went inside for a drink. Maybe 10 minutes have passed and I'm chatting with my roommate and sipping my iced tea, when a man comes into the store.

"Who's Mustang is that outside?"

I turn and look over at the man and I say, "Mine. Can I help you?"

"You parked in a handicap spot you son-of-a-bitch."

"Excuse me?" - I look out the window and sure as your born, I had accidentally parked in a handicap spot. It was an honest mistake, the way the parking lot slopped, I simply didn't see the painted marking on the ground.

"There is no excuse for you, you piece of shit!"

"Sir, calm down. It was an honest mistake, I'll move the car now."

"Damn right you will, you fucker! I drive my handicap father around and I don't even park in handicap spaces when I don't have him with me, because it's wrong!"

At this point the man is moving closer to me and my roommate has already moved to call the cops, due to the man's agitated nature.

"Sir, you need to calm down. As I said, I'll go move the car."

"Don't tell me to calm down. And move the car already!"

"I can't drive my car and have a conversation with you, in this store, simultaneously."

And then he started towards me at which point my roommate cut in, "The police are on their way here. SIR. You're going to need to leave now, or I'll have you trespassed."

At which point the man becomes irate and starts screaming at me and my roommate, but fortunately for him, he stays fixed to the floor and just keeps yelling. About 45 seconds go and the first cop shows up, lights and siren blaring. They come in and immediately cuff and stuff the guy and then start figuring it out. When the cop asks for my ID and I produce a CHL and DL he asks me if I have a gun, "Yes sir, I do."

"Good thing this idiot didn't try to fight you, huh?"

I shrugged. The guy ended up with a trespass warning and advice to not scream at random people in stores, the cop said, "This is Texas, sir. You never know who might be armed."

I moved my car (after the police cruiser unblocked me), the cops confirmed that you could not, in fact, see the painted handicap emblem from the angle I parked at, and store management put up a handicap sign affixed to the column in front of the parking space so it could be seen to prevent such accidents from occurring. Thankfully, no shooting occurred.

Point is. I've seen stupid people get mad over stupid shit before, like a handicap parking space. And to have a guy become supremely angry at me, over an honest mistake, to the point where I seriously thought he might try to assault me, I can see precisely how something like the story above transpired. Of course in the OP story the roles are reversed. Regardless it holds - It's not your duty to police the world, if you don't like something call the police and be a good witness.

[GardoneVT]

I think we’re seeing a second take of the Trayvon/Zimmerman incident to some extent. There’s some glaring similarities:



I think anyone who was not on scene should refrain from further commentary until the case is concluded. Discussing this further will only lead to inconsequential speculation.

[TAZ]

Bad shoot. Unlikely that the shooter will get off. If he does it will be a miscarriage of justice that will be used to dismantle SYG laws.

He had a questionable right to draw, but as soon as the threat started to back away he had no right to pull the trigger. Given that the idiot shooter made previous threats against other parking spot violators, he will in the least be up for mental evaluation. Hopefully he is in jail for man slaughter or better yet murder.

[HCountyGuy]

I think anyone who was not on scene should refrain from further commentary until the case is concluded. Discussing this further will only lead to inconsequential speculation.

So we shouldn’t discuss the particulars of a case that has already gained national attention? Or are you frowning at my pointing out the similarities to the last infamous Florida case which was made out to be about SYG?

I thought the point of a forum was essentially commentary on issues. I don’t think my speculating to be completely off-base or rooted in ignorance.

[HCountyGuy]

Bad shoot. Unlikely that the shooter will get off. If he does it will be a miscarriage of justice that will be used to dismantle SYG laws.

Bolded is what I fear is going to happen.

I’d like this guy to serve a lengthy prison sentence, but I have doubts about it happening.

[HCountyGuy]

On my way back home I stopped by the Starbucks my roommate worked at.

See, that’s where you screwed up!

[blues]

I think anyone who was not on scene should refrain from further commentary until the case is concluded. Discussing this further will only lead to inconsequential speculation.

Hardly inconsequential, imho.

I personally believe it is of little value to compare it to the Martin - Zimmerman episode which would only detract from the current matter which should stand on its own merits...

...but I feel the discussion of this case, which we are neither presiding over nor going to be called upon to act as triers of the facts, is of value because it may help us visualize and internalize the elements of proper and legal use of deadly force versus when it is not justified by the facts and the law.

There have been many thoughtful posts which I feel can only help in this regard. If it might save one life, on either side of the equation, it will have been well worth the effort expended.

[GardoneVT]

Hardly inconsequential, imho.

I personally believe it is of little value to compare it to the Martin - Zimmerman episode which would only detract from the current matter which should stand on its own merits...

...but I feel the discussion of this case, which we are neither presiding over nor going to be called upon to act as triers of the facts, is of value because it may help us visualize and internalize the elements of proper and legal use of deadly force versus when it is not justified by the facts and the law.

There have been many thoughtful posts which I feel can only help in this regard. If it might save one life, on either side of the equation, it will have been well worth the effort expended.

Such philosophical and legal territory has been covered before, easily accessible via the handy menu called the “search” box. Without direct knowledge of the context behind this event, we are simply blind speculating.
The article is not an objective source , and video also omits context. Since the press is our only source about this event , we don’t know whether this was or was not justified...or really anything beyond that someone got shot in a parking lot, and it’s on tape. We are just as likely to draw the wrong conclusion at this point as the right one, which is why I believe we should wait until this incident is heard in court before discussing if this is justified.

Alternatively, if someone who was there is authorized to offer comment that will suffice as well. But as Zimmerman’s case proved, truth is not a guarantee when dealing with press releases.

[GardoneVT]

So we shouldn’t discuss the particulars of a case that has already gained national attention? Or are you frowning at my pointing out the similarities to the last infamous Florida case which was made out to be about SYG?

I thought the point of a forum was essentially commentary on issues. I don’t think my speculating to be completely off-base or rooted in ignorance.

My concern is not the case or discussion of it, but rather informed discussion of the facts. Right now those are in short supply. For obvious reasons the media is not a reliable source for use of force information.

[HCountyGuy]

My concern is not the case or discussion of it, but rather informed discussion of the facts. Right now those are in short supply. For obvious reasons the media is not a reliable source for use of force information.

To the best of my knowledge the video available is unaltered and depicts the highlights of the incident: the shove and the shot.

While I agree the context might not be 100% present, I think an informed decision could potentially be reached simply from review of the footage.

[JRB]

This is ugly and all involved are assholes, that is absolutely safe to say.

But I am astonished at how many people here expect us to take a hit like that out of nowhere from an attacker we didn't even see, and make flawless decisions about our assaliant's ongoing intent *immediately* with 100% accuracy.

That sets a really shitty precedence, and one in *defense* of the asshole that started the physical fight to begin with, with an attack that could have caused serious if not severe injuries.

[blues]

Such philosophical and legal territory has been covered before, easily accessible via the handy menu called the “search” box. Without direct knowledge of the context behind this event, we are simply blind speculating.
The article is not an objective source , and video also omits context. Since the press is our only source about this event , we don’t know whether this was or was not justified...or really anything beyond that someone got shot in a parking lot, and it’s on tape. We are just as likely to draw the wrong conclusion at this point as the right one, which is why I believe we should wait until this incident is heard in court before discussing if this is justified.

Alternatively, if someone who was there is authorized to offer comment that will suffice as well. But as Zimmerman’s case proved, truth is not a guarantee when dealing with press releases.

I guess we just fundamentally disagree. So be it.

[Chance]

I can't listen to the audio where I'm at. Was the guy that did the shoving saying anything during the incident? Would that change where this sits on the 'Ability / Opportunity / Jeopardy' Venn diagram?

[HCountyGuy]

I can't listen to the audio where I'm at. Was the guy that did the shoving saying anything during the incident? Would that change where this sits on the 'Ability / Opportunity / Jeopardy' Venn diagram?

To the best of my knowledge there is no audio available.

[Hambo]

I posted this in the other thread: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html



Defensive use of force:

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Forcible felony:

776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Agg Batt:

784.045 Aggravated battery.—
(1)(a) A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:
1. Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; or
2. Uses a deadly weapon.

So in FL you need to be in fear of imminent death, GBH, or a forcible felony. On the forcible felony list, aggravated battery is probably the only one that would apply. However, that's not simple battery, it's GBH, disability, etc.

My informed guess based mainly on cases from the other side of FL is that it will come down to the SA believing a disabled man was in fear of great harm, or a man was looking for trouble by repeatedly playing parking cop.

[Nephrology]

I do not think this was an appropriate use of lethal force whatsoever. I do not really think I would want to be stuck in an elevator with anyone involved with this incident, but that does not diminish the tragedy of a child growing up without his father. I sincerely hope the shooter is punished in the judicial system for his actions.

[41magfan]

It's fairly obvious (to me at least) that there are a whole bunch of folks clueless about self defense law. It goes a bit deeper than a basic understanding of Ability - Opportunity - Jeopardy, believe me.

IMO, Andrew Branca (http://lawofselfdefense.com/) is doing the best work in educating people on the subject and I would encourage anyone/everyone to get plugged in to his ongoing work and the book he has written.

You can start by taking this short simple test. If you can't answer these questions correctly, you might want to take that as a clue.

http://selfdefensequiz.com/quiz116229426

[Zincwarrior]

I figured this topic warranted its own thread rather than continue in the “Shooting Incidents in the News” thread, simply because of the magnitude of the incident.

For those of you just joining us, here’s the incident:

https://www.wfla.com/news/pinellas-county/stand-your-ground-handicapped-parking-feud-leads-to-deadly-clearwater-shooting/1312474223

I’ll go ahead and say my piece:

I think we’re seeing a second take of the Trayvon/Zimmerman incident to some extent. There’s some glaring similarities:

Guy who is armed goes to confront somebody. Guy gets knocked to the ground and then shoots his assailant. I recognize the details aren’t exactly similar, but they get close. Even the racial divide.

Honestly, I think it was a bad shoot.

Having said that, I think the shooter might just get off. Given what people know and don’t know about self-defense, I can see a jury becoming convinced that the shooting was justified. Guy yelling does not particularly necessitate a violent reaction. Since he was needlessly knocked down and didn’t know what could happen next, he reasonably feared further assault and shot the physical aggressor.

I’d be happy to be proven wrong, though.

Florida law is a bit deviant in that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the use of lethal self defense was not reasonable.

[SafetyFirst]

Definitely three idiots merging at the same time to cause a shit storm. I just would like to say it seems like the victim pushes the person to the ground and keeps moving forward while pulling his shorts up. Then has a gun pulled on him. Only when the gun is being pulled does the victim start moving backwards. And is shot in the chest.
So how do you feel about the victim clearly moving forward while the dumbass is on the ground?
And since the victim finally starts moving away does the grounded fool have a right to shoot?
Seems like no one is innocent in this situation.

[Gadfly]

It may be legal under FL law. But “just cause you could, doesn’t mean you should”.

Telling someone to not park in a handicapped spot is kind of busy body, but not illegal. Shoving is not good. I am good with him drawing. Then, Shover begins to back off... why not let him back off? Disengage, write down the plates as they leave. Make police report, and realize you are not the parking lot police.

Lots of folks think a 4 hour LTC/CHL class is the same as a 32 week police academy. It ain’t.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sero Sed Serio]

IRRC, this is the standard in at least 49/50 states, with OH being the only holdout, after Arizona's standard shifted in State v. Fish (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-of-appeals/1176069.html). Typically, once the defense raises a "colorable claim" of self-defense, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that the defendant's actions were unreasonable. In Arizona, the "colorable claim" standard is ridiculously low--the defense only has to give the "slightest evidence" that he/she acted in self-defense. See State v. King (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-supreme-court/1530761.html). King was reversed after the court failed to give the jury a self-defense instruction in a case where a homeless guy panhandled the defendant, then threw a two-liter at the defendant when he refused. The defendant responded by beating the homeless guy to death. Of course, King was convicted again in the subsequent retrial.

