Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wiffleball

Stand your ground law

Recommended Posts

This. Youve gone off the deep end when Drobeski is the voice of reason.

 

I've already said in a previous post that he shouldn't of fired. I am not saying yes this is how one should react whenever they get shoved to the ground. But I am defending how his reaction wasn't out of the question. I am arguing with the laws that Florida has set forward. He won't get found guilty.

 

776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.

(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
A Nondeadly 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; or
B 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.
(2) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
A The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
B The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(3) The presumption set forth in subsection (2) does not apply if:
A The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
B The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened; or
C The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
D The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
A “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
B “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
A “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've already said in a previous post that he shouldn't of fired. I am not saying yes this is how one should react whenever they get shoved to the ground. But I am defending how his reaction wasn't out of the question. I am arguing with the laws that Florida has set forward. He won't get found guilty.

 

plus.....nappy hair and baggy clothes....so it's pretty apparent that the victim's girlfriend actually caused the altercation and that the victim was retreating from the man with the gun in an effort to create enough space for a more deadly push with his hands.

 

With those facts so obvious, the shooters reaction makes a ton of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive either idled my car in a fire lane or other illegal parking space while my wife ran into a store for whatever or vice versa and I was never confronted for it.

Careful. Some shitbag is liable to come in

here and disparage your wife for being too lazy to walk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm as pro 2A as they come. From what I saw on the video the shooting looked unnecessary. I have no opinion on whether he walks or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was kinda on the side of 90baby until i just read his posts. dude you sound real dumb. that being said, i don't like to see someone dead and the shooter really should have stopped at just pulling the gun...but under this law, i don't see how they convict. baggy aggressive move pants did assault him. unfortunate event for a couple pilars of society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know the guy wasn't going to just stop with shoving the guy to the ground. There was going to be some further assault and if you don't believe that, you're out of touch with that situation.

 

But once the white guy produced the gun, the black guy decided to end the assault. The white guy should have stopped too at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree, the situation was definitely dangerous for the white dude, but he didn’t have to pull the trigger. Then again, it’s a civilian playing Dirty Harry, of course his trigger finger was itchy. He had dreamt of that exact scenario unfolding since the day he got his gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From 90sbaby's post;

 

He's acquitted on this one: 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a jury will err on the side of the conservative side and acquit. There is room for interpretation when it comes to the terms reasonable and imminent. At the moment the guy pushed him and was walking towards him, I think it would have been justified. When he backed off, was that lapse of time enough for a reasonable person to have not pulled the trigger? Its easy to say after the fact...will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/14/us/florida-stand-your-ground-previous-incidents/index.html

 

 

90sbaby, this is your guy. This is the guy you feel wasn't there to cause problems....Instead you are damn sure the black woman reacted, that the black guy was looking to kill the shooter, and this guy that did these things is clean.

There is no doubt this guy is an unhinged nut and should be behind bars but SYG #2 gets him off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember when Obama routinely opened civil rights violation investigations against cops? Only for them to fail...over and over? This is going to be the same line. Fla has THE most lenient stand your ground law in the U.S. his defense will claim this is the reason they are lenient and that HE felt like he was in fear for his life. They will bring in the dead guys criminal history. This guy walks. Tampa burns and the National Guard is called in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no doubt this guy is an unhinged nut and should be behind bars but SYG #2 gets him off.

behind bars on what charge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

behind bars on what charge?

I was referring to this latest incident. Thus the reference to SYG. He certainly should not have been allowed to carry a gun because of previous incidents.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

plus.....nappy hair and baggy clothes....so it's pretty apparent that the victim's girlfriend actually caused the altercation and that the victim was retreating from the man with the gun in an effort to create enough space for a more deadly push with his hands.

 

With those facts so obvious, the shooters reaction makes a ton of sense.

 

Now you're getting it. :banana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miss the part where he has waved his gun at people in traffic?

 

Are we making this wager or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This case really has nothing to do with SYG.

 

The argument isn't "Could he retreat?". The argument is did he 'reasonably' perceive GBH or Death?

 

Starting with the moral argument; he was STUPID to engage with someone who parked in a handicap spot. While NOWHERE near illegal, and does not construe "instigating", it was dumb.

Because of his stupidity, another man took exception to him, and attacked him violently, without discussion.

