News These FL stand your ground shootings (1 Viewer)

[guidomerkinsrules]

I’m not completely against the stand your ground laws. Trying to parse emotion in a heated exchange is hard and to expect someone to calculate the threat and respond “appropriately” is easier said than done.
That said...

IYO why aren't regular self-defense laws enough?

 

[LAhotsauce]

I agree with the decision to charge him with manslaughter, but it won’t be an easy case.

I know it’s semantics, but the shooter did not start a fight, he started an argument. The guy who got shot started a fight. The first crime that happened here was a battery committed on the shooter. The shooter was a jerk by history and looking for an excuse to start an argument, but starting an argument is not a crime.

The guy who shoved him to the ground is probably a jerk too. His gf shouldn’t park in handicapped zone and he had no business shoving the guy, rather violently, to the ground. But he didn’t deserve to get shot.

I'm sure the resident law folk can back me up on this, but the first crime wasn't the shove.

Ignoring the parking, verbally assaulting someone is a punishable crime. Add in the finger pointing, and all that turns into an "imminent threat" in which you can then resort to physical force. You don't have to wait until this parking lot wannabe cop smacks the lady to do something when he approaches that way.

Without knowing what the man was saying, I'm not going to call the shover a jerk for doing so.

 

[Infoman]

Just like in the vast majority of all cases... there is nothing wrong with the law... it's the relatively small minority of people who break / bend / don't follow them... that are the problem (Captain Obvious) . That small minority gets magnified by the "news outlets" because (naturally) these types of stories "get clicks" and create "buzz" (which is priority #1 for them)... and stories where the law was followed to the letter and no one got shot (or there is a completely justified kill)... just aren't interesting or provoke argument / emotional response.

I know tons of people that are responsible CC permit holders... we / they have been for years... they have never had to kill anyone.... nor do they go looking for confrontation. That is the norm... these stories are the exception that gets magnified.

Just wanted to point that out... thanks.

 

[FullMonte]

IYO why aren't regular self-defense laws enough?

They are. SYG, on the surface, simply removes the duty to retreat.

To make an example. Let's say that you have a knife and are rushing towards me in the kitchen. SYG simply says that I don't have to try and run out of the room before I defend myself.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

They are. SYG, on the surface, simply removes the duty to retreat.

To make an example. Let's say that you have a knife and are rushing towards me in the kitchen. SYG simply says that I don't have to try and run out of the room before I defend myself.

no that's just self-defense
SYG allows for that "i feared for my life" ambiguity which seems to be a problem and allows for all sorts of "he was bigger than me" "looks menacing (was black)" "had tattoos/long hair/leather jacket"

 

[st dude]

I'm sure the resident law folk can back me up on this, but the first crime wasn't the shove.

Ignoring the parking, verbally assaulting someone is a punishable crime. Add in the finger pointing, and all that turns into an "imminent threat" in which you can then resort to physical force. You don't have to wait until this parking lot wannabe cop smacks the lady to do something when he approaches that way.

Without knowing what the man was saying, I'm not going to call the shover a jerk for doing so.

If verbal assaults and finger pointing were crimes, imagine how full the jails would be. Just about every CNN and FOX panelist would go to jail.

I have never heard of anyone being charged, much less convicted, of verbal assault. I suppose, in theory, if you threaten someone with violence that might be a crime somewhere. In practice, we don't see it. There was nothing in that video to suggest the shooter was physically threatening the driver.

We don't get to physically assault people because they are jerks and are arguing with a friend of ours or family member. That was a battery and from what I saw its a real stretch to suggest the push was done in self defense of the girlfriend. He was mad the guy was fussing at his gf. He has been arrested before for aggravated assault.


I guess people see things differently, I saw no evidence of an imminent threat. I think the girl was a jerk for parking in a handicap zone. I think a guy who hangs around parking lots to fuss at people for parking in handicapped spots is a jerk who needs to get a life. I think what the boyfriend did in shoving the guy was the first real crime that happened, a rather violent shove that could have caused serious injury.

That's how a lot of shootings happen, force escalates. We don't get to shove someone who is arguing with our friend. We dont get to shoot someone who shoves us.