Here's my thoughts on the case in question, with two major caveats: 1) Knowing what each party said could make a huge difference in the analysis of the situation, particularly if there were threats of violence or statements about weapons made by either party, and 2) My lens of viewing this is based on substantial training/knowledge/experience in Arizona self-defense/justification law, which is similar to Florida, but obviously not identical.

Shooter's initial contact with Girlfriend likely isn't enough for Shooter to be considered the "initial aggressor," which in AZ would mean that Shooter would lose their right to use force in self-defense unless he 1) disengaged/attempted to disengage, or 2) Dead Guy was using excessive force in response to Shooter's initial use of force. This, of course, could change if Shooter's initial statements to Girlfriend involved threats of violence or statements about having/using his gun.

Dead Guy probably wasn't justified in using non-deadly physical force against Shooter, since at most he appears to have impact-pushed Shooter in response to a verbal provocation alone. In AZ this would be a misdemeanor or "simple" assault (what is known in other states as a "battery") with the level to be determined on whether Shooter received any injuries from getting knocked on his ass.

Once Shooter was the victim of an assault, he would be justified in using physical force in response. However, in order to justify deadly physical force, Shooter has to show a reasonable belief of "imminent death," "great bodily harm," or a "forcible felony" as Hambo posted (which, coincidentally, is nearly identical to AZ law, which requires a reasonable belief of death, "serious physical injury," or the commission of one of a number of articulated felonies under our "crime prevention" statute.)

This is where the wheels start to fall off for our self-appointed parking lot attendant. While there are potential arguments to be made for a disparity in age, fitness level, and possibly a stretch that Dead Guy pulling up his shorts could have been construed as a movement to a weapon, it seems like Dead Guy got his shot in, then was done for the moment and was actually moving backwards at the time the shot was fired. I'm not really seeing a straight-face argument that deadly force was immediately necessary for Shooter to prevent "imminent death" or "great bodily harm" at the time he pulled the trigger. I think the "forcible felony" issue is a non-starter and not really up for serious consideration here.

After all of that, though, I think the media (who never misses an opportunity to mischaracterize "stand your ground" in the first place) is grossly mis-characterizing this case as a "stand your ground" incident. Zimmerman, who IMO was an asshole who exercised poor judgment but was legally justified in using deadly physical force, was a much closer example of stand your ground; this was a pissing match where Dead Guy assaulted Shooter, and Shooter responded with excessive force. End of. Stand your ground had nothing to do with this situation, since retreat wasn't really an option to Shooter who was on his back/butt at the time and couldn't have reasonably retreated in any event. But since we have 1) A white Shooter, who shot 2) Unarmed black Dead Guy, 3) in front of his ("think of the!") child, over 4) A minor incident, in a 5) State that Zimmerman made the poster-child of "stand your ground" controversy, where 6) LE made a firm statement that they could not file charges (albeit one where I didn't hear the CLEO or PIO mention "stand your ground," nor have we had a final decision from the District Attorney, who gets to make the final charging decision, regardless of whether LE decides to arrest or not). I think if you change a couple of these factors, this case ends up as a back-page, below-the-fold afterthought, not the international obsession it seems to be currently. But this is an opportunity for an anti-CCW/self-defense/gun media to mischaracterize "stand your ground" as some sort of "open season" or "vigilante" option, so they're going to run with it.

[Zincwarrior]

Interesting. It was my understanding that the defendant had to prove the affirmative defense of self defense, that the burden was on the defendant.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

In the other thread, I speculated that the shooter was wearing a tac vest. I found a better example of the video clip and it seems to be a big shirt. So much for that psycho-babble speculation.

The shooter spends a lot of time yelling at the woman. He could have just said his piece and walked away. He seemed to be into it. Moron.

I really like jck397 analysis. Both this guy and Zimmerman are prime examples of idiots with guns (Zimmerman might have been justified once the fight started but he still was an idiot).

[YVK]

But I am astonished at how many people here expect us to take a hit like that out of nowhere from an attacker we didn't even see, and make flawless decisions about our assaliant's ongoing intent *immediately* with 100% accuracy.



I would hope that most of us here would not consider this hit be out of nowhere, considering that the shooter chose where to stand himself and the assailant was not even hiding or coming from behind. The only reason the shooter didn't see the guy was because the shooter was fully engrossed in his rage talking to that woman.

The need for immediacy of assessment is something that we all have to understand and accept before we strap our concealed guns on every morning. In this particular case, the time track on the video suggests about 3 seconds before drawing the gun and firing the shot. Seems like a sufficient time to see what direction the assailant is moving, to or away.

[Sero Sed Serio]

Interesting. It was my understanding that the defendant had to prove the affirmative defense of self defense, that the burden was on the defendant.

The defense has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, affirmative defenses, while if the defense raises a colorable claim of a justification defense, the burden of proof switches to the State to prove that the defendant was not justified in his/her actions. The differences between affirmative defenses (such as entrapment or insanity) and justification defenses (such as self-defense or necessity) is outlined in Arizona Revised Statutes 13-205 https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00205.htm.

[JRB]

I would hope that most of us here would not consider this hit be out of nowhere, considering that the shooter chose where to stand himself and the assailant was not even hiding or coming from behind. The only reason the shooter didn't see the guy was because the shooter was fully engrossed in his rage talking to that woman.

The need for immediacy of assessment is something that we all have to understand and accept before we strap our concealed guns on every morning. In this particular case, the time track on the video suggests about 3 seconds before drawing the gun and firing the shot. Seems like a sufficient time to see what direction the assailant is moving, to or away.

Being an asshole used to justify physical assault, once upon a time, but that is no longer the case.

So yes, he was engrossed in being an asshole yelling at another asshole, and didn't see his attacker. That does not parse as "he should have seen it coming/expected an attack from someone else may result from him being an asshole".

Yes, immediacy of assessment is important and crucial. What if asshole #2 had been faster on the draw and shoot, thus not letting asshole #3 take a step back? Justified then?
What if asshole #2 hadn't been an asshole, but instead had been a known P-F member simply talking to her? Identical attack, draw and shoot. What then? 'He's a good guy, hopefully justice will be fair'

What if he had been a sworn officer asking asshole #1 to get out of the handicap spot? Same attack, same clear intent to continue the attack immediately thereafter until the draw and shoot.
I'm sure the response I'll see here is the flailing of hands and insistence said hypothetical officer should be charged with murder, etc. But I doubt it'd play out like that in reality. It'd be ugly the way such situations are ugly and we'd see the usual pro-police and anti-cop sorts lining up in their designated positions on the issue.

Having close friends in local PD, the closest of whom has been in three fatal OIS's in the past three years (one just a few weeks ago) makes that difference a very personal one to me. I don't want my close friends to hesitate to defend themselves because a bunch of idiots in the comments section of a news clip wail and scream about how that officer could have done XYZ instead.
Similarly, I don't want the expectation of perfection leveled at me if I'm attacked and need to defend myself.

All we're doing by burning asshole #2 is narrowing if not eliminating any benefit of the doubt for folks like us if we're attacked. Our collective narrative on something like this can and will affect how juries see it. I am absolutely certain that too many people's opinions here are being altered by the fact that the shooter was an asshole.
If any of us defend ourselves with a firearm, there's going to be a big group of people that all think we're the exact same kind of asshole, so again, our collective narrative on this matters.

[WobblyPossum]

What if he had been a sworn officer asking asshole #1 to get out of the handicap spot? Same attack, same clear intent to continue the attack immediately thereafter until the draw and shoot.


Can you articulate "clear intent to continue the attack immediately" by the decedent from the video? I'd like you to do so if you can because I sure can't and I'd like your perspective. What I saw in the video was the decedent approaching and shoving the shooter, then taking one step forward before stopping to stand there with his hands on his hips. The shooter didn't appear to draw his gun until AFTER the decedent stopped and stood there. Then, as soon as you can see the shooter start his draw, the decedent began to walk away from him.

[txdpd]

What if the guy that got shot, was acting in defense of a third party, and shoved the shooter out of the way so he could leave?

If you were out there with your child, how long are you going to stand around and keep your child in that situation?

[YVK]

JRB, I don't think anybody is asking for a perfection in situational assessment. In fact, I think the legal standard remains at "what a reasonable/average person would do".
I remain at an opinion that if a reasonable person drew a gun and saw an unarmed assailant back off, two-three seconds that the shooter takes to send it off is reasonably sufficient to make a no shoot call.

The "what if" discussion is a fruitless exercise, I am afraid. Yeah, if the shooter fired when the assailant still had a forward motion, I'd have less problems with it. But that's not what happened.

[underhook]

The jck397 post. Gold.

[RevolverRob]

Some of y'all might need to put yourself in the shoes of the victim.

You come out of a store and someone is aggressively shouting into the window of your car at your wife/girlfriend/baby mama/daughter - Are you standing there and waiting for them to politely stop? Or are you going to get them away from your loved one?

I agree that there are some options the victim could have used before shoving the perp away. He could have stepped in between them and "gotten in the face" of the man who was yelling at his girlfriend. Or he could have used deescalation tactics to move the guy away from the vehicle and his loved ones. But what I see is a guy acting pretty damn reasonable when he shoves the perpetrator of this crime to get them the fuck away from his girlfriend and mother of his child. He saw a man screaming and gesturing at his loved one and moves him away from them. I can't say I wouldn't do the same thing. Hopefully, I would de-escalate and move them away from my wife with words and actions, but if I came out of a store and found a guy screaming at my wife, my first response would be, "GET THE FUCK AWAY FROM HER!" Followed by a substantial effort to move said individual away from her. To include use of force.

Simultaneously, this guy has tons of time to not shoot this guy, but he does any way. Couple this with him being the instigator of this incident to begin with, him having a history of being the parking police, and him using bad judgement. I hope he goes to jail for a long time and his assets are sold to pay restitution to the victim's family and provide a now fatherless son with a good education.

Seriously, if you can watch that video and think the man who got shot was wrong - I don't know want you to be right.

[WobblyPossum]

Andrew Branca posted a short analysis of this incident on his Patreon page: https://www.patreon.com/posts/cotw-florida-20318837

Now I'm really curious how this plays out because he's saying it is unlikely that a prosecutor would be able to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that this shooting didn't meet the standards for self defense. I still disagree based on the video but I'm open to other opinions/options.

[HCountyGuy]

Andrew Branca posted a short analysis of this incident on his Patreon page: https://www.patreon.com/posts/cotw-florida-20318837

Now I'm really curious how this plays out because he's saying it is unlikely that a prosecutor would be able to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that this shooting didn't meet the standards for self defense. I still disagree based on the video but I'm open to other opinions/options.

Quite simply your average juror doesn’t view the incident in the same way we do.

To them Asshole 1 (shooter) verbally berating female for parking in handicapped spot does not necessitate a blind-sided shove to the ground by Asshole 2 (deceased). Because gosh darn it we’re more civilized than that. So of course Asshole 2 essentially escalated the encounter and “kinda asked for it/had it coming” at that point. Also I’m sure the defense attorney will argue a particular disparity of force between Assholes 1 and 2.

If Asshole 1 does get convicted, I’d be surprised but not upset.

[Mark D]

You come out of a store and someone is aggressively shouting into the window of your car at your wife/girlfriend/baby mama/daughter .

Just seeking clarification. Several folks have referring to the shooter yelling/shouting/screaming. Do we know that he was actually doing that, and not just talking? The video doesn't have audio, and I couldn't tell the tone or volume of his voice from what i saw. I assumed he was not yelling, but just speaking, albeit in snarky, a**hole kind of way.

