Shooter convicted of 2nd degree murder...

[monkeylizard]

It's a mess that nobody wants to touch. I'm thinking the D.A. down there may decide to send it on to a grand jury so he/she can say "it wasn't me....it was the grand jury" no matter which way the grand jury decides.

Edited July 25, 2018 by monkeylizard

[Moped]

I don't know all the circumstances in the Florida shooting.  Was the shooter handicapped?  Was that why he was yelling at the woman in the car? if so and he was pushed to the ground by a more physically able person, then he really might have been in fear of his life. 

Just playing devils advocate here.  Nothing more.  

[Omega]

I don't know, with only the video and no other info, I can see the shooters side quite quickly.  Guy comes out of nowhere, drops him and then advances, only turns when he is drawn upon.  In my mind, I feel if it gets to the point to where I draw my weapon, I am going to fire because the only reason I would pull a weapon out is when I, or another, is in danger of great bodily harm.  So he presents and fires, in a split second, and the attacker is within the 21' space we are taught is the danger zone for someone to get to us before we can draw our weapon.

[DaveTN]

On the Florida shooting, after watching the video...

With the Sherriff saying he was within the law, even if he is charged he probably won’t be convicted; just financially destroyed.

I’ll take an azz whipping before I shoot someone. But then I wouldn’t be in that situation; I don’t get in arguments when I’m armed. However… because of the violent attack I couldn’t convict the shooter. Don’t be a thug; it could get you shot.

I have a responsibility to my family. Besides staying alive, part of that responsibility is staying out of prison and not financially destroying the family. I have seen first hand as a cop how our legal system works; I do not want to test the deadly force laws.

[GlockSpock]

1 hour ago, DaveTN said:

On the Florida shooting, after watching the video...

With the Sherriff saying he was within the law, even if he is charged he probably won’t be convicted; just financially destroyed.

I’ll take an azz whipping before I shoot someone. But then I wouldn’t be in that situation; I don’t get in arguments when I’m armed. However… because of the violent attack I couldn’t convict the shooter. Don’t be a thug; it could get you shot.

I have a responsibility to my family. Besides staying alive, part of that responsibility is staying out of prison and not financially destroying the family. I have seen first hand as a cop how our legal system works; I do not want to test the deadly force laws.

Even though it means letting go of one's ego, the best, smartest, and most "tactical" thing to ever do is avoid pulling a gun if possible. There are circumstances that warrant it, but there are many circumstances that don't warrant it. Even if you can de-escalate/leave a situation that warrants it, it is likely for the better for you not to. Ultimately, even if you are 100% in the right, wouldn't you rather go home to your family after a verbal "fight" in a parking lot rather than spend hours being questioned by police after a "good shoot", potentially followed by criminal or civil action depending on the details. 

I pick go home, take a shower rinsing yourself of your shame for leaving, have some whiskey on the rocks, and be glad you have the freedom to do that in your own house that someone isn't trying to take away from you.

Edited July 24, 2018 by CZ9MM

[chances R]

There is a difference in 'fear for one's life' vs. Reasonable fear for one's life.  SYG only means one does not have to act to leave the area of confrontation.  Andrew Branca discusses this in his book, The Law of Self Defense.  There is also the principle of Proportionality.  Being pushed down does not by itself warrant a shootable offense punishable by death.  Without some more convincing evidence, it doesn't appear the act of shooting was reasonable by only the video evidence I have seen.

[TGO David]

On 7/23/2018 at 6:30 AM, CZ9MM said:

Instead of all the boasting and taunting as if he were playing Call of Duty, if he had simply said "I really, really hope we don't run into this guy today; I don't want to shoot anyone", he probably would not have been found guilty if there was ANY reason that he should fear for his life.

 

This sort of thing really needs to serve as a reminder to anyone who posts on the Internet, whether on a forum or on Facebook or other social media, or talks boastfully to friends, co-workers, etc. about how they would do a certain thing if put in the position to use a gun for self-defense.