 

I would argue that an elderly (and legally disabled) man, abruptly attacked and shoved to the ground, by a younger, stronger man without provocation, would most definitely warrant "reasonable" fear of GBH or Death.

Disparity of force easily can be shown in court.

 

HOWEVER....when he pulled his gun, the other man stepped away, as if to retreat. He showed no signs of continuing the attack AFTER he pulled his gun.

I would state that he cannot know for certain the other man's intentions though (as you truly cannot prove intent in a court).

 

He did take almost 2 seconds to fire his weapon, which should have been enough time for him to realize his advantage, that the fight seemed to have ended, and got up and drove away, called police, etc.

Instead, he took a carefully and deliberately aimed shot (kudos for hitting his target, simply from a overall safety standpoint), but I don't think he was justified. The threat appeared to be over.

 

Had the younger man continued to approach or showed any sign of another attack coming, I would stand behind the shooter. But in this case, I cannot.

In my mind he's guilty of manslaughter, possibly murder.

 

However, he won't get convicted because the dynamics are too thin. 2 seconds prior to the shot he was attacked violently and the younger man appeared to be coming back for more when he pulled his gun.

Had he shot immediately, I'd say good shoot. But he waited....

 

Those 2 seconds aren't going to be enough to convict, but I agree with others who stated he was looking for someone to shoot.

 

Youtube videos of the store owner being interviewed said the guy is always there "looking for trouble" and "policing the handicap spots".

I don't KNOW that proves anything, but it does paint a picture.

 

Maybe he was pissed his disabled wife could never park in a handicap spot and the police wouldn't do anything about it, so he took matters into his own hands.

That however, doesn't give him the right to take another life after basically inserting himself into a stupid situation.

 

He'll walk, but he'll walk broke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with above but I don’t think he will walk. His prior acts of gun threats and the 2 seconds where the black guy backed up with convict him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This case really has nothing to do with SYG.

 

 

The case will be ALL ABOUT SYG. Without it he's guilty of murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as someone who is 47, I take exception to the idea that 48 is elderly.

 

Yea I was confused at that part, he’s in no way old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bls . Has it been announced the shooters financial standing? For all we know he may be using a public defender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I stand corrected, on a couple of points.

 

At 47, no he's not elderly, as I'm 47 and while I feel old, I'm certainly not elderly.

It was my understanding he was also disabled, but it appears I'm wrong on that as well.

 

I don't understand how LOD01 can say this is about SYG. SYG removed the duty to retreat, nothing more.

 

Also, I will add to my post, that if he wasn't disabled, and only 47, even though there could be a disparity of force argument, it will be much tougher.

 

Either way, in FLA, the burden of proof is put on the state, not the defendant, when it comes to use of force cases; IE, they need to prove he wasn't reasonably in fear of GBH or Death.

That will be hard to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I stand corrected, on a couple of points.

 

At 47, no he's not elderly, as I'm 47 and while I feel old, I'm certainly not elderly.

It was my understanding he was also disabled, but it appears I'm wrong on that as well.

 

I don't understand how LOD01 can say this is about SYG. SYG removed the duty to retreat, nothing more.

 

Also, I will add to my post, that if he wasn't disabled, and only 47, even though there could be a disparity of force argument, it will be much tougher.

 

Either way, in FLA, the burden of proof is put on the state, not the defendant, when it comes to use of force cases; IE, they need to prove he wasn't reasonably in fear of GBH or Death.

That will be hard to do.

Um, because they are going to use that as the defense. They have no other option.

 

Florida law justifies deadly force in cases where it would "prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." Victims do not have an obligation to flee, but an aspect of the law approved last year means that prosecutors must prove deadly force was not justified — rather than the defense show that it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious where he line is if being shoved is justifiable... What about verbal threats. Threatening movements with no contact?

 

Different threasholds for different people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious where he line is if being shoved is justifiable... What about verbal threats. Threatening movements with no contact?

 

Different threasholds for different people?

Nappy hair, baggy clothes....we all know what the threashold is. Its reasonably obvious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, because they are going to use that as the defense. They have no other option.

 

Florida law justifies deadly force in cases where it would "prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." Victims do not have an obligation to flee, but an aspect of the law approved last year means that prosecutors must prove deadly force was not justified — rather than the defense show that it was.

 

No offense, but either I don't understand your point, or you don't understand the concept of SYG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, because they are going to use that as the defense. They have no other option.

