2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: rklapp on July 23, 2018, 07:21:32 AM
-
https://abcnews.go.com/US/gunman-parking-space-shooting-charged-stand-ground-law/story?id=56715356
-
The lesson I’m seeing: Don’t escalate a verbal disagreement into a shoving match in a state that treats their citizens like adults.
-
Will be interesting to see how this one plays out. I also wonder if the guy being disabled (which I assumed) will play a factor.
Total Monday morning QB here, but I wouldn't necessarily view the shove in itself as justification for use of deadly force. That said, wasn't the guy who was already assaulted and on the ground and vulnerable.
-
The shoving guy had a long rap sheet including domestic violence and drug offenses.
Shooter guy doesn't get much sympathy from me either.
-
Here's another one this morning. Icelanders already pay 46% income tax so they're used to taking it up the ass by their government.
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/iceland-is-for-gun-lovers-but-nobody-gets-shot-1283273283910
-
How could he exercise his "duty to retreat" if he is on the ground? And after he puts his gun down, it looks like he is trying to move his legs with his hands. Like they're not working 100%.
-
Looks like a case of when idiots collide. I'm assuming they got into an argument over the stall. Not guilty criminally, but he will lose the lawsuit
One person dead, the other loses everything he owns. All over a parking stall.
-
How could he exercise his "duty to retreat" if he is on the ground? And after he puts his gun down, it looks like he is trying to move his legs with his hands. Like they're not working 100%.
To be clear, I'm 1000% for the right to defend oneself, with a firearm if necessary. However, there are still rules, laws, principles, whatever on use of deadly force.
I didn't say anything about the guy on the ground was supposed to retreat. My opinion was that what happened wasn't enough in my mind that use of deadly force was obvious. Would other reasonable folks say it was warranted? At least one did and that was the sheriff who apparently didn't pursue charges.
We don't know if the guy who shot was threatening the lady in the car and the guy who shoved him was stopping that threat. Once the guy shoved him, I didn't see any aggressive motions toward the guy on the ground. Did the guy on the ground believe the guy who shoved him was a threat? I would believe definitely. That said, after the guy shoved the guy that fell, the guy who shoved looks like he backed off some.
My initial impression was that the guy who shot was sort of an "angry disabled" type who wanted to tell off the lady who probably was inconsiderately parked in the disabled parking stall and the shooter wanted to tell her off. If that's the case, he started the confrontation. Then the guy who shoved certainly escalated. Was that justified? I don't think so, but I also don't think that in and of itself was justification for the guy on the ground to shoot him in defense. Just my opinion.
On a side note, now that my dad really needs use of the disabled parking stalls and particularly family who help transport him, I get the anger for those who misuse those stalls. However, I'm not going to opening confront anyone.
-
Looks like a case of when idiots collide. I'm assuming they got into an argument over the stall. Not guilty criminally, but he will lose the lawsuit
One person dead, the other loses everything he owns. All over a parking stall.
Pretty much.
That the guy who shoved has a long rap sheet is perhaps an indicator of what kind of person he was. But I could see many a jackass acting like that regardless of their past.
-
To be clear, I'm 1000% for the right to defend oneself, with a firearm if necessary. However, there are still rules, laws, principles, whatever on use of deadly force.
I didn't say anything about the guy on the ground was supposed to retreat. My opinion was that what happened wasn't enough in my mind that use of deadly force was obvious. Would other reasonable folks say it was warranted? At least one did and that was the sheriff who apparently didn't pursue charges.
We don't know if the guy who shot was threatening the lady in the car and the guy who shoved him was stopping that threat. Once the guy shoved him, I didn't see any aggressive motions toward the guy on the ground. Did the guy on the ground believe the guy who shoved him was a threat? I would believe definitely. That said, after the guy shoved the guy that fell, the guy who shoved looks like he backed off some.
My initial impression was that the guy who shot was sort of an "angry disabled" type who wanted to tell off the lady who probably was inconsiderately parked in the disabled parking stall and the shooter wanted to tell her off. If that's the case, he started the confrontation. Then the guy who shoved certainly escalated. Was that justified? I don't think so, but I also don't think that in and of itself was justification for the guy on the ground to shoot him in defense. Just my opinion.
On a side note, now that my dad really needs use of the disabled parking stalls and particularly family who help transport him, I get the anger for those who misuse those stalls. However, I'm not going to opening confront anyone.
I was referring to our laws that we all have a "duty to retreat", unless inside our home/business.
If it were me, I'm a pretty healthy 30 year old. So to justify being planted on my ass and using deadly force will be very difficult. But the aggressor could have jumped on top him MMA style in less than a second. I would have gone full taco style to defend first.
