Jump to content

Menu

Florida Stand Your Ground Shooting


goldberry
 Share

Recommended Posts

Has this been discussed yet?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/22/florida-sheriff-says-stand-your-ground-law-prevents-arrest-in-fatal-shooting-in-parking-spot-dispute.html

I read this after reading a post about the woman who body slammed the guy who grabbed her rear end in a bar, about how both were at fault because she "over-reacted".  The irony is thick. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole thing is so tragic.  Three kids without a father. Ugh. 

Why did they park in a spot NOT marked handicapped?

Why didn't the guy with the gun just mind his own business about them parking there?

Why did the now dead guy mow the guy down instead of just getting in his car and moving it.?

Why did the guy who got pushed down pull a gun? 

Why did he SHOOT the gun?  

Ugh, I feel like this could be an entire workshop on avoiding confrontation an de escalating conflict.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The video of the shooting is awful.   It looked like the man who was shot was trying to defend his family by shoving the angry man away from the car.  

But you never know what kind of scary people you're dealing with out in public.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lady Florida. said:

Florida's Stand Your Ground law is a horrible law. To make matters worse, our legislature and governor keep digging their heels in and strengthening the law.

 

It seems crazy to me to base a law on something entirely subjective.  The sheriff basically said, the guy said he felt threatened, so nothing else is relevant.   How does someone's feeling exempt a person from the law?

  • Like 9
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, goldberry said:

 

It seems crazy to me to base a law on something entirely subjective.  The sheriff basically said, the guy said he felt threatened, so nothing else is relevant.   How does someone's feeling exempt a person from the law?

 

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.

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you live in a stand your ground state, don't go around physically confronting or threatening people, or they have every right to kill you the second a reasonable person would think they were in danger. In this case, it might have been self defense in non stand your ground states because he was on the ground and didn't have an ability to retreat.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Katy said:

If you live in a stand your ground state, don't go around physically confronting or threatening people, or they have every right to kill you the second a reasonable person would think they were in danger. In this case, it might have been self defense in non stand your ground states because he was on the ground and didn't have an ability to retreat.

 

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.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

 

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.

 

Not to mention that it was the person who was pushed that initially approached the victim.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

 

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.

 

Maybe this is state/culture specific.  My dad was the chief of police of my Florida hometown.  If some stranger came up to me in a parking lot and shoved me to the ground, I would feel threatened.  Which is not to say I would choose to pull a gun out and kill the person, but I think most jurors would understand that is threatening. If most people think it is threatening, it is legal to kill them in a stand your ground state.  Having grown up where that is the norm, I guess my thought is - don't act aggressively towards perfect strangers and they won't call it legal to murder you. And yes, I agree it's murder. It's just legal murder. There have been plenty of my college friends who decided to never visit Florida again because of the way Stand Your Ground is interpreted though, so I understand that not everyone sees it as a clear ethical line as I do.

ETA: I haven't read details of this case, just the first paragraph of two articles.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Katy said:

 

Maybe this is state/culture specific.  My dad was the chief of police of my Florida hometown.  If some stranger came up to me in a parking lot and shoved me to the ground, I would feel threatened.  Which is not to say I would choose to pull a gun out and kill the person, but I think most jurors would understand that is threatening. If most people think it is threatening, it is legal to kill them in a stand your ground state.  Having grown up where that is the norm, I guess my thought is - don't act aggressively towards perfect strangers and they won't call it legal to murder you. And yes, I agree it's murder. It's just legal murder. There have been plenty of my college friends who decided to never visit Florida again because of the way Stand Your Ground is interpreted though, so I understand that not everyone sees it as a clear ethical line as I do.

 

That's not what happened. The store owner approached the family *first* and threatened them. He'd also done it before, threatening to shoot someone parked in the handicap spot. *HE* was the aggressor but, CR is right, that doesn't matter in Florida. You have no right to defend yourself against an aggressive stranger who seeks to confront you unless you're armed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

Maybe this is state/culture specific.  My dad was the chief of police of my Florida hometown.  If some stranger came up to me in a parking lot and shoved me to the ground, I would feel threatened.  Which is not to say I would choose to pull a gun out and kill the person, but I think most jurors would understand that is threatening. If most people think it is threatening, it is legal to kill them in a stand your ground state.  Having grown up where that is the norm, I guess my thought is - don't act aggressively towards perfect strangers and they won't call it legal to murder you. And yes, I agree it's murder. It's just legal murder. There have been plenty of my college friends who decided to never visit Florida again because of the way Stand Your Ground is interpreted though, so I understand that not everyone sees it as a clear ethical line as I do.

 

Pushing to the ground was threatening, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) don't you have to believe there is a continued threat?  That you are still in danger? The guy was several feet away and not advancing.  There was time before firing to either warn or assess the threat.   

The part that was really concerning was the person who said the guy had picked fights before over the spot and said he would shoot someone.  What keeps anyone from starting a fight or altercation then saying they felt threatened?  I don't get it.