 

[You]

IYO why aren't regular self-defense laws enough?

Because stand your ground takes the burden away from me having to run away from a threat and allows that I can “stand my ground”. It gives me a choice. If I am in a situation where I am confronted while going from my car on the street to my house and the law says that I need to retreat, it gives criminals an advantage. Key word is “criminal”. We are seeing instances where non criminals are being shot in situations that are just confrontational and only one side is armed.
It’s isolated but it’s happening. That’s why I point out that conceal carry permits carry an extra burden to act responsibly.

I see fights all the time in the street where no gun is used but guys and girls are beating the crap out of each other. I’m happy to see that.

 

[LAhotsauce]

If verbal assaults and finger pointing were crimes, imagine how full the jails would be. Just about every CNN and FOX panelist would go to jail.

I have never heard of anyone being charged, much less convicted, of verbal assault. I suppose, in theory, if you threaten someone with violence that might be a crime somewhere. In practice, we don't see it. There was nothing in that video to suggest the shooter was physically threatening the driver.

We don't get to physically assault people because they are jerks and are arguing with a friend of ours or family member. That was a battery and from what I saw its a real stretch to suggest the push was done in self defense of the girlfriend. He was mad the guy was fussing at his gf. He has been arrested before for aggravated assault.


I guess people see things differently, I saw no evidence of an imminent threat. I think the girl was a jerk for parking in a handicap zone. I think a guy who hangs around parking lots to fuss at people for parking in handicapped spots is a jerk who needs to get a life. I think what the boyfriend did in shoving the guy was the first real crime that happened, a rather violent shove that could have caused serious injury.

Well I'm not seeing what isn't there, because I don't know what the guy said. I keep saying that. Obviously, we're not talking about calling someone a doody head and pointing your finger. I'm not even going to address someone talking in front of a camera on a news station. Why would you even...

And someone did stay in the car in case it needed to be moved. Assuming someone approaches saying I need that spot. But Mr. Shooter didn't need that spot. He motivations went beyond that.

When I looked up verbal assault as a crime, it involves creating an "imminent threat" which often leads to physical assaults. Seeing a man approach your woman pointing his finger can be argued by a good lawyer of having all necessary elements.


Verbal assault

 

[st dude]

Well I'm not seeing what isn't there, because I don't know what the guy said. I keep saying that. Obviously, we're not talking about calling someone a doody head and pointing your finger. I'm not even going to address someone talking in front of a camera on a news station. Why would you even...

And someone did stay in the car in case it needed to be moved. Assuming someone approaches saying I need that spot. But Mr. Shooter didn't need that spot. He motivations went beyond that.

When I looked up verbal assault as a crime, it involves creating an "imminent threat" which often leads to physical assaults. Seeing a man approach your woman pointing his finger can be argued by a good lawyer of having all necessary elements.


Verbal assault

I do not dispute that in some jurisdictions verbal assault can be a crime. Many people actually confuse assault with battery. Generally speaking, by definition, an assault is a threat not accompanied by physical harm. As a prosecutor, I reviewed and tried many aggravated assault cases. An aggravated assault is threatening someone with a weapon. An aggravated battery is actually using the weapon on them.

I spent a year in the DAs office screening cases, meaning all arrests I New Orleans would go by me and other screeners to decide which charges to take. In my last year there I was the chief homicide screener. So I saw just about every type of case involving an assault or battery.

Never, ever did a charge of simple assault cross my desk. For it to be a charge it would have to include an imminent threat of harm to someone. As I tried to explain, while verbal assault can technically be a crime, in practice people are rarely charged with it. You would have thousands of arrests from one Saturday night in the French Quarter.

So in the case at hand, is it possible the shooter threatened the gf with violence? Sure, its possible. It did not appear the shooter was physically threatening her. By the same token, I guess the shooter can argue the guy who pushed him continued to verbally assault him and he had to shoot him because he was being threatened. I don't see that either.

I am just reacting to what it looks like to me. The gf is a jerk for parking a handicapped zone. The shooter is a jerk for making a big deal of it. The boyfriend is a jerk for violating striking the shooter. The shooter used unreasonable and deadly force.