Situation seems like the Zimmerman case. Looking for trouble.
-
The people who parked in the handicap stall are assholes who get no sympathy from me. Look at all the open stalls that were in front of the store but she said she had the right to park whereever she wanted. NO YOU DON'T STUPID. As for the guy that got shot, he only shoved the other guy because he felt he could easily beat his ass. I doubt he would have shoved someone like a Brock Lesnar.
-
I was referring to our laws that we all have a "duty to retreat", unless inside our home/business.
If it were me, I'm a pretty healthy 30 year old. So to justify being planted on my ass and using deadly force will be very difficult. But the aggressor could have jumped on top him MMA style in less than a second. I would have gone full taco style to defend first.
Situation seems like the Zimmerman case.
Looking for trouble.
Gotcha. Other than basic right to defend oneself, I thought the article's mentioning of stand your ground, as related to not having to retreat from one's home or vehicle, was misleading. I felt that that would lead to questioning against stand your ground laws.
And I agree with you on the perspective of use of deadly force. And yes, the guy could have jumped on him quickly. Again, hindsight 20/20, but I didn't see aggression there after the shove. But ultimately, I wasn't the one on the ground and nor will I have to answer to questions about why I felt deadly force was necessary. That's why I was wondering if the guy on the ground being disabled will be factored into the case.
-
I doubt he would have shoved someone like a Brock Lesnar.
Reading SSH, many are saying that if the guy didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have provoked anyone. We don't know that. But if the shover guy was smaller, would he have not done any shoving? As in if Brock Lesnar was the guy scolding him for parking in a handicap stall. I look at that as a factor as well. "I'm bigger and stronger so I can shove someone who appears weaker, no way I would have shoved someone bigger than me."
-
The shover is a big dude and the shove was violent, not a push.
Planted the guy on his ass and kept advancing.
However, when the gun was pulled, shover appears to start back pedaling.
Force equalizer.
Then the guy shot him.
Guy who got shoved definitely initiated verbal confrontation with shovers girlfriend.
Did she deserve it. Yes.
Can't park anywhere you like. Especially in handicapped stall.
Did she escalate it. Possibly. Doesn't look/sound like he politely asked her to move her car and she obliged.
He possibly was a dick too as there are reports he was kinda the handi-cap stall police.
Reports he confronted other handi-cap stall violators prior to this.
Pure verbal though until shover shows up.
Justified deadly force ?
.???
What would have happened to the guy from the shover if he didn't have a gun?
.???
Who knows.
Lesson in saying " I feared for my life"
JMO
-
I think even if he didn't fire, SJW would be blasting him for even pulling his gun. "Why draw your gun, you were just pushed".
-
The shover is a big dude and the shove was violent, not a push.
Planted the guy on his ass and kept advancing.
However, when the gun was pulled, shover appears to start back pedaling.
Force equalizer.
Then the guy shot him.
Guy who got shoved definitely initiated verbal confrontation with shovers girlfriend.
Did she deserve it. Yes.
Can't park anywhere you like. Especially in handicapped stall.
Did she escalate it. Possibly. Doesn't look/sound like he politely asked her to move her car and she obliged.
He possibly was a dick too as there are reports he was kinda the handi-cap stall police.
Reports he confronted other handi-cap stall violators prior to this.
Pure verbal though until shover shows up.
Justified deadly force ?
.???
What would have happened to the guy from the shover if he didn't have a gun?
.???
Who knows.
Lesson in saying " I feared for my life"
JMO
I don't doubt the guy on the ground feared for his life. What would have happened if the guy on the ground didn't have a gun? No idea. I would have hoped bystanders would have helped the guy from getting pummeled, but in this day and age, I bet most would have pulled out their cell phone to get a video. . . :( >:(
My thinking was that he put himself into that position as the "handicapped stall police". Yes, I supposed the lady who parked "started it". I was just saying that I don't feel that this one was so clear cut as obvious justified self-defense. Will the guy on the ground get charged and if yes, if he will get indicted and/or convicted? I believe there's a good chance for either. My point, or feeling is that this isn't a good example of the "stand your ground" law nor necessarily for CCW. Definitely we all can learn from though.
For the CCW part, it is my feeling (no real basis really) that CCW could tend to embolden SOME people to act more aggressively, as in start a confrontation and end up needing to use their firearm in "self defense" when they are the one who put themselves in that situation in the first place. Which is what my first impression of this video was.