The Internet has a long and fairly indelible memory.  Friends and co-workers tend to say things when interviewed by the police and/or media that they think would be beneficial to you but in reality aren't.  People also tend to incorrectly remember statements you made or the actual specifics of an event, and misreport those things to the officials and media as well.

Anyone who hasn't read Varg Freeborn's book Violence of Mind yet needs to.   You can get it here:  https://amzn.to/2LD991a

*Full disclosure, that link gives TGO a small kick-back if you buy from it.

 

Varg does an excellent job talking about those points and also makes the statement several times, as @DaveTN observed, that people generally get the level of justice that they can afford.

We ALL would do well to keep all of these points in mind before making braggadocious comments, especially in public settings.  Words do come back to haunt people.  Further, NONE of us should hope to ever have to take another human being's life.

 

[GlockSpock]

1 hour ago, TGO David said:

This sort of thing really needs to serve as a reminder to anyone who posts on the Internet, whether on a forum or on Facebook or other social media, or talks boastfully to friends, co-workers, etc. about how they would do a certain thing if put in the position to use a gun for self-defense.

The Internet has a long and fairly indelible memory.  Friends and co-workers tend to say things when interviewed by the police and/or media that they think would be beneficial to you but in reality aren't.  People also tend to incorrectly remember statements you made or the actual specifics of an event, and misreport those things to the officials and media as well.

Anyone who hasn't read Varg Freeborn's book Violence of Mind yet needs to.   You can get it here:  https://amzn.to/2LD991a

*Full disclosure, that link gives TGO a small kick-back if you buy from it.

 

Varg does an excellent job talking about those points and also makes the statement several times, as @DaveTN observed, that people generally get the level of justice that they can afford.

We ALL would do well to keep all of these points in mind before making braggadocious comments, especially in public settings.  Words do come back to haunt people.  Further, NONE of us should hope to ever have to take another human being's life.

 

Very true. Something I have thought about is to what extent does gun culture promote a "testing of one's skills", or as simply as you put it, taking another human being's life? I simply mean that with all the books, magazines, videos, classes, gear, accessories, etc, does it create within certain people an itch to "have" to use their firearm, or is it simply that some people already have the itch? In no form or fashion am I saying that everyone has it; Most people seem to genuinely not want to take anyone's life. However, there does seem to be a segment that makes statements such as "If I ever catch someone stealing from me, I'll shoot them!". What I'm talking about is things like that. 

I've wondered if all the training and prepping to "be ready" increases some sort of desire to "prove oneself capable", just as someone that practices a sport would desire to perform well in an actual game.

All I can say, in most cases of people that routinely make comments like that, they're only digging their defense a deeper hole and allowing the prosecutor to carry off the dirt to use in their newly forming fort.

P.S. Added that book to my Wish List. I'll buy it at some point when I have the need to read something new.

Edited July 25, 2018 by CZ9MM

[mikegideon]

1 hour ago, TGO David said:

The Internet has a long and fairly indelible memory. 

[monkeylizard]

On ‎7‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 10:05 AM, Omega said:

I don't know, with only the video and no other info, I can see the shooters side quite quickly.  Guy comes out of nowhere, drops him and then advances, only turns when he is drawn upon. 

<<bold emphasis mine>>

Aye, but that's the rub. The guy does turn and back away. The shooter hesitates between drawing and firing. In that time, the other guy is backing up, turns away, and has his hands down, THEN the shooter fires. That's less than a second from when the shooter draws, so it's happening fast, but the shooter's hesitation and the boyfriend's disengagement is still there. I know he's still close enough that the boyfriend could cover that distance quickly, but at the exact moment the trigger is squeezed, is there enough happening that a reasonable person would be in fear for his life (or serious harm)?