For the record, I'm not defending either party. But I'd find it easier to understand the shove if the shooter was yelling or otherwise threatening the woman.

[critter]

Quite simply your average juror doesn’t view the incident in the same way we do.

To them Asshole 1 (shooter) verbally berating female for parking in handicapped spot does not necessitate a blind-sided shove to the ground by Asshole 2 (deceased). Because gosh darn it we’re more civilized than that. So of course Asshole 2 essentially escalated the encounter and “kinda asked for it/had it coming” at that point. Also I’m sure the defense attorney will argue a particular disparity of force between Assholes 1 and 2.

If Asshole 1 does get convicted, I’d be surprised but not upset.

At the end of that video Mr. Branca also sums up the Sheriff's determination: "...on these facts it is possible but arguably not likely that a prosecutor could convince a unanimous jury that self defense had been disproven beyond a reasonable doubt."

The way Mr. Branca articulated the available facts, that determination does make legal sense. I still have a little trouble seeing the shooter as being in "imminent danger" at the moment he fired, but I get it when broken into the individual pieces.

[LorenzoS]

Notwithstanding the legalities of this being a good or bad shoot, I am sure the guy wishes he never appointed himself hall monitor of the handicapped parking space. Even if he was in a should shoot situation, it never would have happened if he didn't act like a dick in the first place.

[Zincwarrior]

The defense has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, affirmative defenses, while if the defense raises a colorable claim of a justification defense, the burden of proof switches to the State to prove that the defendant was not justified in his/her actions. The differences between affirmative defenses (such as entrapment or insanity) and justification defenses (such as self-defense or necessity) is outlined in Arizona Revised Statutes 13-205 https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00205.htm.

Thanks! Hope to never need it in real life!

[Zincwarrior]

Quite simply your average juror doesn’t view the incident in the same way we do.

To them Asshole 1 (shooter) verbally berating female for parking in handicapped spot does not necessitate a blind-sided shove to the ground by Asshole 2 (deceased). Because gosh darn it we’re more civilized than that. So of course Asshole 2 essentially escalated the encounter and “kinda asked for it/had it coming” at that point. Also I’m sure the defense attorney will argue a particular disparity of force between Assholes 1 and 2.

If Asshole 1 does get convicted, I’d be surprised but not upset.
That depends on the jury makeup. Another jury might see this as an excuse for a gun happy shooter to shoot someone.

[RevolverRob]

Just seeking clarification. Several folks have referring to the shooter yelling/shouting/screaming. Do we know that he was actually doing that, and not just talking? The video doesn't have audio, and I couldn't tell the tone or volume of his voice from what i saw. I assumed he was not yelling, but just speaking, albeit in snarky, a**hole kind of way.

For the record, I'm not defending either party. But I'd find it easier to understand the shove if the shooter was yelling or otherwise threatening the woman.

Not for sure we don't.

But in general when someone raises their hand from a calm position to start aggressively pointing as the shooter does in this case raised voices come with it, as does a tone and attitude shift.

Also the OP article notes:
A witness saw Drejka and Jacobs arguing before walking into the store. While inside the convenient store, the witness alerted the clerk of the argument occurring in the parking lot.

Given the distance to the door from where the argument took place, unless the witness walked right past these two having a quiet conversation, chances are good that voices were raised. I know when I "witness" an argument in public, it is almost universally because the volume associated with it is above normal conversation volume. And honestly, such an argument would have to be loud and be substantial enough for my to warrant letting the clerk of the store know. As in, "This looks like it might turn into a full on fight in a minute." Kind of deal. Otherwise, I'd probably just ignore it.

That's me, other folks are different, I'm just trying to put myself in the shoes of a potential juror here. What's reasonable about this and what isn't?

Frankly, I have a hard time thinking a reasonable and rational person would strap on a gun and play meter maid, but then again - I've seen that shit play out before (and nothing about my situation was rational, so rationality isn't on the table here). Which makes me question the decision making of the shooter, entirely. (In short, I'd probably not be a good juror for this trial).

[Trooper224]

Bad shooting created by a bag of dicks.

Don't be a dick and park in the handicapped space.

Don't be a dick by playing parking lot monitor.

Don't be a dick by pushing the other dick to the ground.

Don't be a dick and shoot the other dick.

Morality play: being a dick can get you killed or raped in the prison shower.

Will the shooter walk? Given Florida's history, I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

[JRB]

Can you articulate "clear intent to continue the attack immediately" by the decedent from the video? I'd like you to do so if you can because I sure can't and I'd like your perspective. What I saw in the video was the decedent approaching and shoving the shooter, then taking one step forward before stopping to stand there with his hands on his hips. The shooter didn't appear to draw his gun until AFTER the decedent stopped and stood there. Then, as soon as you can see the shooter start his draw, the decedent began to walk away from him.

I will defer to the more varied experiences of the LE here gladly. But having personally witnessed entirely too many physical assaults that started out with a shove, it goes one of three ways:
-Shove victim to the ground, grab a purse or whatever, and flee the scene at top speed.
-Shove victim to the ground, get a few more licks in while the victim is down (usually kicks to the ribs, groin, and head) while talking smack. I believe this is what was likely here.
-Shove victim to the ground, immediately get to stomping the hell out of them. Usually goes on for 10-20 seconds before a pause, some smack talking, then they walk/run away or get into a vehicle and flee.

If the decedent had truly been done with his physical attack after the shove, but wanted to stand there and just deliver asshole #2 a piece of his mind - that'd be a novel and very different thing than I've ever witnessed personally.

Back to the video, it seems that asshole #2 starts fumbling a bit towards his weapon, so asshole #3 may have paused because he suspected a gun but didn't see it yet, and didn't step back until asshole #2 got the weapon free and was about to shoot him. Had asshole #2 been unarmed and simply tried to get up or anything else, I would be genuinely shocked if asshole #3 didn't even try to get in a few more hits.
Without audio there's a lot to be desired, as maybe asshole #2's verbal assault of asshole #1 was getting close to justifying a physical response. We're working with limited data and I'm simply calling it as I see it with the available data.

I wholeheartly agree that we can always be better about shoot/no shoot moments and more training is always better there. I'd sure as hell like to think I'd have not shot asshole #3 had I occasion to be asshole #2, and hopefully I'll never find out because I do everything I can to avoid shit like this, unlike asshole #2 who made it a mission of his to find and start shit, and is indisputably the biggest asshole of the three assholes in this story.

Bottom line, though, is being an asshole isn't illegal. Attacking someone just because they're being an asshole *IS* illegal. Maybe it shouldn't be, maybe it should. With today's social and political strata the legal standard of 'being an asshole' would be a damn sight more complicated than the "fightin' words" of yore.



Some of y'all might need to put yourself in the shoes of the victim.

You come out of a store and someone is aggressively shouting into the window of your car at your wife/girlfriend/baby mama/daughter - Are you standing there and waiting for them to politely stop? Or are you going to get them away from your loved one?

I agree that there are some options the victim could have used before shoving the perp away. He could have stepped in between them and "gotten in the face" of the man who was yelling at his girlfriend. Or he could have used deescalation tactics to move the guy away from the vehicle and his loved ones. But what I see is a guy acting pretty damn reasonable when he shoves the perpetrator of this crime to get them the fuck away from his girlfriend and mother of his child. He saw a man screaming and gesturing at his loved one and moves him away from them. I can't say I wouldn't do the same thing. Hopefully, I would de-escalate and move them away from my wife with words and actions, but if I came out of a store and found a guy screaming at my wife, my first response would be, "GET THE FUCK AWAY FROM HER!" Followed by a substantial effort to move said individual away from her. To include use of force.

Simultaneously, this guy has tons of time to not shoot this guy, but he does any way. Couple this with him being the instigator of this incident to begin with, him having a history of being the parking police, and him using bad judgement. I hope he goes to jail for a long time and his assets are sold to pay restitution to the victim's family and provide a now fatherless son with a good education.

Seriously, if you can watch that video and think the man who got shot was wrong - I don't know want you to be right.

Without audio we have no idea who all was yelling or screaming. The shoving asshole (aka asshole #3) may have repeatedly announced himself and shooting asshole (asshole #2) may not have responded because he was too busy chewing on sloppy-parking asshole (asshole #1 aka baby mama)

Given the hypothetical of some asshole being an asshole to my girl/wife/whatever, the first step is as you say - yell at him, get his attention, get between them, ask WTF is going on and forcefully asshole #2 to back off. That is reasonable. If asshole #2 gets physical with you or physical with your wife then by all means, lawful escalation of force is in full effect.

Skipping straight past all that and on to physically attacking him is NOT reasonable. That is, unless there's a heretofore unmentioned legal precedent that allows you to physically assault someone for verbally being an asshole to someone you care about, in which case I'd be happy to be wrong in this case.

Let me ask this again - if asshole #2 had been faster on the draw and fired the shot before asshole #3 had the chance to step back in the camera's view, would it be different?

[HCountyGuy]

Morality play: being a dick can get you killed or raped in the prison shower.


That ought to be on a T-Shirt..

[critter]

I'm curious how much, if any, this plays into the decision:



...it also provides that while law enforcement can use normal procedures to investigate a use-of-force event, it is not permitted to arrest the use-of-force unless they have probable cause that the use of force was unlawful. In addition, the user-of-force can sue civilly to recover legal expenses and other costs if self-defense immunity is ultimate granted.


From the article and video upthread, it appears that the Sheriff makes the call and may put the county in jeopardy of what would certainly be a stout legal expense bill.

My question here is -- why doesn't the prosecutor make this assessment and decision? I thought prosecutors were the ones who decide whether to prosecute and who get/issue arrest warrants for LEO's to execute... Why is this in the hands of the Sheriff?

[El Cid]

I don’t know... many of us are viewing the incident through our lenses which have filters for training (with guns, knives, hands). We likely maintain better situational awareness and are more athletic. We are also unlikely to do what started this incident.

If the shooter is an old man, and if he is somehow disabled... that works in his favor for not getting charged or convicted if he is. Most citizens who carry legally are going to be WAY out of their OODA loop after getting hit and grounded like that. Most may legitimately believe they are in serious danger.

Let’s also remember how the mind distorts time and reaction speed under stress - especially for untrained folks. We all know the law judges the shooter on his perceptions at the time. Watching a video from an air conditioned room with no stress doesn’t give me the insight I really need to throw this guy under the bus.

Were both men flaming assholes? You bet! Should the shooter have just called the cops about the parking situation? Of course. Would they have responded in time or at all? Not sure but I have my doubts. That could have contributed to the shooter’s frustration. But hitting someone like a defensive end hitting a QB because he’s yelling at a loved one? Rarely justifiable. Maybe the words coming from the shooter were threatening. I’m betting it was street justice from a tough guy who paid dearly for his poor decision. But that’s just a guess since I don’t have any evidence or witness statements.

The real test will be if there is anything to the comments about the shooter threatening to shoot others. It’s possible he was itching for a situation where he can use his gun. That will be difficult to prove though even if true.

[El Cid]

My question here is -- why doesn't the prosecutor make this assessment and decision? I thought prosecutors were the ones who decide whether to prosecute and who get/issue arrest warrants for LEO's to execute... Why is this in the hands of the Sheriff?

In most places prosecutors work what’s brought to them by the LE agencies. They typically don’t direct the LEO’s to make arrests because the LEO’s have to do the investigation first.

[HCountyGuy]

Yeah this guy (shooter) appears to be a bit of a loose cannon:

https://www.wfla.com/8-on-your-side/investigations/stand-your-ground-convenience-store-shooting-why-did-he-pull-the-trigger-/1320956372

[RevolverRob]

Without audio we have no idea who all was yelling or screaming. The shoving asshole (aka asshole #3) may have repeatedly announced himself and shooting asshole (asshole #2) may not have responded because he was too busy chewing on sloppy-parking asshole (asshole #1 aka baby mama)

Given the hypothetical of some asshole being an asshole to my girl/wife/whatever, the first step is as you say - yell at him, get his attention, get between them, ask WTF is going on and forcefully asshole #2 to back off. That is reasonable. If asshole #2 gets physical with you or physical with your wife then by all means, lawful escalation of force is in full effect.