-
I don't doubt the guy on the ground feared for his life. What would have happened if the guy on the ground didn't have a gun? No idea. I would have hoped bystanders would have helped the guy from getting pummeled, but in this day and age, I bet most would have pulled out their cell phone to get a video. . . :( >:(
My thinking was that he put himself into that position as the "handicapped stall police". Yes, I supposed the lady who parked "started it". I was just saying that I don't feel that this one was so clear cut as obvious justified self-defense. Will the guy on the ground get charged and if yes, if he will get indicted and/or convicted? I believe there's a good chance for either. My point, or feeling is that this isn't a good example of the "stand your ground" law nor necessarily for CCW. Definitely we all can learn from though.
For the CCW part, it is my feeling (no real basis really) that CCW could tend to embolden SOME people to act more aggressively, as in start a confrontation and end up needing to use their firearm in "self defense" when they are the one who put themselves in that situation in the first place. Which is what my first impression of this video was.
There is a new story from some one else that got confronted by the same guy for parking on the same handicap space, he said the guy threatened to shoot him for it.
I really do think this is a case of a guy with a gun providing a situation to use it.
-
The shooter is 47 years old, so not considered "old" by most adults. He apparently liked to be the stall police. Bottom line is all those involved were/are assholes.
-
The shoving guy had a long rap sheet including domestic violence and drug offenses.
Shooter guy doesn't get much sympathy from me either.
Of course the shooter cannot use that in his defense unless he somehow already knew of the individual's criminal history.
I think it will be hard to justify the shooting from what the video shows. Now if a witness at a different angle saw something the video doesn't show and/or if something was heard by a witness it could possibly make it into a justified self defense case. His defense will be an uphill battle though I think.
-
Of course the shooter cannot use that in his defense unless he somehow already knew of the individual's criminal history.
Prior bad acts are not admissible in court unless used to refute something the other party testified to, such as, "I've never hurt anyone before my life." So he would NOT be able to use that in his defense whether or not he had prior knowledge of the man's criminal past. There is no "unless he somehow already knew ...".
You should take a law class or something.
-
Prior bad acts are not admissible in court unless used to refute something the other party testified to, such as, "I've never hurt anyone before my life." So he would NOT be able to use that in his defense whether or not he had prior knowledge of the man's criminal past. There is no "unless he somehow already knew ...".
You should take a law class or something.
Incorrect. There are ways in which an individuals criminal history can be used against them in a trial. However the dead guy is not on trial so what you bring up is irrelevant.
This involves the question of whether the shooter knew the decedent's criminal history. If one had prior knowledge of an individuals acts of violence they could use it to their defense. If say the shooter had seen the dead guy threaten people with a knife before the shooter could articulate he knew the guy to carry a knife and threaten people with it.
Maybe you should take the law class.
-
Incorrect. There are ways in which an individuals criminal history can be used against them in a trial. However the dead guy is not on trial so what you bring up is irrelevant.
This involves the question of whether the shooter knew the decedent's criminal history. If one had prior knowledge of an individuals acts of violence they could use it to their defense. If say the shooter had seen the dead guy threaten people with a knife before the shooter could articulate he knew the guy to carry a knife and threaten people with it.
Maybe you should take the law class.
Nope. When used in cases of self defense, the only 2 ways you can get the prior bad acts admitted are:
(1) to show that the defendant acted reasonably in using deadly force against the victim, or
(2) Evidence of the prior "bad acts" or prior criminal conduct may be admissible where there is a dispute as to whom initiated the aggression.
There's video that clearly shows who the aggressor was, and unless the two have had prior contact/fights, #1 above won't apply, because evidence of a prior "bad act" may not be used to show a person has a habit of committing crimes. Just "having knowledge" of bad acts isn't enough.
Knowing someone carried a knife other times won't be relevant if he wasn't threatening to use the knife on you when you fired.
-
Nope. When used in cases of self defense, the only 2 ways you can get the prior bad acts admitted are:
(1) to show that the defendant acted reasonably in using deadly force against the victim, or
(2) Evidence of the prior "bad acts" or prior criminal conduct may be admissible where there is a dispute as to whom initiated the aggression.
There's video that clearly shows who the aggressor was, and unless the two have had prior contact/fights, #1 above won't apply, because evidence of a prior "bad act" may not be used to show a person has a habit of committing crimes. Just "having knowledge" of bad acts isn't enough.
Knowing someone carried a knife other times won't be relevant if he wasn't threatening to use the knife on you when you fired.
Well it depends on the circumstances of how the person knows of the other's history. First hand knowledge would be treated different than say "word on the street is".
