‘Stand your ground’ law protects shooter in deadly fight over parking space: sheriff

[yukonjack]

When did simple misdemeanor battery become a capital offense?

We also learned that stealing is wrong. Going to start hanging your neighbor for taking your newspaper (look it up, kids!).

Proportionality, people.

Really? Do you know the mindset of the victim that was shoved to the ground? Do you know what level of fear he was experiencing?
The intent of the dead guy isn't relevant. It's the mindset of the shooter that matters.

Maybe you should go work in the DA's office cause I don't think I'd hire you as my defense attorney.

What is the litmus test for determining proportionality? You can't determine that simply based on the video. There may be physical limitations that the shooter has that aren't evident. Those could very well change the level of fear that he experienced in this encounter.

 

[NikatKimber]

When did simple misdemeanor battery become a capital offense?

We also learned that stealing is wrong. Going to start hanging your neighbor for taking your newspaper (look it up, kids!).

Proportionality, people.

It's not. The point still stands that if you don't want to get shot, don't go around being violent with people. Some people may not fight back; instead they might just shoot you.

It's a valid point from both sides. And one we need to teach our kids.

Be Nice!

If only...

the woman had been nice and not taken a handicapped parking spot.

the shooter had been nice when approaching the woman, the victim might not have felt like his family was threatened.

the victim had been nice and asked the shooter to leave, and then just got in the car and driven away.

Either person being nice, considerate, respectful, whatever; would have resulted in the same thing: nobody dead.

What we don't know, is what the shooter actually said to the woman. It's entirely possible that it could have been assault, in which case all parties committed a crime.

 

[Dave70968]

Really? Do you know the mindset of the victim that was shoved to the ground? Do you know what level of fear he was experiencing?
The intent of the dead guy isn't relevant. It's the mindset of the shooter that matters.

Maybe you should go work in the DA's office cause I don't think I'd hire you as my defense attorney.

What is the litmus test for determining proportionality? You can't determine that simply based on the video. There may be physical limitations that the shooter has that aren't evident. Those could very well change the level of fear that he experienced in this encounter.

The standard is "the reasonable man," though--as you say--physical limitations may influence what the reasonable man with such limitations would think.

And I'd actually be a pretty good defense attorney. Thinking through these problems is how we identify them before we get surprised on the stand. I've been on both sides of that coin, and it's no fun being blindsided by something your client failed to mention (especially when it's something that could easily have been explained, but you don't dare touch because you never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer).

 

[deerwhacker444]

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
— From Robert Heinlein’s Beyond This Horizon

.

Just about everything that can be said about this shooting, Has been said in this thread.

Time to move on, nobody's minds are going to be changed.

 

[JD8]

One thing I found interesting is that we just had a member start a thread where he talked about fighting, flying off the handle, throwing haymakers etc etc.
In which he spoke of merely responding to people being bullied or whatever. But I don't remember the "hands on" policy that some have being touted in that thread?

A "haymaker" from that blindside would've done much more damage and probably would've saved his life because the 47yr old would likely have been unconscious. Seemingly, the guy really could've hurt the shooter if he wanted to. None of this justifies what the guy who got shot did, far from, some people resort to action over words and obviously the reaction to that can have a deadly response.

 

[yukonjack]

The standard is "the reasonable man," though--as you say--physical limitations may influence what the reasonable man with such limitations would think.

And I'd actually be a pretty good defense attorney. Thinking through these problems is how we identify them before we get surprised on the stand. I've been on both sides of that coin, and it's no fun being blindsided by something your client failed to mention (especially when it's something that could easily have been explained, but you don't dare touch because you never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer).

Just busting your chops. You know you have to see both sides of the coin.

 

[Dave70968]

Just busting your chops. You know you have to see both sides of the coin.

Oh, I know. And I'm pretty thick-skinned; I never shy away from a good argument. Hell, if somebody catches me unaware, it's a chance to learn something.

 

[sanjuro893]

It's not. The point still stands that if you don't want to get shot, don't go around being violent with people. Some people may not fight back; instead they might just shoot you.

It's a valid point from both sides. And one we need to teach our kids.

Be Nice!

If only...

the woman had been nice and not taken a handicapped parking spot.

the shooter had been nice when approaching the woman, the victim might not have felt like his family was threatened.

the victim had been nice and asked the shooter to leave, and then just got in the car and driven away.

Either person being nice, considerate, respectful, whatever; would have resulted in the same thing: nobody dead.

What we don't know, is what the shooter actually said to the woman. It's entirely possible that it could have been assault, in which case all parties committed a crime.

Exactly. All three of these people's egos contributed to that man's death.

 

[MacFromOK]

FWIW, shoving someone down can result in their death if their head hits a sidewalk, curb, pavement or such.

IIRC, Dr Atkins (of Atkins diet fame) slipped on ice and died as a result of his head hitting the sidewalk.

Shoving someone hard enough for them to fall down is a serious affair IMO. What would you guys do if your wife or mother were shoved to the ground during an altercation?

 

[EhlerDave]

Misdemeanor battery is still not a capital offense. If the battery didn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable man to fear for his life, the shooting isn't justified.

Not trying to argue at all, but I have a question. I am guessing the above quote is a case to case thing?

Myself I have physical problems, I dont look as fragile as I am. If I were put on my butt, (like the shooter was) the only way for me to get up looks a lot like a drunken bear. Not kidding at all. I could see drawing my weapon, yet not firing unless the attacker were to come at me again. Hitting the ground like that guy did, I would be back in my wheelchair for a week or more.

Is my train of thought right about the situation being variable with each situation?