Skipping straight past all that and on to physically attacking him is NOT reasonable. That is, unless there's a heretofore unmentioned legal precedent that allows you to physically assault someone for verbally being an asshole to someone you care about, in which case I'd be happy to be wrong in this case.


Florida Statute 784.48


"Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.

Because we don't know what was said here, it's impossible to know if Deceased Victim (I prefer Deceased Victim to Asshole #3) interpreted a verbal threat or not. I, from watching the video, however, can articulate threatening non-verbal behavior from the body language of Asshole #2, quite easily. Gesticulations, aggression, approaching a random vehicle, engaging verbally with the occupant of the vehicle. All of those factors are interpretable as a credible threat to a person closely associated with Deceased Victim.

The only thing we need to tip this ENTIRELY in favor of Deceased Victim, is if he walked out of the store and heard, "Move your car bitch!" And he would have been entirely justified then and there to dole out fucking violence. Full stop.

You're wrong here man.

Interpreting threats is dynamic, but comes from both verbal and non-verbal cues. In this video, I see a fucking asshole playing Parking Lot Cop and killing a man for it. Parking Lot Cop has a history of harassing patrons at this store and threatening them with violence. He was a prior credible threat. He was verbally engaging ("assaulting"?) a woman in a car and her boyfriend put a stop to it. Unfortunately, Parking Lot Cop put an end to him. For all we know, the man who was shot here, had a previous encounter with this guy where he had threatened him with violence. Seeing the guy engaging his girlfriend and having prior knowledge of that, would be perfect articulation of a 'Credible Threat' under Florida law.

Unfortunately, we'll never know what the Deceased Victim knew/interpreted, because Parking Lot Cop put him in the ground.

___

PS: I haven't found an unedited version of this video. But here we can see the Perp get out of his vehicle and purposefully engage with the woman. Within seconds, watch his hands, he becomes increasingly agitated. By the way, you can see the father and son go in the store. The truck blocking the Perp's vehicle leaves, and then the Perp gets out of his vehicle and approaches a lone woman. He walks around the car and then engages her. That means he waited to exit his vehicle and engage her (he can be seen sitting in the driver's seat when the truck moves).

If I saw that behavior from a person in public, my alarm bells would be going off, thinking robbery and assault.

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/video/deadly-altercation-parking-spot-caught-camera-56741734

[wvincent]

That ought to be on a T-Shirt..

Ought to be a wall poster with mass distribution.

I'm really hoping this doesn't get charged, because a) if judged within the statute of the law, I think he walks. Which leads to b) I think that he gets an pass if judged by a jury of his peers. Stack the deck with a couple of older folks with handicapped permits, and bias be damned, he walking. And I sure as fu*k don't want this asshole feeling vindicated for his behavior and actions. I want self doubt and guilt to nag him every waking minute, because I suspect that is all the justice available for this situation.

[wvincent]

Florida Statute 784.48



Because we don't know what was said here, it's impossible to know if Deceased Victim (I prefer Deceased Victim to Asshole #3) interpreted a verbal threat or not. I, from watching the video, however, can articulate threatening non-verbal behavior from the body language of Asshole #2, quite easily. Gesticulations, aggression, approaching a random vehicle, engaging verbally with the occupant of the vehicle. All of those factors are interpretable as a credible threat to a person closely associated with Deceased Victim.

The only thing we need to tip this ENTIRELY in favor of Deceased Victim, is if he walked out of the store and heard, "Move your car bitch!" And he would have been entirely justified then and there to dole out fucking violence. Full stop.

You're wrong here man.

Interpreting threats is dynamic, but comes from both verbal and non-verbal cues. In this video, I see a fucking asshole playing Parking Lot Cop and killing a man for it. Parking Lot Cop has a history of harassing patrons at this store and threatening them with violence. He was a prior credible threat. He was verbally engaging ("assaulting"?) a woman in a car and her boyfriend put a stop to it. Unfortunately, Parking Lot Cop put an end to him. For all we know, the man who was shot here, had a previous encounter with this guy where he had threatened him with violence. Seeing the guy engaging his girlfriend and having prior knowledge of that, would be perfect articulation of a 'Credible Threat' under Florida law.

Unfortunately, we'll never know what the Deceased Victim knew/interpreted, because Parking Lot Cop put him in the ground.

___

PS: I haven't found an unedited version of this video. But here we can see the Perp get out of his vehicle and purposefully engage with the woman. Within seconds, watch his hands, he becomes increasingly agitated. By the way, you can see the father and son go in the store. The truck blocking the Perp's vehicle leaves, and then the Perp gets out of his vehicle and approaches a lone woman. He walks around the car and then engages her. That means he waited to exit his vehicle and engage her (he can be seen sitting in the driver's seat when the truck moves).

If I saw that behavior from a person in public, my alarm bells would be going off, thinking robbery and assault.

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/video/deadly-altercation-parking-spot-caught-camera-56741734

If you think "Move your car, bitch" is the magical legal threshold to "to dole out fucking violence. Full stop.", PLEASE seek the council of an attorney ASAP.
Maybe if there is an "or else" or "and if you don't I'm gonna" you're getting closer.
He doesn't appear to be touching the vehicle, nor closing the distance any further.
Doesn't appear to be all that wild and crazy with his hands and body gestures either, I've seen plenty worse.

If she's feeling afraid, well windows up and doors locked and call 911. Hell, what about just moving the damn car out of the damn spot that seems to be triggering the damn asshole?

But, since we don't have any audio, it's still just speculation on all of our part.

[JRB]

Florida Statute 784.48
Because we don't know what was said here, it's impossible to know if Deceased Victim (I prefer Deceased Victim to Asshole #3) interpreted a verbal threat or not. I, from watching the video, however, can articulate threatening non-verbal behavior from the body language of Asshole #2, quite easily. Gesticulations, aggression, approaching a random vehicle, engaging verbally with the occupant of the vehicle. All of those factors are interpretable as a credible threat to a person closely associated with Deceased Victim.

The only thing we need to tip this ENTIRELY in favor of Deceased Victim, is if he walked out of the store and heard, "Move your car bitch!" And he would have been entirely justified then and there to dole out fucking violence. Full stop.

You're wrong here man.

Interpreting threats is dynamic, but comes from both verbal and non-verbal cues. In this video, I see a fucking asshole playing Parking Lot Cop and killing a man for it. Parking Lot Cop has a history of harassing patrons at this store and threatening them with violence. He was a prior credible threat. He was verbally engaging ("assaulting"?) a woman in a car and her boyfriend put a stop to it. Unfortunately, Parking Lot Cop put an end to him. For all we know, the man who was shot here, had a previous encounter with this guy where he had threatened him with violence. Seeing the guy engaging his girlfriend and having prior knowledge of that, would be perfect articulation of a 'Credible Threat' under Florida law.

Unfortunately, we'll never know what the Deceased Victim knew/interpreted, because Parking Lot Cop put him in the ground.

___

PS: I haven't found an unedited version of this video. But here we can see the Perp get out of his vehicle and purposefully engage with the woman. Within seconds, watch his hands, he becomes increasingly agitated. By the way, you can see the father and son go in the store. The truck blocking the Perp's vehicle leaves, and then the Perp gets out of his vehicle and approaches a lone woman. He walks around the car and then engages her. That means he waited to exit his vehicle and engage her (he can be seen sitting in the driver's seat when the truck moves).

If I saw that behavior from a person in public, my alarm bells would be going off, thinking robbery and assault.

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/video/deadly-altercation-parking-spot-caught-camera-56741734


Asshole #2 is the biggest asshole here and did a hell of a lot to make this worse - undisputed.

But we're talking past each other here. You're making assumptions on a verbal verifiable threat from asshole #2. His behavior matches that of a sanctimonious asshole that's upset about a regrettably semi-valid reason to be annoyed with asshole #1.
Being an asshole =/= being a credible threat.
What all else you're saying could easily be summarized as 'he was upset, and that justifies an attack because upset people are a credible threat' I simply don't see it that way.
I follow you totally on how he was visibly agitated and was definitely taking a tone if not yelling at asshole #1. I also follow you 100% on the thought that some shit was about to go down if I'd seen asshole #2's behavior prior to yelling at asshole #1.
Where you lose me is when you assume his agitation and assholery meets a lawful standard to get physically attacked by someone that he did not apparently see, respond to, or otherwise knew was coming until after he got hit and laid out.
I have no doubts that asshole #2 was an asshole and probably deserved it (speaking morally here, not to a legal standard) but again, being an asshole doesn't automatically justify force. If asshole #2 was screaming at asshole #1 that he was going to fucking shoot her or choke her out if she didn't move the car, yes, asshole #3's attack makes a lot more sense, and that would seriously hurt the credibility of asshole #2's self-defense claim, and at the very least, lessen just how much of an asshole that asshole #3 really was in this case.

But my read on his body language doesn't parse with asshole #2 saying anything directly threatening, it looks more to me like a 'you really need to move your car you stupid (blankity blank)' which doesn't meet the standard of a credible threat. It's just being an asshole. If the audio comes out later and contradicts that, well, mea culpa and I'll eat my words on that one and agree that I had it wrong.

When asshole #3 that lays out asshole #2, though, that's absolutely a credible threat. Anyone that's seen a street fight where someone gets knocked over is likely to agree, that a stomping and kicking fest is almost always coming next.

But it unravels there because asshole #2 is slow as hell on the draw after getting knocked down (for being an asshole) and asshole #3 managed to take a step back before getting shot.
What if asshole #2 had cleared leather and put that round in asshole #3 in less than a second, before asshole #3 could stop or take a step back?
The idea that a shoot could be cleaner simply because of speed on target is a notion I find pretty distasteful, especially when a shoot is good or not should be determined by the circumstances that warranted the use of lethal force, not how fast someone got shots off.
If it went wrong because getting knocked over unexpectedly doesn't justify use of force, that sends a similarly distasteful message saying that we should all expect to take a bit of an ass kicking before we get to defend ourselves.

Even though we may differ on this, I respect the hell out of your perspective Rob, and I hope to meet you one day and share a beer or three.

[YVK]

Notwithstanding the legalities of this being a good or bad shoot, I am sure the guy wishes he never appointed himself hall monitor of the handicapped parking space.

Right now nothing tells me this is the case. It's been a week since and we haven't heard of any charges coming from state attorney's office. The legal analysis from experts suggests that a criminal conviction is unlikely because the assailant didn't retreat early enough or fast enough so the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 people that a fear of grave harm shouldn't have existed is likely considered insurmountable. If chances of conviction are low, state attorney will not charge.
On a civil liability side, the family hired Martin's family lawyer and they may bring out the suit but that lawyer dude is playing a race card and that won't fly here. Besides, the shooter doesn't look to me like is worth any money. I am uncertain if they can even bring a suit forward, used to be that if there was no criminal charge then civil liabilities could not be claimed in Florida. It may have changed, I am not certain.


Right now it looks to me that the shooter will walk without any consequences whatsoever.

[Eric_L]

Marcus Aurelius’s joke was that no one ever came to grief “ignoring what goes on in other people’s souls.” He meant that if you want to reduce the amount of stress and drama in your life, mind your own business. Because every one of us wastes far too much time thinking about, commenting on, and gossiping over, the state of other people’s marriages, other people’s ethics, other people’s intentions, other people, period. As if what they do in their homes and in their heads is of our concern.