My point was that most likely the shooter will not be able to use the decedent's history for his own defense. I threw in the caveat to allow for the chance that there was knowledge of prior history that could end up being admissible.
-
The people who parked in the handicap stall are assholes who get no sympathy from me. Look at all the open stalls that were in front of the store but she said she had the right to park whereever she wanted. NO YOU DON'T STUPID. As for the guy that got shot, he only shoved the other guy because he felt he could easily beat his ass. I doubt he would have shoved someone like a Brock Lesnar.
+1 😉
-
Reading SSH, many are saying that if the guy didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have provoked anyone. We don't know that. But if the shover guy was smaller, would he have not done any shoving? As in if Brock Lesnar was the guy scolding him for parking in a handicap stall. I look at that as a factor as well. "I'm bigger and stronger so I can shove someone who appears weaker, no way I would have shoved someone bigger than me."
That's similar to saying that Japan wouldn't have attacked Hawaii if the US hadn't occupied the island (which I doubt).
My understanding is that the fact the aggressor didn't brandish a weapon (knife or whatever) still makes the shooting legal under Florida law. Would other States require there to be a weapon produced before deadly force was justified?
What ever happened to the guy who shot the Ewa Beach soldier through the front door?
-
That's similar to saying that Japan wouldn't have attacked Hawaii if the US hadn't occupied the island (which I doubt).
My understanding is that the fact the aggressor didn't brandish a weapon (knife or whatever) still makes the shooting legal under Florida law. Would other States require there to be a weapon produced before deadly force was justified?
What ever happened to the guy who shot the Ewa Beach soldier through the front door?
I don't think the stand your ground law automatically justifies whatever level of force you use, rather it simply removes the requirement to attempt a reasonable retreat.
The shooter is still going to have to justify why he felt he needed to use deadly force. He just doesn't have to justify why he didn't back away
-
He doesn’t have to justify anything if he doesn’t get charged, which from what I have read, appears to be the case at this point in time.
-
He doesn’t have to justify anything if he doesn’t get charged, which from what I have read, appears to be the case at this point in time.
That's true now. However, that was not the case until recently.
A year ago, Florida passed an amendment to their SYG law to shift the pre-trial burden of proof from the defendant to the prosecution. This was ruled unconstitutional by the Florida state court last year. The FL court of appeals this year reversed that ruling.
When the defense is successfully raised in pre-trial hearings, defendants are granted immunity from prosecution. But, the Florida Supreme Court had said before that defendants had the burden of proof in pre-trial hearings to show they should be shielded from prosecution.
Now, the amended law says the Prosecution has the burden of disproving the defendants claim of self defense.
The NRA was reportedly backing this amendment.
-
He doesn’t have to justify anything if he doesn’t get charged, which from what I have read, appears to be the case at this point in time.
I think it depends on the circumstances. Prosecutor's probably won't pursue a case where it is hard to show the use of force was not justified. Some cases they get are likely clear justified uses of force, but then you get ones like this one which could be much easier to attack whether the defendant had reasonable fear to justify the force.
-
I think it depends on the circumstances. Prosecutor's probably won't pursue a case where it is hard to show the use of force was not justified. Some cases they get are likely clear justified uses of force, but then you get ones like this one which could be much easier to attack whether the defendant had reasonable fear to justify the force.
Thats what RSN said and what the police said no charges
-
That's similar to saying that Japan wouldn't have attacked Hawaii if the US hadn't occupied the island (which I doubt).
My understanding is that the fact the aggressor didn't brandish a weapon (knife or whatever) still makes the shooting legal under Florida law. Would other States require there to be a weapon produced before deadly force was justified?
What ever happened to the guy who shot the Ewa Beach soldier through the front door?
Are there any self defense laws or use of deadly force laws that state a weapon is necessary to justify use of deadly force?
I'm serious. If there is one, I'd really like to know. I don't believe so and I sincerely hope not.
-
Are there any self defense laws or use of deadly force laws that state a weapon is necessary to justify use of deadly force?
I'm serious. If there is one, I'd really like to know. I don't believe so and I sincerely hope not.
Hawaii
§703-304 Use of force in self-protection. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-308, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.
Only mention of weapon here is in
COMMENTARY ON §703-304, Subsection (1)
"The actor may make his defensive move without waiting for his assailant to load his gun or to summon reinforcements."
-
Hawaii
§703-304 Use of force in self-protection. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-308, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.
Only mention of weapon here is in
COMMENTARY ON §703-304, Subsection (1)
"The actor may make his defensive move without waiting for his assailant to load his gun or to summon reinforcements."
“Summon reinforcements”?