 

Florida law justifies deadly force in cases where it would "prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." Victims do not have an obligation to flee, but an aspect of the law approved last year means that prosecutors must prove deadly force was not justified — rather than the defense show that it was.

pretty sure you have to establish imminent GBH as a defendant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No offense, but either I don't understand your point, or you don't understand the concept of SYG.

That's ok, I can't understand why you think this has nothing to do with SYG. I understand the fact that he has no defense other than the SYG law. If he doesn't use that defense, he's going to be found guilty.

Let me help you out with this article:

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/shooter-florida-stand-ground-case-charged-manslaughter/story?id=57151343

 

 

The Florida man who invoked the "stand your ground" self-defense law after shooting a black man in a dispute over a parking space was charged Monday with manslaughter, officials said.

 

See it above in bold and italic? From what you seem to be saying is that SYG is no part of this case. This case will be all about it, right or wrong.

 

Count the number of times the refer to Stand Your Ground at the trial and then tell me it has nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So you are going to charge him with a crime that he did not technically commit just so you can get a conviction?

He did comitt manslaughter, the definition of which is the unlawfuln killing of a human being.

 

Manslaughter is a lesser included offense to murder. It is possible to commit manslaughter but not murder (heat of passion, drunk driver, etc.) it is not possible to commit murder without committing manslaughter. The only difference is state of mind, namely, malice aforethought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He did comitt manslaughter, the definition of which is the unlawfuln killing of a human being.

 

Manslaughter is a lesser included offense to murder. It is possible to commit manslaughter but not murder (heat of passion, drunk driver, etc.) it is not possible to commit murder without committing manslaughter. The only difference is state of mind, namely, malice aforethought.

It was lawful though, under SYG, and the jury will find him not guilty. Try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's ok, I can't understand why you think this has nothing to do with SYG. I understand the fact that he has no defense other than the SYG law. If he doesn't use that defense, he's going to be found guilty.

Let me help you out with this article:

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/shooter-florida-stand-ground-case-charged-manslaughter/story?id=57151343

 

 

The Florida man who invoked the "stand your ground" self-defense law after shooting a black man in a dispute over a parking space was charged Monday with manslaughter, officials said.

 

See it above in bold and italic? From what you seem to be saying is that SYG is no part of this case. This case will be all about it, right or wrong.

 

Count the number of times the refer to Stand Your Ground at the trial and then tell me it has nothing to do with it.

Yeah I dont know what the hell BLS is talking about. The only chance they have is SYG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's ok, I can't understand why you think this has nothing to do with SYG. I understand the fact that he has no defense other than the SYG law. If he doesn't use that defense, he's going to be found guilty.

Let me help you out with this article:

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/shooter-florida-stand-ground-case-charged-manslaughter/story?id=57151343

 

 

The Florida man who invoked the "stand your ground" self-defense law after shooting a black man in a dispute over a parking space was charged Monday with manslaughter, officials said.

 

See it above in bold and italic? From what you seem to be saying is that SYG is no part of this case. This case will be all about it, right or wrong.

 

Count the number of times the refer to Stand Your Ground at the trial and then tell me it has nothing to do with it.

 

Oh boy...

 

Let me see if I can clarify.

 

The shooter NEVER invoked SYG. The Sheriff did (as a reason he could not prosecute).

 

Here's news for you. The Sheriff has ZERO say in prosecution. The PA does.

 

Stand Your Ground has to do with the duty to retreat. Period.

Do you understand that?

 

The argument never came up to "could he retreat?".

 

and I find it ironic that I claimed he was GUILTY of manslaughter, at a minimum, and yet you continue to attack me.

Get your straight, then come back to me with a well-thought out response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I dont know what the hell BLS is talking about. The only chance they have is SYG.

 

And you as well, simply don't understand UoF laws. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2018 at 10:12 AM, iam90sbaby said:

It was lawful though, under SYG, and the jury will find him not guilty. Try again.

You really took a beating in this thread.  Its been funny to review...McG was creating space to pounce..🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were on that jury, I would've acquitted. 

Stand your ground is a poorly thought out law that's way too subjective... but that's what he did.  The law should be better defined or abolished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

You really took a beating in this thread.  Its been funny to review...McG was creating space to pounce..🤣

I stand by what I said, as the law is written he should’ve been found not guilty. Definitely shouldn’t of got 24 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×