And it’s not just that all of this is intrusive and outside the “circle of control,” it’s that while we’re doing it, we’re not doing something else. That is, not focusing on what goes on in our own souls. “If you won’t keep track of what your own soul’s doing,” Marcus asks, “how can you not be unhappy?”

The key to happiness is minding your own business. That means getting your nose out of other people’s and sticking it where it belongs: On sniffing out your inconsistencies, where you can be better, and where you’re falling short. Starting today.


This (the above three paragraphs) came in today's Daily Stoic email. It applies here. I will paraphrase William April- in dealing with any person who is unknown there is the possibility of danger.... I can highly recommend his Instagram account.

There was another poster who said something along the lines of assaulting a person yelling at his wife in a vehicle. I submit that an experienced and cool headed person would use the car as a shield and verbally engage the person, hopefully/maybe defusing the situation. Coming on hot may not work out so well, that guy could be one tough customer..... no matter how tough you think you are. However I think that is preaching to the proverbial choir here (or most of you anyway).

[LorenzoS]

Besides, the shooter doesn't look to me like is worth any money ...
Right now it looks to me that the shooter will walk without any consequences whatsoever.

You're probably right, the shooter might be someone without much to lose so life could be simpler for him than for those of us with lives, families and assets. He had no criminal penalties but it easily could have gone another way. I would hate to be in the situation where the risk of injury, jail or financial cost was a possibility over something as stupid as a parking space.

Maybe I'm giving the asshole too much credit. He might even be happy to have killed someone without consequences.

[Kukuforguns]

The only thing we need to tip this ENTIRELY in favor of Deceased Victim, is if he walked out of the store and heard, "Move your car bitch!" And he would have been entirely justified then and there [/url]

RevolverRob: You are wrong. Dangerously so. I have at all times previous to this considered your views as being reasonable and mature. Your misstep here is profound. Please reconsider in depth.

Please refer to Hambo's post at #25. Do you see any reference to "credible threat"? You will not see it. The term "credible threat" is one element of the crime aggravated stalking (read the rest of the statute you referenced). "Credible threat" has no relevance to defensive use of force.

Hambo's post at #25 related to the use of defensive deadly force; here are the portions of the statute which consider both deadly and non-deadly force (I will assume that Boyfriend's use of force was non-deadly):


776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.


There is no "credible threat" element to non-deadly use of force either. Your reference to "credible threat" is wholly inapplicable to the use of defensive force.

When Boyfriend came out of the convenience store, he saw Busybody pointing his finger at Girlfriend who was (when Boyfriend exited the store) inside her car. As Boyfriend approached Busybody, Girlfriend exited her car. Busybody did not approach Girlfriend after she exited her car and did not escalate his conduct. In fact, Busybody's hands were at his sides when Boyfriend knocked Busybody down and had been down at his sides at all times after Girlfriend exited her car.

Thus, Boyfriend saw Busybody pointing his finger - which is far different than shaking a fist. Moreover, Girlfriend exited the car, which indicates she did not feel physically threatened. Finally, Busybody did not close the distance to Girlfriend after she exited her car but instead kept his hands at his sides and his feet planted. Girlfriend was escalating the confrontation by exiting her car. If you think "Move your car bitch!" and a pointing figure is enough to form a reasonable belief that there is going to be an imminent use of unlawful force, either you live in an epically shitty place or you should question whether you should be carrying a gun. Moreover, the use of non-deadly force permitted by Florida law is proportional to the threat. "A person is justified in using ... force ... against another when and to the extent that such conduct is necessary to defend … another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force." Even if Boyfriend reasonably believed Busybody was imminently going to use unlawful force against Girlfriend, he could only use the force (or threat of force) necessary to prevent Busybody from doing so. A male in prime of life (28) violently pushing a middle-aged male (47) to the ground from a blindside attack was far more force than was necessary even assuming a reasonable belief of imminent use of unlawful force (which was not present). Assuming Boyfriend reasonably believed Busybody was going to attack Girlfriend, Boyfriend should have started with, "Back away asshole or I will make you back away." You know at least as well as I do the potential consequences of a skull impacting the pavement. Boyfriend's attack could easily have caused great bodily injury. I've handled cases in which similar attacks resulted in permanent, significant brain damage.

Girlfriend unlawfully parked her vehicle. Busybody was an asshole through the point of time he was knocked to the ground. Boyfriend's actions were criminal.

[scw2]

I asked in the "shooting incidents" thread whether or not the shooter's decision to verbally accost the person(s) in the illegally parked vehicle would lose him the ability to maintain the innocence needed to claim self defense.

In the linked analysis to Andrew Branca's site, someone asked a question about when the verbal altercation might lead to losing the claim of innocence, and his response was basically there needed to be something in the speech that was a threat. For example, yelling at someone to move their car because they're illegally parked wouldn't lose innocence, but adding on an implied or direct threat such as "or else...." or "or I'll kill you" would definitely lose the shooter the claim of innocence.

Thought it was worth sharing the difference since I don't think it was directly addressed in the prior thread.

[Sero Sed Serio]

I asked in the "shooting incidents" thread whether or not the shooter's decision to verbally accost the person(s) in the illegally parked vehicle would lose him the ability to maintain the innocence needed to claim self defense.

In the linked analysis to Andrew Branca's site, someone asked a question about when the verbal altercation might lead to losing the claim of innocence, and his response was basically there needed to be something in the speech that was a threat. For example, yelling at someone to move their car because they're illegally parked wouldn't lose innocence, but adding on an implied or direct threat such as "or else...." or "or I'll kill you" would definitely lose the shooter the claim of innocence.

Thought it was worth sharing the difference since I don't think it was directly addressed in the prior thread.

Florida's jury instructions (the instructions a judge provides to a jury to apply to the facts of a criminal case) related to the justifiable use of deadly force (http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions-ch3.shtml; see 3.6(f) specifically) do a decent job of addressing this issue:

However, the [use] [or] [threatened use] of deadly force is not justified if you find that (defendant) used [force] [or] [the threat of force] to initially provoke the [use] [or] [threatened use] of force against [himself] [herself], unless:

1. The [force] [or] [threat of force] asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than [using] [or] [threatening to use] deadly force on (victim).

2. In good faith, (defendant) withdrew from physical contact with (victim) and clearly indicated to (victim) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the [use] [or] [threatened use] of deadly force, but (victim) continued or resumed the [use] [or] [threatened use] of force. Citing Gibbs v. State, 789 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) for authority.

Compare this to Arizona, which simply states (in relevant part):

A defendant is not justified in using or threatening physical force against another...[if the defendant provoked the other person’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless: 1. the defendant withdrew from the encounter or clearly communicated to the other person the intent to withdraw with the reasonable belief that the defendant could not safely withdraw; and 2. the other person continued or attempted to use unlawful physical force against the defendant.] (http://www.azbar.org/media/1769827/rajicriminal-4thed2018.pdf; see 4.04-1)

Which does not explicitly define "provoked." I bring this up to demonstrate the potential gray areas that may arise depending on your jurisdiction and its laws. In situations where a term is not clearly defined by statute, case law, or accepted jury instruction, the jury is either left to determine their own definition of the term, or the parties can request that the court define the term citing to various authority (i.e. Black's Law Dictionary, Webster's Dictionary, etc.) In a case such as this, both parties would likely submit their own definitions of "provoke," with the prosecution seeking a broad definition, and the defense seeking a narrower definition.

Given Florida's fairly clear-cut instruction regarding the "threat[ened] use of force," shooter making statements to girlfriend such as "I'll kill you" would almost certainly preclude the use of a justification defense, unless the shooter was able to show that either 1) dead guy's use of force "was so great that he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and [important note: an "and" requirement in law means that both terms must be met, as opposed to an "or" statement which means one or the other; further side note: "shall" vs. "may" is a very important legal distinction as well in determining whether an action is mandatory or discretionary] had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger," which essentially negates Florida's "stand your ground" law and imparts upon an initial aggressor a duty to make reasonable attempts to retreat.

On the other hand, statements such as "or else," while very possibly an implied threat, may not rise to the level of a "threat of force," since "or else" might imply that shooter would 1) call the police or 2) take girlfriend's picture and post it on the internet, publicly shaming her for parking in a handicapped parking space, or a squillion other possible meanings. However, this would likely be open to the jury's interpretation, leaving the definition to be determined by a random cross-section of the community, and it's likely that if you asked 12 random people off the street, you'd get 13 answers...

When I'm teaching the legal portions of CCW classes or otherwise advising on self-defense law, I usually give an example of a sliding scale, with dropping the AK-wielding terrorist in the food court as they're spraying rounds at nuns who are taking handicapped children and their guide dogs on a field trip at one end, and the muzzle-contact execution of someone who is bound, gagged, and given the opportunity to smoke their last cigarette and make a last call to their loved ones at the other end. Most shootings fall somewhere in between, and the closer you are to the middle, the more time two lawyers are going to spend arguing over jury instructions and the legal definitions of a single word.

[P30]

Probably the Buddhist parable of the Second Arrow explains the problem and the solution best:
bigthink.com/philip-perry/this-buddhist-parable-can-ease-your-pain-during-a-crisis (https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/this-buddhist-parable-can-ease-your-pain-during-a-crisis)


In the parable of the arrow, sometimes called the second arrow, you picture yourself walking through a forest. Suddenly, you’re hit by an arrow. This causes you great pain. But the archer isn’t done. Can you avoid the second one? That’s the arrow of emotional reaction. Dodge the second by consciously choosing contemplation. It will help you avoid a lot of suffering.

[...]

After telling the two arrow parable, the Buddha said, “In life, we cannot always control the first arrow. However, the second arrow is our reaction to the first. And with this second arrow comes the possibility of choice.”

This is often summarized as, “Pain is inevitable, but suffering is optional.” It begs a thoughtful approach to the first arrow, which is difficult to do. But if you can accomplish this, it’ll help ease your pain and avoid suffering.

[...]

In The Arrow Sutra the Buddha said, "We cling to diversions, rather than observing what is actually present, the arising and passing of feelings.” So instead of turning away from emotions, turn towards them. How do you really feel about the situation really? Are there motivating emotions underneath that which you are allowing yourself to recognize or feel? If so, what new awareness arises from their acknowledgement?


This is the original Buddhist text:
accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.than.html (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.than.html)


The Blessed One said, "When touched with a feeling of pain, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. So he feels two pains, physical & mental. Just as if they were to shoot a man with an arrow and, right afterward, were to shoot him with another one, so that he would feel the pains of two arrows; in the same way, when touched with a feeling of pain, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. So he feels two pains, physical & mental.

[...]

"Now, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones, when touched with a feeling of pain, does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. So he feels one pain: physical, but not mental. Just as if they were to shoot a man with an arrow and, right afterward, did not shoot him with another one, so that he would feel the pain of only one arrow. In the same way, when touched with a feeling of pain, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. He feels one pain: physical, but not mental.

And that's how Willie Nelson expressed it:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow-Cx9IX4So

[P30]

First arrow: The wrongly parked car. Second arrow: The emotional reaction began to dramatize the situation.

First arrow: Guy arguing with other guy's girl-friend/wife. Second arrow: The emotional reaction that resulted in the shoving to the ground.

[blues]

https://i.ytimg.com/sh/7tnadgFlHaM73nSAi8vWJw/market.jpg

"Please don't park in the handicap spot. I may have to kick your ass if your unenlightened brain fails to grasp the parable of the second arrow. I'll wait."

(Just having a light moment, P30. I'm actually someone who in his younger days attended a Zendo in NYC. One of my favorite books from back then was "The Three Pillars of Zen" by Philip Kapleau.)

P.S.: (What is the sound of one jerk parking?)

[P30]

I feel sorry for the boy. His father died next to him. He will grow up without a father. He must have felt great pain. His soul will have very deep scars for his whole life.