Even with that hesitation issue aside, I can see how a prosecutor might sway a jury to decide that being knocked to the ground (not tackled, not being pummeled, just knocked down) wouldn't make a reasonable person think they're about to die. Of course what's missing from the tape is the audio so we don't know if the boyfriend was advancing saying "I'll kill you!" or some such which makes a huge difference. I wonder how much that witness who comes out of the store behind the boyfriend was able to recount.

I'm just glad I'm not involved in this one, or any of them.

 

Edited July 25, 2018 by monkeylizard

[DaveTN]

1 hour ago, CZ9MM said:

Very true. Something I have thought about is to what extent does gun culture promote a "testing of one's skills", or as simply as you put it, taking another human being's life? I simply mean that with all the books, magazines, videos, classes, gear, accessories, etc, does it create within certain people an itch to "have" to use their firearm, or is it simply that some people already have the itch? In no form or fashion am I saying that everyone has it; Most people seem to genuinely not want to take anyone's life. However, there does seem to be a segment that makes statements such as "If I ever catch someone stealing from me, I'll shoot them!". What I'm talking about is things like that. 

I've wondered if all the training and prepping to "be ready" increases some sort of desire to "prove oneself capable", just as someone that practices a sport would desire to perform well in an actual game.

All I can say, in most cases of people that routinely make comments like that, they're only digging their defense a deeper hole and allowing the prosecutor to carry off the dirt to use in their newly forming fort.

P.S. Added that book to my Wish List. I'll buy it at some point when I have the need to read something new.

I’m sure there are all levels of desire among different folks. The range runs from those that want to shoot someone, to those that don’t, to those that aren’t sure if they could even if they needed to. There isn’t a test you can take. It’s one of the few things you can try to prepare for but you truly don’t know what your reaction will be in those couple of seconds.

Those same type feelings run through jurors. As when have seen here and on the news there are those that will think you have acted unlawfully if you shoot even when a weapon is being pulled on you to those that don’t care what you did if you shot a violent criminal.

The law isn’t black and white and that’s why we see such differences in court cases. No two cases are the same. In most cases jurors are going to apply the hypothetical “Reasonable Person” in making their decisions. They don’t apply what they think you were thinking; they see themselves as a reasonable person and generally apply what they would have done. Except that now they have had hours or even days to decide what you had a couple of seconds to decide.

I don’t ever want to test the jury system. If I’m at trial for a shooting the investigators, the DA, or both think I committed a crime. That’s why deals are made; you don’t know what a jury will do.

Years ago when that attorney in Nashville went to trial for murder I saw a news story that said violent felonies that went to trial in Davidson County had an 80% conviction rate. Those are not good odds.

[GlockSpock]

16 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

I’m sure there are all levels of desire among different folks. The range runs from those that want to shoot someone, to those that don’t, to those that aren’t sure if they could even if they needed to. There isn’t a test you can take. It’s one of the few things you can try to prepare for but you truly don’t know what your reaction will be in those couple of seconds.

Those same type feelings run through jurors. As when have seen here and on the news there are those that will think you have acted unlawfully if you shoot even when a weapon is being pulled on you to those that don’t care what you did if you shot a violent criminal.

The law isn’t black and white and that’s why we see such differences in court cases. No two cases are the same. In most cases jurors are going to apply the hypothetical “Reasonable Person” in making their decisions. They don’t apply what they think you were thinking; they see themselves as a reasonable person and generally apply what they would have done. Except that now they have had hours or even days to decide what you had a couple of seconds to decide.

I don’t ever want to test the jury system. If I’m at trial for a shooting the investigators, the DA, or both think I committed a crime. That’s why deals are made; you don’t know what a jury will do.

Years ago when that attorney in Nashville went to trial for murder I saw a news story that said violent felonies that went to trial in Davidson County had an 80% conviction rate. Those are not good odds.

True, but perhaps those odds are because they excercise extreme description in which crimes they file charges against (as in, homeowner shoots and kills someone that just kicked in their door, no brainer). 

[DaveTN]

14 minutes ago, CZ9MM said:

True, but perhaps those odds are because they excercise extreme description in which crimes they file charges against (as in, homeowner shoots and kills someone that just kicked in their door, no brainer). 

