Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

ChocolateReignRemix

Members
  • Content Count

    508
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChocolateReignRemix

  1. It as to be more than threatened - reasonable belief of imminent death or bodily harm. Someone pushing and not following up with an aggressive act should not qualify.
  2. https://www.wftv.com/news/local/deadly-shooting-over-parking-spot-puts-florida-s-stand-your-ground-law-back-in-spotlight/796155813 " The store owner tells Tampa’s ABC affiliate that Drejka has a history of assaulting people in the very parking lot where the shooting took place. "
  3. I am still not finding anything that says the shooter was the store owner. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/07/23/stand-your-ground-no-charges-florida-man-parking-lot-shooting/817755002/ "The customer and the girlfriend started yelling at each other after the customer complained to her about parking there, according to deputies. Another customer went inside to tell the manager about a disturbance outside. McGlockton walked outside and shoved the customer to the ground."
  4. You have more faith in Florida politicians and law enforcement than I do.
  5. The law really isn't that bad if Florida DAs would quit allowing an overly broad definition of "reasonably believes". This is the same issue with some officer involved shootings - at some point that criteria must be applied with a bit of common sense.
  6. Wow. I just thought he was a local random nutter.
  7. I have multiple attorney friends in Florida who disagree. Under your theory, someone can slap someone in Florida, and then be justifiably shot because a "forcible act" occurred. That is neither the spirit nor the intent of the law.
  8. Was he the store owner? I thought he was just a customer?
  9. I suggest you do some research on Florida laws and case law then.
  10. No, you are interpreting that section incorrectly. "Unlawful or forcible act" under Florida law would be a forcible felony. Simple battery is a misdemeanor.
  11. (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. The bolded is why this is should be prosecuted and is winnable. There is no justification for deadly force based on the video. And I have to chuckle at the statement that it would be prosecuted if anyone that it was winnable. Welcome to the south.
  12. Close to zero chance a judge would dismiss this case. And it is winnable. Arguing that everyone needs to walk in eggshells in a SYG state and if they don't then too bad, so sad for them is nonsense. And FWIW, there have been successful prosecutions against those claiming self defense under SYG. The video evidence here would be enough to give a decent DA a good chance at trial.
  13. Florida isn't a monolith. Looking at the situation as a whole, the shooter initially aggressively approached the victim's wife. The victim responded with a push, and backed away. He maintained a defensive posture but made no further aggressive action. Applying the reasonable person standard there is no valid basis for a shooting. The jury may not convict, but DAs need to start applying the law correctly. Refusing to pursue this case is the system failing.
  14. I suggest you watch the video. You can walk away with without turning around.
  15. It's a bit more complicated than that when it comes to self defense in any state. Again, going on the reasonable person,standard, someone yelling at you generally doesn't rise to the level needed to claim self defense. Someone yelling threats can, but acting on verbal comments puts the potential defendant in a difficult spot. The line becomes a little more clear when a physical altercation takes place, but it is still quite blurry. Removing shooting someone from the situation, if someone starts arguing/yelling at you in public and you punch them, you can likely expect a charge for battery. Them being "aggressive" doesn't automatically provide the right to create a physical altercation.
  16. It is. Personally I am hesitant to accept that claim without further evidence.
  17. No, it is being misapplied as "threatening", but most statutes use language that is a bit different, and is a variation of "reasonable belief of death or serious bodily harm". Someone shoving you down and walking away does not seem to imply a reasonable belief of further harm.
  18. Legally that's not going to be a factor in most cases.
  19. I think even in SYG states the fact the other person appears to be backing up would be enough to consider that a reasonable person would not feel they are still in danger. In addition he was pushed but not punched or kicked, even when he went to the ground, which would indicate there was not an imminent assault.
  20. Because what constitutes self defense is also determined by what is in the law. FWIW this isn't a component only of stand your grand laws. Most laws on justifiable use of deadly force rely on someone acting on their *reasonable* belief that they are or another are in imminent danger. The SYG laws differ as they do not require the person to consider if they can safely retreat. IMO the issue is that what is considered reasonable is too broad.
  21. Anything dark will work. My boys wore either black, gray or dark blue.
  22. In general insurance follows the car, not the driver. If someone is driving your car their insurance can possibly come into play as secondary coverage. I believe (not 100% certain) that if they are named on the policy then their insurance cannot come in as secondary (that sounds right but I am not sure if it is correct/varies by state but I don't have time to look it up). The lady driving your kids is a habitual user of your vehicle. If you did not add her and there was an accident, your insurance company could deny the claim. And yes, your adding her only covers her on vehicles under your policy.
  23. I would argue that you repeatedly trying to dictate how people respond to you is stirring the pot just as much. If you don't like how someone is engaging either report them if it is a rule violation, put them on ignore, or refuse to engage.
  24. Whew. Well that glad that hasn't happened here!
×
×
  • Create New...