Not to mention that in the story about the woman, everyone was all over "proportional" or "appropriate" response.  The guy grabbing the woman's rear was not "violent" but she responded "violently". Ugh.  I just can't escape the feeling that the same people who held that position about the woman would be the same ones defending this guy.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

That's not what happened. The store owner approached the family *first* and threatened them. He'd also done it before, threatening to shoot someone parked in the handicap spot. *HE* was the aggressor but, CR is right, that doesn't matter in Florida. You have no right to defend yourself against an aggressive stranger who seeks to confront you unless you're armed.

I didn't know that the shooter was the store owner!  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, goldberry said:

 

Pushing to the ground was threatening, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) don't you have to believe there is a continued threat?  That you are still in danger? The guy was several feet away and not advancing.  There was time before firing to either warn or assess the threat.   

The part that was really concerning was the person who said the guy had picked fights before over the spot and said he would shoot someone.  What keeps anyone from starting a fight or altercation then saying they felt threatened?  I don't get it.

Not to mention that in the story about the woman, everyone was all over "proportional" or "appropriate" response.  The guy grabbing the woman's rear was not "violent" but she responded "violently". Ugh.  I just can't escape the feeling that the same people who held that position about the woman would be the same ones defending this guy.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying what he did was right by any means. My dad always taught me personally to never pull a gun unless you already knew that someone is going to die, and it's either an innocent person or the bad guy. So morally there is no question in my mind that this was murder. But legally-  If he's a store owner on his property and he was shoved to the ground and the person is still there and has only taken a step or two back, and not turned his back to walk away, I think most members of a jury would say that a reasonable person would still feel under threat.  Which makes it justifiable. Threat is the concern here, proportional or appropriate is a moral issue, not a legal one.  Georgia is a different state, and I know nothing about that incident except what has been said in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, goldberry said:

 

Curious, isn't threatening to shoot someone illegal?

 

Probably depends if it was an actual threat to murder someone or a warning that he would defend his store and his property, which is legal.  And which rednecks love to spout off about, IME.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

Maybe this is state/culture specific.  My dad was the chief of police of my Florida hometown.  If some stranger came up to me in a parking lot and shoved me to the ground, I would feel threatened.  Which is not to say I would choose to pull a gun out and kill the person, but I think most jurors would understand that is threatening. If most people think it is threatening, it is legal to kill them in a stand your ground state.  Having grown up where that is the norm, I guess my thought is - don't act aggressively towards perfect strangers and they won't call it legal to murder you. And yes, I agree it's murder. It's just legal murder. There have been plenty of my college friends who decided to never visit Florida again because of the way Stand Your Ground is interpreted though, so I understand that not everyone sees it as a clear ethical line as I do.

ETA: I haven't read details of this case, just the first paragraph of two articles.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ChocolateReignRemix said:

 

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.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the victim wasn't shot in the back, was he?  Taking a step back after shoving someone to the ground does not mean the threat is over, it means you're moving away from where the person on the ground can sweep-kick you to the ground with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lady Florida. said:

The NRA thoroughly owns Florida and its legislators. Has for a long time.

 

I will grant this.  Most law enforcement officers I know there are not only part of the NRA, many of them become instructors for the NRA when they retire. The police are not approaching this from a moral place, but from whatever the NRA interpretation is.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

That's not what happened. The store owner approached the family *first* and threatened them. He'd also done it before, threatening to shoot someone parked in the handicap spot. *HE* was the aggressor but, CR is right, that doesn't matter in Florida. You have no right to defend yourself against an aggressive stranger who seeks to confront you unless you're armed.

 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the victim wasn't shot in the back, was he?  Taking a step back after shoving someone to the ground does not mean the threat is over, it means you're moving away from where the person on the ground can sweep-kick you to the ground with him.

I suggest you watch the video. You can walk away with without turning around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

I suggest you watch the video. You can walk away with without turning around.

 

I did just watch the video.  The victim aggressively moved towards the owner, rapidly shoved him to the ground, and took one step back, but retained the threatening body language.  No DA would waste her time with this case because no Florida jury would convict based on current law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Katy said:

 

I did just watch the video.  The victim aggressively moved towards the owner, rapidly shoved him to the ground, and took one step back, but retained the threatening body language.  No DA would waste her time with this case because no Florida jury would convict based on current law.

 

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.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Effectively, you can’t defend your wife and child from a nut job in a Florida unless you’re armed and shoot first. All you need is ‘fear’ to get off Scott free. If the other guy shoots and kills you (which he/she has every incentive to do so you can’t tell your side of the story) your death will go unpunished. If you attempt non-deadly self-defense, you’ll be blamed for your death.

  • Like 8
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

 

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.