[RevolverRob]

Increasingly - it sounds like both legislators and political commentators do not agree with the sheriff - https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2018/07/30/nra-republicans-refute-gop-sheriffs-stand-your-ground-claims-534054

Case will apparently go to the state attorney next week who has the final say. We'll see what happens. I don't think this case will hold up under a stand-your-ground claim, but I could see the defendant successfully arguing for self-defense. It appears that according to witnesses and the woman that no threat was being made at the time by the shooter. If that is the case, then the people will have a difficult time arguing that the initial use of force by the victim was warranted. And the defense is likely to argue that escalation of force from a blind-sided hit is reasonable (and jury is more likely to find it so).

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Interesting problem. If I were the defense and prosecution and were really into it, I'd be running some mock trials on this one. It would a gun friendly person be pro or con? All kinds of nuances to be tested.

Will the jury be smart enough to understand for the prosecution side the formation of murderous intent given the pause in the action and the guy backing up?

Now if charged, it's going to cost some folks lots of money to parse. I don't know FL law on who pays if he gets found not guilty.

Then the civil implications.

Of course, we have the social implications for the shooter. Not going to be fun.

[Otaku.edc]

Practically Tactical did a podcast/YT Hangout on this incident:


https://youtu.be/f5AWhDfBpr4

[David S.]

A little “eye jab in a can” seems like a much better solution.

[Hambo]

Gutmacher's take on the shooting:


https://orlandocriminallawyer.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-clearwater-convenience-store.html?m=1

[41magfan]

Gutmacher's take on the shooting:


https://orlandocriminallawyer.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-clearwater-convenience-store.html?m=1

That guy doesn't understand self-defense law any better than the MSM.

[RJ]

If I get a chance this weekend I’ll run over there and check it out. I live about five miles away.

[SiriusBlunder]

Man charged with manslaughter in parking lot shooting

http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/20180813/man-charged-with-manslaughter-in-parking-lot-shooting

[HCountyGuy]

Man charged with manslaughter in parking lot shooting

http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/20180813/man-charged-with-manslaughter-in-parking-lot-shooting

Well that’s a step, but not an unforeseen one.

I still maintain my belief that he won’t be convicted.

[rsa-otc]

That guy doesn't understand self-defense law any better than the MSM.

How so?

[blues]

Well, I can't say I'm surprised by the decision to go forward with this case.

[41magfan]

How so?

The duty to retreat (the element of Avoidance) has NEVER been an absolute requirement in any State AFAIK. It's only required (when/where applicable) when it would be feasible to do so and it can be done safely.

[RevolverRob]

We'll see what happens. Wouldn't surprise me if they convict him - simply because the optics of this case look like Martin-Zimmerman.

[blues]

We'll see what happens. Wouldn't surprise me if they convict him - simply because the optics of this case look like Martin-Zimmerman.


I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with that assessment.

[41magfan]

Well that’s a step, but not an unforeseen one.

I still maintain my belief that he won’t be convicted.

I agree, unless they decide to make two or three stabs at it, which I don't think they will.

[YVK]

We'll see. They are charging him with a manslaughter, not a first-degree murder. Seems like they know better than San Fran prosecutors in Kate Steinle shooting death. The shooter doesn't strike me as someone who can afford a strong legal team. I was skeptical that charges will be brought. Now that they have, I presume that prosecution has a game plan.

[RoyGBiv]

I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with that assessment.

Only because you can see the differences. The media will be happy to tell everyone why it's Zimmerman 2.0 and "we better get the right decision this time".

[Hambo]

I agree, unless they decide to make two or three stabs at it, which I don't think they will.

Manslaughter is a pretty low bar.


782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

[HCountyGuy]

I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with that assessment.

Care to expound? I know you’ve mentioned that before, as the case has its own standing.

While Zimmerman may not have been seeking a confrontation as Drejka was, the other details have some similarities.

“White” guy (Zimmerman wasn’t white, but the media didn’t care) going after a black individual. Granted this incident likely wasn’t because the “offender” was black, but rather they committed the offense and happened to be black.

Black guy assaults white guy. White guy shoots black guy and SYG becomes the focal point.

While the details aren’t exactly similar, they’re similar enough in certain regards this is likely to be seen as “Zimmerman-Martin, Take 2”. You’d best believe the media will fuel that bus and drive it til the wheels fall off, in the hopes that this time justice will prevail (white guy goes to prison). The race-baiters will be on that bus too, giving directions.

[blues]

Only because you can see the differences. The media will be happy to tell everyone why it's Zimmerman 2.0 and "we better get the right decision this time".

If anything, I'd argue that Zimmerman, (for all his faults and warts), had more justification.

[blues]

Care to expound? I know you’ve mentioned that before, as the case has its own standing.

While Zimmerman may not have been seeking a confrontation as Drejka was, the other details have some similarities.

“White” guy (Zimmerman wasn’t white, but the media didn’t care) going after a black individual. Granted this incident likely wasn’t because the “offender” was black, but rather they committed the offense and happened to be black.

Black guy assaults white guy. White guy shoots black guy and SYG becomes the focal point.

While the details aren’t exactly similar, they’re similar enough in certain regards this is likely to be seen as “Zimmerman-Martin, Take 2”. You’d best believe the media will fuel that bus and drive it til the wheels fall off, in the hopes that this time justice will prevail (white guy goes to prison). The race-baiters will be on that bus too, giving directions.

Let's leave race out of it. Zimmerman was or wasn't performing his community watch thing. Whatever. Martin caught on to the surveillance. One thing or another is said and it becomes physical.

Martin has mounted him and rained blows upon him. Zimmerman can't get up and is calling for assistance. Fearing grave bodily injury or death he resorts to his firearm.

I'm trying to keep my less than positive opinion of both out of the equation.


In the current case, self-appointed parking lot attendant (PLA) creates a situation where woman (and kids) are less than comfortable. What she said back to the shooter may or may not be relevant, but since we don't have a recording, we'll leave it at that for now.

Her significant other comes out of the store and walks up nonchalant-like until the opportunity presents to knock the PLA to the ground. After what appeared to me to be a slight shift or step forward he backs off at which point the shooter lets go a round.

To me the difference in the cases is the imminence of grave bodily harm or death.

In Zimmerman, he's taking blows and fears, (rightly or wrongly), that the injury may prevent him from defending himself further or retaining consciousness.

In the parking lot caper, the shooter had the opportunity to either hold the significant other at gunpoint, (since he had backed away), until he was composed or well enough to get up, leave or call the police...or just hold the guy at bay until he would have joined the others in the vehicle and departed.

I don't know if he'll be convicted or not and have no skin in the matter...but I do think that the difference provides a wide enough gulf for the prosecutor to exploit.

Just my opinion. I freely admit I am not an expert on either case and have not studied either one exhaustively or in minutiae.

[HCountyGuy]

Leave race out of it. Zimmerman was or wasn't performing his community watch thing. Whatever. Martin caught on to the surveillance. One thing or another is said and it becomes physical.

Martin has mounted him and rained blows upon him. Zimmerman can't get up and is calling for assistance. Fearing grave bodily injury or death he resorts to his firearm.

I'm trying to keep my less than positive opinion of both out of the equation.


In the current case, self-appointed parking lot attendant (PLA) creates a situation where woman (and kids) are less than comfortable. What she said back to the shooter may or may not be relevant, but since we don't have a recording, we'll leave it at that for now.

Her significant other comes out of the store and walks up nonchalant like until the opportunity presents to knock the PLA to the ground. After what appeared to me to be a slight shift or step forward he backs off at which point the shooter lets go a round.

To me the difference in the cases is the imminence of grave bodily harm or death.

In Zimmerman, he's taking blows and fears, (rightly or wrongly), that the injury may prevent him from defending himself further or retaining consciousness.

In the parking lot caper, the shooter had the opportunity to either hold the significant other at gunpoint, (since he had backed away), until he was composed or well enough to get up, leave or call the police...or just hold the guy at bay until he would have joined the others in the vehicle and departed.

I don't know if he'll be convicted or not and have no skin in the matter...but I do think that the difference provides a wide enough gulf for the prosecutor to exploit.

Just my opinion. I freely admit I am not an expert on either case and have not studied either one exhaustively or in minutiae.

You’re spot on and I agree with your assessment.

That being said while WE know better, the media is going to push for “Justice for Trayvon” through this incident.

Trust me, I don’t like it any more than you do.

[blues]

You’re spot on and I agree with your assessment.

That being said while WE know better, the media is going to push for “Justice for Trayvon” through this incident.

Trust me, I don’t like it any more than you do.

I'm tired of "people" turning Martin, Brown and others who were the aggressors, violated the law and put the lives of police or others at risk, into folk heroes.

I'd rather be "fried like bacon" than give validity and credence to "hands up, don't shoot" when the facts have disclosed what has been purported and stated as fact, to be false.

That said, I do not by any stretch of the imagination support unwarranted violence against defendants or the citizenry by police or fellow citizens. I didn't accept or tolerate it while I was on the job, and my feelings about it haven't changed in retirement.

The law and the truth matter. (At least to me and those who share the same convictions.)

[RJ]

Let's leave race out of it. Zimmerman was or wasn't performing his community watch thing. Whatever. Martin caught on to the surveillance. One thing or another is said and it becomes physical.

Martin has mounted him and rained blows upon him. Zimmerman can't get up and is calling for assistance. Fearing grave bodily injury or death he resorts to his firearm.

I'm trying to keep my less than positive opinion of both out of the equation.


In the current case, self-appointed parking lot attendant (PLA) creates a situation where woman (and kids) are less than comfortable. What she said back to the shooter may or may not be relevant, but since we don't have a recording, we'll leave it at that for now.

Her significant other comes out of the store and walks up nonchalant-like until the opportunity presents to knock the PLA to the ground. After what appeared to me to be a slight shift or step forward he backs off at which point the shooter lets go a round.

To me the difference in the cases is the imminence of grave bodily harm or death.

In Zimmerman, he's taking blows and fears, (rightly or wrongly), that the injury may prevent him from defending himself further or retaining consciousness.

In the parking lot caper, the shooter had the opportunity to either hold the significant other at gunpoint, (since he had backed away), until he was composed or well enough to get up, leave or call the police...or just hold the guy at bay until he would have joined the others in the vehicle and departed.

I don't know if he'll be convicted or not and have no skin in the matter...but I do think that the difference provides a wide enough gulf for the prosecutor to exploit.

Just my opinion. I freely admit I am not an expert on either case and have not studied either one exhaustively or in minutiae.

This ^^^ is exactly how I see both of these cases.

I’m a resident of Pinellas County and it’s not impossible I could be a juror at a trial. I kind of doubt it but still.

Curiously enough, I used to live in Winter Springs, fairly close to Sanford. I currently live 5 miles away from this latest incident. Small world.

[blues]

This ^^^ is exactly how I see both of these cases.

I’m a resident of Pinellas County and it’s not impossible I could be a juror at a trial. I kind of doubt it but still.

Curiously enough, I used to live in Winter Springs, fairly close to Sanford. I currently live 5 miles away from this latest incident. Small world.

Thanks, Rich.

For the record, you have no shot at being a juror on this case.

[RJ]

Thanks, Rich.

For the record, you have no shot at being a juror on this case.

What you did there, I see it. :cool:

[mmc45414]

I speculate this dude made the decision to shoot as soon as he was knocked onto his ass, but his presentation was slow enough that the assailant had time to back up. Since there is video of the whole clusterfuck it is going to be tough trying to explain that he was still responding to being violently blindsided.

[Coyotesfan97]

https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/category/courts-and-cops/the-trayvon-martin-case/page/8/

If you’ve got the time and interest Mike McDaniel has done a pretty exhaustive study of the Trayvon Martin case.

