Man Claims Stand Your Ground Defense After Shooting Unarmed Man Over Parking Spot
- Thread starter Pickman
- Start date
Your not going to be able to argue that in a court. People have died from a single punch to the chest or head, people have died from being pushed and hitting their head.
The stand your ground law is terrible and needs to go away, however it's currentlycurr law. He shouldn't have pushed the guy. You don't touch someone without permission.
I would say the man's history of harassment and aggression at the same location for the same reasons indicates that he was provoking people and therefore it could be argued he was creating situations where he felt he had the legal right to murder someone.
Maybe the murderer shouldn't have been up in the victim's girlfriend's face, making the victim fear for her safety?
He shoved the guy for harassing his lover and becked off.
I honestly cannot believe that post, but then you see how people act in this country and this is exactly how they rationalize shit in their mind.
I wish they could use that and put this scum away, but I believe the law can only look at this specific instance. I guess they could try to build a case of some form of entrapment - that he was trying to coerce an attack so he could shoot someone ... But that would be really hard to prove.
I really despise guns ... Like, passionately
But killing him is perfectly allowed by law.
Case example of legality doesn't equal morality. Too bad centrists never realize this. (not calling you a centrist)
If the girlfriend felt he was a threat, she should have shot him. Clearly that's the solution Florida's lawmaker prefer.
Was my exact point.
If he pulled out the gun and didn't use it, that's "proof" it was excessive force.
Under the exact same circumstances, shooting the gun is a justifiable action.
You can't make an assessment of the threat of the situation contingent on the defendant/perpetrator's escalation and use of lethal force. That's not an independent assessment.
Edit: And it's ridiculous to use this approach to more severely punish the lack of firing the gun than the firing of the gun. Homicide is not something that we should be encouraging as anything other than a last resort.
Last edited:
Hypothetical question.
If I was there, and I had a gun, and I saw Drejka shoot McGlockton, if I where to then shoot Drejka because I was scared he was gonna shoot someone else. Is that also stand your ground?
Where does the self defense argument end
If I was there, and I had a gun, and I saw Drejka shoot McGlockton, if I where to then shoot Drejka because I was scared he was gonna shoot someone else. Is that also stand your ground?
Where does the self defense argument end
Mam, as a fellow gun owner I have to disagree. He could've stood up, gotten in his car, and drove away. Just my two pennies.
That's the dumbest law I've heard of in a while; basically allows you to pick a fight with and then shoot someone.
Tell me this is only in Florida.
Tell me this is only in Florida.
South Park did it where Cartman made Token walk within a certain distance of a circle he drew just to shoot him and claim stand your ground. And JUST because he could.
States that have the law are:
In order to claim stand your ground, you should have to prove your life was in danger. Nobody dies in a freaking scuffle over a parking spot. The guy wasn't going to kill you. But you sure as hell was going to kill him.
We don't disagree. Read my follow up post. I'm saying stand your ground is ridiculously too broad to the point where it legally allows the use of lethal force at the mere feeling of being threatened. Let alone being pushed.
Short version: The law is wrong.
You help contribute to this law with your NRA payments, Mammoth.
I assume the last survivor (last person who feared for their life and shot someone else) is the legal victor in this situation.
That is how it plays out.
And the law may be on the books, but there are also laws on the books about murder. There is no vesting clause that precludes the authorities or a jury from arguing that Stand Your Ground does not apply because this is a murder. By definition, you can't commit murder while standing your ground, and you can't stand your ground while committing murder. One is a legal defense/justification for homicide, the other is a homicide that was found to have no acceptable defense.
You hold that fight in the court of public opinion and in deliberations
I just don't understand how something as minor as a parking spot can get so heated that someone can justify killing someone else over it, man the ways that we've been conditioned by society.
If he deserved to be killed, then the killer should have used his bare hands. Because in any other country with sane gun laws, nobody would have died. This sort of altercation would not have yielded death except with the presence of a firearm.
Not justifying. Was saying if he jumped on top and the attack continued.
Its not a justification, its an excuse. They didn't have to shot him, but they get to and that's all that matters.
I have a co-workers day in, day out they talk about all these fantasy scenarios were they may have to pull out their gun and use it. Many of these people just want any reason. Lethal force isn't a last resort, its a reward. They get to shot somebody over something as trivial as a parking spot because there was the faint threat that they could have but aren't required to diffuse or escape.
I don't mean justify to others about why they did it, I mean justify to themselves that what they're doing is an any way acceptable.
Have no idea how this fits the fucking law, a garbage law at that.
When the piece of shit pulled the gun, the victim backed off and was no longer a threat.
The sheriff fucked up on this call. Was the shooter white?
When the piece of shit pulled the gun, the victim backed off and was no longer a threat.
The sheriff fucked up on this call. Was the shooter white?
I don't believe that people just born into being able to accomplish something like that though, that requires exposure and desensitization.
So do you with your taxes. Especially the ones going to corrupt cops. Best believe you've contributed far more to the misery in the world via your dollars in taxes than my 60$ dues that I paid for a few years.
So does every millennial that sits home every election. Miss me with your purity test bullshit. Go look in the mirror for a while before you come at me with that shit again. I haven't been a member in years but you still wanna try and make that an issue cause you salty I post in gun threads even when I obviously concede right off such issues are a problem and the law is wrong? Kick rocks with that moralizing pretending your money ain't got dirt, lol.
There's no issue for us to debate outside of your ridiculous belief that eliminating civilian gun ownership in the US entirely is somehow more feasible politically than getting stand your ground laws reigned in state by state.
Touchy.
Glad to hear you stopped funding an extremist organization devoted to gun proliferation and usage at all costs, at least
Problem is he stood his ground after trying to flee, and lost.
For stand your ground, it's essentially "I felt threatened"
If you can convince a jury or prove that you felt your life was in danger, you can get away with murder
You still funding organizations have been engaging in all types of extremism all over the globe for centuries. Do something about that before you come at me with moral condemnation despite the fact that it has shit to do with the conversation in the thread and I'm agreeing with you in every other way.
That tells me you're not interested in a conversation you just wanna be snide and throw some dirt. FOH with that bullshit.
I'm all for the proliferation of civilian owned firearms. I just believe the bar should be raised a fair bit higher and freedom without responsibility is chaos. You don't like that. Tough shit. Go vote. Quit picking e-arguments.
No. It's unless they can be given proof that 1. You weren't afraid
2. You weren't in danger and
3. No one would, or should, be afraid in that situation
Then you can kill anyone.
It's stupid, because this goes so far beyond the concept of reasonable doubt that anything short of a confession to a cold blooded extermination will be met with indifference in the eyes of the law. And this isn't even stand your ground territory.
Lool, if you kill someone and you were anything but an innocent victim taking a last resort measure to protect yourself, you should not be criminally exonerated. That's what the language of laws like "reckless disregard for human life" means. Did you needlessly contribute to a situation becoming a matter of life or death, yes or no?
That's castle doctrine. Stand your ground literally travels with you. I can shoot you in the desert and claim I was standing my ground because I was threatened.
Actually no. It's much, much more bizarre than that.
The shooter was the aggressor here. What this allows is someone to provoke another to physical action and they are justified in killing them. That's exactly what happened here.