Could be. It also could be because most of those people are guilty and have no reason not to go to trial. Don’t think for a minute that there aren’t plenty of citizens that believe if the cops arrested you and the DA charged you; you committed a crime.

[chances R]

DAs generally do not file charges for cases unless they think they can get a conviction.  HIgh workload and limited resources make it so.  Additionally, even under the best of circumstances, an innocent person, according to Branca, has a 10 -20% chance of being convicted by a jury.

[chances R]

https://lawselfdefense.org/show-video

Andrew Branca break-down of parking lot shooting.......

[lock n' load]

The way I see it is that if the shooter would have just minded his own business then the situation would never had occurred. It wasn't his place or authority to confront people over things that didn't directly affect him. Sure, we as permit holders have seen people do blatant and stupid things while we are carrying but we don't confront them. I also think that if (A) the shooter was an officer in an argument with the driver, I think the victim would have thought twice about charging him and knocking him down. There are some idiots who disregard the law enough to do so, but it usually ends badly for them and (B) if the shooter wasn't armed then most likely he wouldn't have started the argument to begin with. I think that most people who carry a gun do so with respect for the law and life itself. They avoid conflict at all costs and would only use deadly force as a last resort. However, there are some out there who legally carry who become emboldened by that ability and may say or do things they normally wouldn't do unarmed. They somehow think they can "police" society over things that ill them. They feel justified in confrontation knowing that if they stoke a fire and it becomes too hot to handle, then they can shoot their way out and claim self defense. Those are the types of people who have no need to carry a gun. It also seems that the media can only find the few bad apples to show the public how "bloodthirsty HCP holders are". It's not often that the news will show a justified case of deadly force. That wouldn't fit their narrative. They would rather focus on the negative stories which causes division and discord between the masses (just read the comments section on the news articles about this story). Some may disagree with me but that's just how I feel about these recent shootings.  They give the good permit holders a bad name.

Edited July 27, 2018 by lock n' load

[docachna]

There are a number of reasons I got out of law enforcement after 9 years. ONE of them is precisely so I no longer have to deal with Shi'ite like this.

I really hope the old boy doesn't get charged, but you wouldn't see me stepping up on this one in a New Yawk minute.

[Guest PAULSHOOT]

Do some serious study on the Laws of Self Defense (Andrew Blanca's book is a start).

You need at least a basic knowledge of the 5 ELEMENTS required for you to have a legal case of Self Defense if you ever get prosecuted.  

Likely, you need that knowledge before you ever think about carrying a Deadly Force weapon (as to when you can brandish or use it -- Laws of Self Defense 5 elements shed some light on that).  

Personally, I think it should be a law to know a lot more than the present methods provide that allow us to Carry a weapon of Deadly Force.

It makes me nervous just thinking about the mentality of some folks that carry.  Take Carry Open as an example - I think one of the dumbest things a person can do (not just me saying that, nearly every instructor, law officer will say that). There are obvious reasons not to carry open. 

Edited October 12, 2018 by PAULSHOOT

[Omega]

2 hours ago, PAULSHOOT said:

Personally, I think it should be a law to know a lot more than the present methods provide that allow us to Carry a weapon of Deadly Force.

There in lies the problem.  If we, as gun enthusiasts keep thinking this way, we will soon need to take classes, pass certification courses, and hell, why not throw in mandatory liability insurance before we can even begin looking for a weapon.  I mean, it's only common sense right?  While I also feel people should take courses, I in no way feel it should be mandatory. 

[Chucktshoes]

4 hours ago, Omega said:

There in lies the problem.  If we, as gun enthusiasts keep thinking this way, we will soon need to take classes, pass certification courses, and hell, why not throw in mandatory liability insurance before we can even begin looking for a weapon.  I mean, it's only common sense right?  While I also feel people should take courses, I in no way feel it should be mandatory.