[Ed L]

Blues, I have to echo the other posters' thoughts in that you made an excellent summary.


Thanks, Rich.

For the record, you have no shot at being a juror on this case.

One of the questions the prosecution team will ask all potential jurors is: "Are you now or have you ever been a member of Pistol-Forum.com?"

If you answer in the affirmative, you are disqualified from serving on the jury.

[LockedBreech]

Let's leave race out of it. Zimmerman was or wasn't performing his community watch thing. Whatever. Martin caught on to the surveillance. One thing or another is said and it becomes physical.

Martin has mounted him and rained blows upon him. Zimmerman can't get up and is calling for assistance. Fearing grave bodily injury or death he resorts to his firearm.

I'm trying to keep my less than positive opinion of both out of the equation.


In the current case, self-appointed parking lot attendant (PLA) creates a situation where woman (and kids) are less than comfortable. What she said back to the shooter may or may not be relevant, but since we don't have a recording, we'll leave it at that for now.

Her significant other comes out of the store and walks up nonchalant-like until the opportunity presents to knock the PLA to the ground. After what appeared to me to be a slight shift or step forward he backs off at which point the shooter lets go a round.

To me the difference in the cases is the imminence of grave bodily harm or death.

In Zimmerman, he's taking blows and fears, (rightly or wrongly), that the injury may prevent him from defending himself further or retaining consciousness.

In the parking lot caper, the shooter had the opportunity to either hold the significant other at gunpoint, (since he had backed away), until he was composed or well enough to get up, leave or call the police...or just hold the guy at bay until he would have joined the others in the vehicle and departed.

I don't know if he'll be convicted or not and have no skin in the matter...but I do think that the difference provides a wide enough gulf for the prosecutor to exploit.

Just my opinion. I freely admit I am not an expert on either case and have not studied either one exhaustively or in minutiae.

Spot-on analysis from where I'm sitting.

[blues]

Blues, I have to echo the other posters' thoughts in that you made an excellent summary.



One of the questions the prosecution team will ask all potential jurors is: "Are you now or have you ever been a member of Pistol-Forum.com?"

If you answer in the affirmative, you are disqualified from serving on the jury.


Spot-on analysis from where I'm sitting.

Gracias, caballeros. :cool:

[Hambo]

A little more about manslaughter in FLA:

The SA has to prove two things to get a conviction. First is that Drejka caused the death of McGlockton. There is zero doubt about this. The second part is that it was not justifiable. Without the video this would be tough. With the video, the jury gets to see McGlockton step back. The video is not Drejka's view, so that's something to work with, and if the defendant has money his attorney could get expert testimony. If he's doesn't have a lot of money, or has to use a PD, that's probably not going to happen.

It took a little digging to find it, but the 6th District SA convicted 77% of the defendants who went to trial in the last two years. This is a high profile Felony 2, so it won't be a junior ASA handling the case. The penalty is 15 years if convicted.

[zuplex]

Andrew Branca has some comments on the manslaughter charge:

https://www.patreon.com/posts/manslaughter-in-20738632

[RJ]

Took a drive by the location today on the way to lunch in Dunedin.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180815/c635a0709194ab96e5371ddfcb61b022.jpg

Guess I wasn’t sure what to expect. Maybe the local protests evaporated after the Manslaughter charges were filed. Plus it’s still hot as heck here (93 something today).

[Hambo]

Took a drive by the location today on the way to lunch in Dunedin.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180815/c635a0709194ab96e5371ddfcb61b022.jpg

Guess I wasn’t sure what to expect.

It looks like every other no-name convenience store in Florida, meaning that it should have chalk dispenser by the door so you can draw your own outline for the homicide dicks. I never, ever stop at these places. Indicators of a no-go include lack of business name, neon ATM signs, ads for cheap beer, cigarettes, or phone cards, and presence of a pay phone outside.

[RJ]

It looks like every other no-name convenience store in Florida, meaning that it should have chalk dispenser by the door so you can draw your own outline for the homicide dicks. I never, ever stop at these places. Indicators of a no-go include lack of business name, neon ATM signs, ads for cheap beer, cigarettes, or phone cards, and presence of a pay phone outside.

It is.

The surrounding area is no prize either.

On the other hand, lunch was excellent. Once you get West of the Pinellas Trail, the demographics improve dramatically. We ate at Casa Tina on Main, just down from the Marina.

[RJ]

Thanks, Rich.

For the record, you have no shot at being a juror on this case.

Heh.

Just received a Notice to report for Jury Duty Selection 15 Oct here in Pinellas County Court.

Well well well. :)

[blues]

Heh.

Just received a Notice to report for Jury Duty Selection 15 Oct here in Pinellas County Court.

Well well well. :)


Well, let's see what you get picked for.

[RJ]

Well, let's see what you get picked for.

Yeah I’m not sure obviously.

First time I ever had a ‘Voir Dire’ questionnaire enclosed in the summons though. But maybe that’s the norm for this county, I dunno.

[Lon]

Yeah I’m not sure obviously.

First time I ever had a ‘Voir Dire’ questionnaire enclosed in the summons though. But maybe that’s the norm for this county, I dunno.

A limited questionnaire is standard here. Detailed ones come when you show up.

[HCountyGuy]

Trial kicked off yesterday with testimony from the store owner and deputies among others. Continuing today.

[RJ]

Trial kicked off yesterday with testimony from the store owner and deputies among others. Continuing today.

Thanks for the bump. Will be watching this with interest. The incident seems so short, it seems hard to think why it would take long to present the arguments and reach a verdict.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HCountyGuy]

Yesterday’s testimony involved a UOF “Expert”, along with a forensic pathologist, a pharmacist type (victim had drugs in system) and I think some others but those are what I caught.

Expanding on the UOF Expert’s testimony, the defendant in this case mentioned the “21 Foot Rule” in his interview with detectives as part of his reasoning for shooting the decedent. There expert testified about how the “rule” isn’t really a rule and went in to explain the premise of the Tueller Drill. What I took issue with most, and something I’m surprised the defense didn’t address, was how the prosecuting attorney made the assertion that the “rule” didn’t apply if the one adversary did not possess an edged weapon and the UOF Expert actually agreed with him. The prosecution also made a case against the “rule” being applicable since an element of the Tueller Drill was that it was conducted with a police security/retention holster, which takes more effort to draw from versus common civilian holsters.

I don’t know if the defense has their own UOF Expert, but it could’ve been handy in discrediting those arguments made by the prosecution and their expert. Not that I expect it has much bearing on the overall circumstances of the event, but that was some terrible misinformation that’s now likely to be parroted elsewhere.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I don't recall the drill being originally conducted with or based on retention holsters. One could be a case that disparity of force between opponents is applicable to Tueller. Being a FOG, a strong young opponent charging me would seem as good as an edge weapon charge.

However, the defendant is in serious trouble for justification, IMHO.

[Zincwarrior]

Its a weird argument to make. Prosecution may be thinking he's going to try that as his justified defense.

Weird argument because the victim was stopped and turning away from the defendant when the defendant wasted him.

[Hambo]

I don’t know if the defense has their own UOF Expert.

Obviously not since they started closing arguments this morning.

It's pretty common in criminal trials for all the testimony to be from witnesses for the prosecution. The defense attorney hammers away as best he/she can, and then it's on to closing arguments.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

See that other case on the news (forgot where), where there is a road rage. Guy goes up to car one and yells at them. Driver gets out the car, the car starts to roll away. Rager goes back to his car. Passenger of car one runs out to Rager, who is standing by his car and punches him. The punch kills him. Puncher was a Mexican TV star with a man bun.

https://miami.cbslocal.com/2019/08/22/mexican-actor-pablo-lyle-in-court-for-self-defense-hearing-in-fatal-road-rage-incident/

[blues]

See that other case on the news (forgot where), where there is a road rage. Guy goes up to car one and yells at them. Driver gets out the car, the car starts to roll away. Rager goes back to his car. Passenger of car one runs out to Rager, who is standing by his car and punches him. The punch kills him. Puncher was a Mexican TV star with a man bun.

https://miami.cbslocal.com/2019/08/22/mexican-actor-pablo-lyle-in-court-for-self-defense-hearing-in-fatal-road-rage-incident/

That's telenovela material right there. You can't fix estupido.

[HCountyGuy]

Obviously not since they started closing arguments this morning.

It's pretty common in criminal trials for all the testimony to be from witnesses for the prosecution. The defense attorney hammers away as best he/she can, and then it's on to closing arguments.


Defense had a guy from a Tampa security company with a USMC background as their UOF person. Don’t remember all his credentials but he seemed moderately squared away and they addressed the 21-foot rule and he refuted the idea that one needed an edged weapon in order for the “rule” to be applicable. Did pretty well on cross-examination.


Prosecution had their guy back up a bit later, haven’t gone back to watch what he said yet.

I believe closing statements have been made at this point and the jury is deliberating.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I've been reading through this: https://www.tampabay.com/news/pinellas/2019/08/23/trial-in-the-clearwater-parking-lot-shooting-day-5-nearing-the-end/

Some tidbits from my psych point of view and jury studies:

1. Drejka - he didn't testify. I am not a lawyer, but his defense in part depends on his perception of threat as reasonable. The psych expert was called to explain stress and constructive nature of perception.


Drejka, 49, chose not to testify. His defense is arguing that he was defending himself when he shot McGlockton.

Is not testifying convincing? I've read the jury SD books suggesting that while you have the right not to, juries want to hear convincingly from you that you were in fear of grievous bodily harm.

2.
Rosenwasser shows Bedard a blue gun. He asks him to step off the witness stand and demonstrate how the gun works.

Trevena objects. There is a bench conference.

The blue gun looks like one that is typically used in law enforcement training.

After the bench conference, Rosenwasser asks if Bedard would be comfortable using the actual firearm that Drejka used, instead of the blue gun. Bedard says yes.

He stands before the jury, holding the .40-caliber Glock.

He points to the front sight and rear sight, explaining how they help the shooter aim. He shows them how to grip the weapon.

Wonder what that was about? You should if you are the defense object to the presentation of a firearm as presentation of weapons can prime aggressive negative feelings. Switching from a blue to a real one is worse and manipulating it to demonstrate HOW IT WILL KEAL - should be a real bad thing for the defense.

I don't understand what was going on here. It was determined the gun was used, why let it brought in? There's a study that the more exposure to an evidence gun, the worse it goes for you.

3.
Schaub asks McClain about research that shows how during a stressful situation, perception of time slows down. She says sometimes it speeds up. But yes, the norm is that time slows down.

That is controversial. Actual real time experiments under stress don't show that time is perceived as slower. Some disagree. However, it is suggested that the memory of the evident, being a constructed event, suggests a slower perception of time.

4. The psychologist never interviewed the defendant but testifies to his perception of the event, time, fighting stance, etc. Seems to me that is pure speculation. If I were the prosecutor, I'd point that out.

5. The Defense UOF expert is a mixed bag. He doesn't know what blading is. He speaks to concealed carry training not covering de-escalation.

Coy then asks about escalation and de-escalation. Are those concepts typically taught in concealed weapons courses? No, Brown says.

“Those would be considered add-ons,” he says.

Most of the course around here do that. The TX CHL course certainly did when I took it.

One might ask if the defendant did due diligence in being up to speed when carrying a gun. Might he benefited from a quality training experience?

6. The defendant talked to the officers for an hour without an attorney. Dear God, independent of guilt, did he have any knowledge of self-defense shootings?

That's my take from the link I read.

[blues]

I have a feeling, (unsubstantiated), that the defense felt very strongly that Drejka testifying would be detrimental to his defense (and apt to open a portal for the prosecution to drive right through).

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think you are correct on that one. I was just thinking that in general SD cases, a convincing defendant is needed. The homocide is already in evidence and you need to justify it. If you can't - yes, being on the stand would be a negative.