 

Ugh, it's a political job.  Pretending it isn't, or that taxpayers are okay with a DA wasting time and money on cases that aren't winnable when there are plenty of crimes and court backlogs for cases that ARE winnable is overly idealistic at best, delusional and foolish at worst.  Not to mention chances are high that a judge would dismiss this case immediately and then berate the DA for wasting the court's time.  Getting on the wrong side of judges is not a good idea for a DA.

Again, I'm not saying that what happened is moral. Just that no one should go around shoving anyone if they want to live in a stand your ground state. Being threatening is legal grounds to kill you. If the man felt his wife was threatened, he could have called the police himself instead of shoving the owner to the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

Effectively, you can’t defend your wife and child from a nut job in a Florida unless you’re armed and shoot first. All you need is ‘fear’ to get off Scott free. If the other guy shoots and kills you (which he/she has every incentive to do so you can’t tell your side of the story) your death will go unpunished. If you attempt non-deadly self-defense, you’ll be blamed for your death.

 

Well we don't have video linked of how the store owner threatened his wife, but if a reasonable person would have felt she was threatened (not just berated for parking in the wrong place), that certainly would have made the murder justified. I don't see evidence that shoving the man was self-defense, since in the video he wasn't near the wife. Again, I think this murder was wrong.  It was just legal, which isn't the same thing at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

Well we don't have video linked of how the store owner threatened his wife, but if a reasonable person would have felt she was threatened (not just berated for parking in the wrong place), that certainly would have made the murder justified. I don't see evidence that shoving the man was self-defense, since in the video he wasn't near the wife. Again, I think this murder was wrong.  It was just legal, which isn't the same thing at all.

 

Clearly the fear was justified b/c the berated is now dead and the aggressor is walking free.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

Ugh, it's a political job.  Pretending it isn't, or that taxpayers are okay with a DA wasting time and money on cases that aren't winnable when there are plenty of crimes and court backlogs for cases that ARE winnable is overly idealistic at best, delusional and foolish at worst.  Not to mention chances are high that a judge would dismiss this case immediately and then berate the DA for wasting the court's time.  Getting on the wrong side of judges is not a good idea for a DA.

Again, I'm not saying that what happened is moral. Just that no one should go around shoving anyone if they want to live in a stand your ground state. Being threatening is legal grounds to kill you. If the man felt his wife was threatened, he could have called the police himself instead of shoving the owner to the ground.

 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

 

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.

 

I don't understand why you feel that walking on eggshells is at all equivalent to battery, and shoving a stranger to the ground is battery. If anyone felt this was prosecutable, he would be prosecuted.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, goldberry said:

 

It seems crazy to me to base a law on something entirely subjective.  The sheriff basically said, the guy said he felt threatened, so nothing else is relevant.   How does someone's feeling exempt a person from the law?

Being Muslim, in Florida, is scary.  I had a neighbor call the cops on me (I've lived in my home for 17 years) because basically she found out I was Muslim (I didn't normally wear hijab...but was wearing it to an event at the Islamic center) and I was standing on the public sidewalk calmly stating that yes, my kids had a right to walk in front of her house on the way to the lake.  She called the cops!  The cops basically told me that yes, my kids had that right....but she felt that my presence was threatening...and I should avoid her because one never knew how somebody threatened would react.  

  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

I don't understand why you feel that walking on eggshells is at all equivalent to battery, and shoving a stranger to the ground is battery. If anyone felt this was prosecutable, he would be prosecuted.

(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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(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:

<snip>

(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.

The owner had already been shoved to the ground, an unlawful and forcible act.  He is presumed to have had a reasonable belief under the law, so he is exempt from criminal prosecution for using deadly force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Katy said:

(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:

<snip>

(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.

The owner had already been shoved to the ground, an unlawful and forcible act.  He is presumed to have had a reasonable belief under the law, so he is exempt from criminal prosecution for using deadly force.

Yep. In Florida, if you’re not armed, you don’t count. The store owner should have been blown away by the husband the minute he stepped to that woman’s car and started yelling. Problem solved.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ChocolateReignRemix said:

 

No, you are interpreting that section incorrectly. "Unlawful or forcible act" under Florida law would be a forcible felony. Simple battery is a misdemeanor.

 

 

 

It doesn't specify felony.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

Was he the store owner?  I thought he was just a customer?

 

Said in another story he was the owner and that another customer had been similarly threatened with death a month before. Taking him out would have spared the whole community, I think. They’d find the gun on his person and know with that history that the fear was reasonable.

 

ETA: I don’t like any of this, of course. But if I lived in Florida (and I never will), that would absolutely be my approach to confrontational people attacking me/mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

I just texted a friend who used to work for the state attorney's office.  He says you're mistaken.

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Said in another story he was the owner and that another customer had been similarly threatened with death a month before. Taking him out would have spared the whole community, I think. They’d find the gun on his person and know with that history that the fear was reasonable.

 

ETA: I don’t like any of this, of course. But if I lived in Florida (and I never will), that would absolutely be my approach to confrontational people attacking me/mine.

Wow. I just thought he was a local random nutter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...