To be clear, I am not making any equivalency argument. Shooting is the big crime here. It appeared to me it was a series of poor judgments by all three that led to what happened.

 

[FullMonte]

no that's just self-defense
SYG allows for that "i feared for my life" ambiguity which seems to be a problem and allows for all sorts of "he was bigger than me" "looks menacing (was black)" "had tattoos/long hair/leather jacket"

Not quite...look at the phrase "stand your ground." It means just that...that you can stand your ground. Here is the actual text of the Florida law (or at least the first part that is relevant): "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:"

The "feared for my life" part is not relevant to "stand your ground." Many people conflate the two things, but that's not the case. For the most part "I feared for my life" is the standard for using force (up to and including deadly force) when defending yourself, regardless of the stand your ground element.

As far as the "feared for my life," aspect, Florida's law says "A person is justified in using or threatening to use 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 "

For comparison, here is what Iowa's law says about self-defense: "A person is justified in the use of reasonable force when the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend oneself or another from any actual or imminent use of unlawful force." So, Iowa doesn't have the Stand your Ground provision, but they still allow for force (up to and including deadly force) if the person believes their life to be in danger. The text is almost identical to that of Florida's law.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Not quite...look at the phrase "stand your ground." It means just that...that you can stand your ground. Here is the actual text of the Florida law (or at least the first part that is relevant): "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:"

The "feared for my life" part is not relevant to "stand your ground." Many people conflate the two things, but that's not the case. For the most part "I feared for my life" is the standard for using force (up to and including deadly force) when defending yourself, regardless of the stand your ground element.

As far as the "feared for my life," aspect, Florida's law says "A person is justified in using or threatening to use 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 "

For comparison, here is what Iowa's law says about self-defense: "A person is justified in the use of reasonable force when the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend oneself or another from any actual or imminent use of unlawful force." So, Iowa doesn't have the Stand your Ground provision, but they still allow for force (up to and including deadly force) if the person believes their life to be in danger. The text is almost identical to that of Florida's law.

"defend" seems to be the clear difference

 

[FullMonte]

"defend" seems to be the clear difference

I would think that is severely nitpicking:

Florida; "to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another "
Iowa: "to defend oneself or another from any actual or imminent use of unlawful force"

I would say that preventing imminent death or great bodily harm would be the same as defending someone.

 

[LAhotsauce]

I do not dispute that in some jurisdictions verbal assault can be a crime. Many people actually confuse assault with battery. Generally speaking, by definition, an assault is a threat not accompanied by physical harm. As a prosecutor, I reviewed and tried many aggravated assault cases. An aggravated assault is threatening someone with a weapon. An aggravated battery is actually using the weapon on them.

So in the case at hand, is it possible the shooter threatened the gf with violence? Sure, its possible. It did not appear the shooter was physically threatening her. By the same token, I guess the shooter can argue the guy who pushed him continued to verbally assault him and he had to shoot him because he was being threatened. I don't see that either.

All the other stuff out of the way, the bolded is where we diverge I guess. I see someone approach a vehicle pointing their finger with their mouth moving. Do you have to see a clinched fist?

Add to the we also know this same guy was accused of physically threatening another patron at this same place just a few months before.

He is accused of killing someone in a parking spot dispute. Authorities say he was standing his ground.

A few months ago, according to the Tampa Bay Times, Rick Kelly parked his tanker truck in the same handicapped spot and said he was confronted by Drejka.

Drejka walked around his truck, looking for handicap decals, then demanded to know why Kelly had parked there, the trucker told the Tampa Bay Times. At one point Drejka threatened to shoot Kelly.

Plus he was apparently pulled a handgun in a road rage incident a few years ago. So knowing all that, there is no telling what was coming out of that guy's mouth. He has a history of threatening people and going too far.

 

[Semper]

The guy clearly does not belong owning a firearm. I teach a lot of CCW classes here in Illinois and I've had people leave. I just give them their money back and tell them I'm not giving them a permit. There are certain types of people that I don't want my name or my companies name attached to.