This was not the sharpest tack in the concealed carry world, I'm afraid. Anybody say what the jury make up was? I didn't read the entire story.

[HCountyGuy]

The UOF guy for the defense had me worried when one of the first things discussed was terminology and he said he hadn’t heard of “blading” (by term, he was familiar with the concept). His testimony could be used to illustrate how poor Florida’s training requirements are. He did manage to help the defense some though, I liked him more than the prosecution’s expert.

[HCountyGuy]

Anybody say what the jury make up was? I didn't read the entire story.

I don’t know what gender, but news reports indicate it’s six white people.

[Hambo]

I have a feeling, (unsubstantiated), that the defense felt very strongly that Drejka testifying would be detrimental to his defense (and apt to open a portal for the prosecution to drive right through).

If he had testified, the SA would have hammered on his prior confrontations.

[blues]

If he had testified, the SA would have hammered on his prior confrontations.

Agreed, along with other issues concerning his judgment or lack thereof.

[mmc45414]

the defendant in this case mentioned the “21 Foot Rule” in his interview with detectives

The defendant talked to the officers for an hour without an attorney.
I am pretty sure the "rule" he might have been better served by might be the "STFU rule".

This 21 foot rule component just makes me more inclined to stick with my earlier speculation, that the shooter made the decision to shoot as soon as he got knocked onto his ass, and his draw presentation was slow enough that his attacker had time to start moonwalking. Then he gets chatty and is schooling the detectives about the 21 foot rule. He started an altercation he didn't need to, essentially breaking the 21 foot rule himself. Might they spin this around on him, justifying defending the woman, since he had advanced to within 21 feet?

[HCountyGuy]

I am pretty sure the "rule" he might have been better served by might be the "STFU rule".

This 21 foot rule component just makes me more inclined to stick with my earlier speculation, that the shooter made the decision to shoot as soon as he got knocked onto his ass, and his draw presentation was slow enough that his attacker had time to start moonwalking. Then he gets chatty and is schooling the detectives about the 21 foot rule. He started an altercation he didn't need to, essentially breaking the 21 foot rule himself. Might they spin this around on him, justifying defending the woman, since he had advanced to within 21 feet?

I imagine his mention of the "21 foot rule" was meant to convey that the decedent was close enough to Drejka that his ability to react in a timely manner had the decedent proceeded to charge him was compromised. At least that's how I would've tried explaining it if I were working for his defense.

[YVK]

Branca is reporting a guilty verdict.

[HCountyGuy]

Branca is reporting a guilty verdict.

Indeed

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/23/us/florida-trial-michael-drejka/index.html

I’m content with this outcome.

[blues]

I think the defendant would have been a terrible witness in his own defense...but I'm not convinced that this defense attorney is on top of his game.

[mmc45414]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/23/us/florida-trial-michael-drejka/index.html
The case amounted to more than a parking spot dispute, he said. It centered on his client -- the "true victim"-- making "a split-second decision" after being violently thrust to the ground.
Trouble is, it was not a split second, more like at least two from the time he was pushed till he popped the cap.

[Hambo]

As I said earlier in the thread, manslaughter is a pretty low bar to prove, but the penalties are stiff. Manslaughter with a firearm is an F1 with a 30 year max and statutory minimum of 10 years.

[KellyinAvon]

We are responsible for every round that leaves the barrel. The threat ended when the weapon was drawn. Bad shoot, full stop.

If parking lot guy hadn't hadn't been armed? The eventual victim had a history of violence both criminal history and he did shove parking lot guy to the ground. What would the outcome have been? Would it have made the news?

If the video cameras were down/pointed in the wrong direction/obscured by a beer truck/etc? What would the outcome have been? Would it have made the news?

[mc1911]

I'm all for the SYG laws, which makes me more thankful for this verdict. Both this and the Zimmerman case indicate to me that the SYG laws embolden the wrong people-types. They carry and go looking for problems, then when they get literal push-back from people who aren't interested in taking their crap (right or wrong), they panic and start shooting. Zimmerman should have called the cops and gone home, and this clown should have minded his own business about who parked where.

Locking this guy up hopefully will send a message to others like-minded.

[Yung]

Locking this guy up hopefully will send a message to others like-minded.

You do realize this is Florida Man we're talking about, right?

[mc1911]

You do realize this is Florida Man we're talking about, right?

Well played. I can dream, I guess.

[WobblyPossum]

I'm all for the SYG laws, which makes me more thankful for this verdict. Both this and the Zimmerman case indicate to me that the SYG laws embolden the wrong people-types. They carry and go looking for problems, then when they get literal push-back from people who aren't interested in taking their crap (right or wrong), they panic and start shooting. Zimmerman should have called the cops and gone home, and this clown should have minded his own business about who parked where.

Locking this guy up hopefully will send a message to others like-minded.

Your understanding of the Zimmerman case is a little different than mine.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Several seconds is all it takes to change a case from SD to premeditate murder. In the American Rifleman a few years, they discussed a case where a guy went to a renters house with whom he had a dispute. In the altercation where he was attacked, he shot the renter. The renter seemed clearly disabled but the owner shot again after a few seconds for the fatal shot and was charged with premeditation.

Trying to recall the details. The shooter had training or was a competitor and this was used against him to imply premeditation and bad impulses to use the gun.

[Coyotesfan97]

I'm all for the SYG laws, which makes me more thankful for this verdict. Both this and the Zimmerman case indicate to me that the SYG laws embolden the wrong people-types. They carry and go looking for problems, then when they get literal push-back from people who aren't interested in taking their crap (right or wrong), they panic and start shooting. Zimmerman should have called the cops and gone home, and this clown should have minded his own business about who parked where.

Locking this guy up hopefully will send a message to others like-minded.

Zimmerman did call the cops and was walking back to his truck after losing Martin to go home when he was attacked. Mike McDaniel throughly broke this case down in his blog. 57 entries for your reading enjoyment.

https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/category/courts-and-cops/the-trayvon-martin-case/

[Chuck Haggard]

I often point out in my non LEO OC classes that if either of these cases had involved the "defender" using spray or a sap we wouldn't even know the incidents had ever happened.

If all you have is a hammer, something, something....

[mmc45414]

Mike McDaniel throughly broke this case down in his blog.
I also thought the article Mas wrote in Handgunner was pretty good:
https://americanhandgunner.com/the-ayoob-files/lessons-from-the-zimmerman-case/

[blues]

I often point out in my non LEO OC classes that if either of these cases had involved the "defender" using spray or a sap we wouldn't even know the incidents had ever happened.

If all you have is a hammer, something, something....

I'd be curious to find out how many places a sap would be legal to carry. I'd love to be able to carry one here instead of relying on a pocketed flashlight or folding knife as a defensive impact weapon.

[Chuck Haggard]

I'd be curious to find out how many places a sap would be legal to carry. I'd love to be able to carry one here instead of relying on a pocketed flashlight or folding knife as a defensive impact weapon.

I know Claude carries on in GA legally. It's a state-by-state thing.

I can here as an LEO, I'm actually going to try and get the state law changed to allow them in KS.

[blues]

I know Claude carries on in GA legally. It's a state-by-state thing.

I can here as an LEO, I'm actually going to try and get the state law changed to allow them in KS.

Edited the post below to update upon further info:

Chuck Haggard:

NC:


14‑269. Carrying concealed weapons.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person willfully and intentionally to carry concealed about his or her person any bowie knife, dirk, dagger, slung shot, loaded cane, metallic knuckles, razor, shuriken, stun gun, or other deadly weapon of like kind, except when the person is on the person's own premises.

But it sounds like I may have an exemption based upon the following:




(b) This prohibition shall not apply to the following persons:

(4b) Any person who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer as defined in G.S. 14-415.10 and meets any one of the following conditions:

a. Is the holder of a concealed handgun permit in accordance with Article 54B of this Chapter.

b. Is exempt from obtaining a permit pursuant to G.S. 14-415.25.

c. Is certified by the North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission pursuant to G.S. 14-415.26;

I meet a, b, and c above.

[mc1911]

Zimmerman did call the cops and was walking back to his truck after losing Martin to go home when he was attacked. Mike McDaniel throughly broke this case down in his blog. 57 entries for your reading enjoyment.

https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/category/courts-and-cops/the-trayvon-martin-case/

Hey, I've got not problem admitting that I didn't go back and re-read everything about that case and that my memory was vague and apparently faulty. I guess my point is that Zimmerman never struck me as someone who should have been doing what he was doing, at least not armed. He strikes me as someone who wanted to be something he isn't and when the consequences caught up with him, we got the Zimmerman case.

[41magfan]

Edited the post below to update upon further info:

Chuck Haggard:

NC:



But it sounds like I may have an exemption based upon the following:



I meet a, b, and c above.

I'm afraid the concealed carry statue (14-415.25) in NC for non-LE folks only authorizes the concealed carry of handguns.

[blues]

I guess my point is that Zimmerman never struck me as someone who should have been doing what he was doing, at least not armed. He strikes me as someone who wanted to be something he isn't and when the consequences caught up with him, we got the Zimmerman case.

Even a cursory search will reveal evidence to back up that assertion in regard to individuals populating the rolls from "community watch" organizations all the way up to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies.

Pretty much like everything and everyplace else, I suppose.

[Hambo]

I'd be curious to find out how many places a sap would be legal to carry. I'd love to be able to carry one here instead of relying on a pocketed flashlight or folding knife as a defensive impact weapon.

"Blackjack" is not mentioned in FL statutes, but they're illegal. The statute says you can carry a gun, knife, or billie with a CWP. Prohibited weapons include "slungshot" which is something heavy on a flexible handle.

[blues]

"Blackjack" is not mentioned in FL statutes, but they're illegal. The statute says you can carry a gun, knife, or billie with a CWP. Prohibited weapons include "slungshot" which is something heavy on a flexible handle.

I'm going to take advantage of the exemption cited above and ordered a small one (https://batonwarehouse.com/products/boston-leather-model-5415-1-midget-sap-impact-weapon-4-ply?_pos=5&_sid=0dd90a2f6&_ss=r) last night (with thanks to Chuck Haggard who patiently answered some of my newb questions on saps).

It's a Boston Leather 4 Ply "Midget". 6.75" long @ 9.5 ounces. Should be useful if only for some of the wayward curs occasionally encountered when I'm out walking locally without my blackthorn stick.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1416/8794/products/BL5415-1_large.jpg?v=1509736026

[Totem Polar]

I'd be curious to find out how many places a sap would be legal to carry. I'd love to be able to carry one here instead of relying on a pocketed flashlight or folding knife as a defensive impact weapon.

Complete no-go in WA. Too bad, because a good, compact Foster is an amazing tool. Or so I’ve heard. At any rate, saps/jacks are most def off the table. Of course, this is WA; we’re about 3 election cycles away from initiative banning of matches and any sticks sharpened by rubbing the pointy end on rocks.

[Hambo]

Drejka was sentenced to 20 years. Unless statute has changed, he has to serve at least 80% of that time before he is eligible for release.

https://www.wfla.com/news/pinellas-county/michael-drejka-faces-sentence-in-clearwater-parking-lot-killing/

[mmc45414]

Drejka was sentenced to 20 years. Unless statute has changed, he has to serve at least 80% of that time before he is eligible for release.
This dumb shit has 20 years to review the force escalation rules he developed by watching Justified. It is obvious to me that he made the go time decision as soon as he was pushed, and his presentation was slow enough to leave plenty of time to assess that his assailant was moonwalking.

[RJ]

Drejka was sentenced to 20 years. Unless statute has changed, he has to serve at least 80% of that time before he is eligible for release.

https://www.wfla.com/news/pinellas-county/michael-drejka-faces-sentence-in-clearwater-parking-lot-killing/

Good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk