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-c...ing/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...