Sounds like a WWW deal. :D
-
Remember that "use of force" is different from "deadly force".
And our deadly force law has the word "believes" in it.
-
Remember that "use of force" is different from "deadly force".
And our deadly force law has the word "believes" in it.
Use of Deadly Force is included in this statute.
You'll have to actually read it. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Use of Deadly Force is included in this statute.
You'll have to actually read it. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Included, but has different requirements before being used.
So can't protect property with deadly force, but can use force.
-
So it's harsh language considered a use of force? Can i fear for my life (and subsequent deadly force) based on a stern look, threats, and/or being shoved? I guess that depends on what State you live in.
-
i'd hesitate to just call it a shove. That was basically a sucker punch, as far as shoving goes. The shooting in self defense was justified in my opinion, although the shooter potentially has consequences he must now deal with.
I'm not sure what other options he would have had other than draw and shoot if he wanted to protect himself and not become a victim.... Brandishing a pistol without using it is a bad idea. If he got up, he possibly would have gotten jumped and beaten. The other individual's reaction to the argument over the handicap stall was already WAY out of line. And the fact that he just attacked you and put you on your back, 20 years younger, bigger, and aggressive justifies deadly force if that's all you have available to protect yourself with. On the other hand, if it was a 90 year old grandma with dementia that tried to push him and she ended up on her ass, no he wouldn't have the right to pull his gun and plug her.
So it's harsh language considered a use of force? Can i fear for my life (and subsequent deadly force) based on a stern look, threats, and/or being shoved? I guess that depends on what State you live in.
shooting someone in self defense is always a last resort, as it takes the consequences for that action out of your hands. whether or not its justifiable is subjective and is up to the interpretation of the law by the court, jury, cops, prosecutor, etc.
My guess is that if it was merely words, shooter be sitting in a prison cell. If the shove was a weak-ass one handed patty cake push (instead of hard enough so he went flying to the ground), shooter be sitting in a prison cell.
-
So it's harsh language considered a use of force? Can i fear for my life (and subsequent deadly force) based on a stern look, threats, and/or being shoved? I guess that depends on what State you live in.
Our law states "believe", but don't get trigger happy. It's hard to prove that you believed you were in fear of your life or serious injury if a girl who is 5'0 100lbs was giving you stink eye.
Now someone kicks your door in and yells "i'm buck, and I'm here to f*ck" to your wife/daughter who is home alone may be a different story. It's what you tell the police after you lawyer up.
So Buck probably had a stern look on his face when making that statement, it is a threat (here to f*ck/rape), but didn't make physical contact yet, but did physically kick the door in.
So in the end, there are lots of "what if's". But it comes down to even if the law is on your side, it will cost you financially and time to prove your innocents. So don't be trigger happy and go out looking for trouble. Back/walk away, use de-escalation, lose the ego, etc...
-
Included, but has different requirements before being used.
So can't protect property with deadly force, but can use force.
There are instances where deadly force is justified in defense of property.
-
Thats what RSN said and what the police said no charges
I know the shooter isn't out of the woods yet. If there is enough outcry I think the prosecutors could file charges later. And even if that doesn't happen he will likely get sued and that will be even harder to defend against. I suspect that if he had any money it will soon be gone.
-
I know the shooter isn't out of the woods yet. If there is enough outcry I think the prosecutors could file charges later. And even if that doesn't happen he will likely get sued and that will be even harder to defend against. I suspect that if he had any money it will soon be gone.
If the DA refuses to prosecute due to his burden of disproving self defense under the stand your ground laws, the defendant would then have immunity under that law.
“Immunity” refers to a complete protection from being sued in the first place. In the context of a criminal assault case, this typically means the police can investigate the assault, but cannot arrest the defendant unless there is probable cause the use of force was not permitted under the stand-your-ground law.
In a civil assault case, if a judge finds that the defendant is immune under the state’s stand-your-ground law, the plaintiff will be forced to pay the defendant all of the expenses the defendant incurred defending the law suit (e.g. attorney fees, court costs, lost income).
As long as he doesn't have to prove an affirmative defense -- that self defense was justified -- he has immunity.
If the DA decides to take him to court, he loses immunity if SYG isn't affirmed in a pre-trial hearing. Immunity is the key to whether or not he can be sued by the dead guy's estate.
-
That is why it is important to get insurance such as those offered by USCCA and others like that.
-
Good step by step analysis which brings up points bot covered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TBXz2_o0KM
Sent from my LG-H830 using Tapatalk
-
Agree with most of the analysis and pretty much as discussed here. The part about high bar regarding criminal and civil was interesting and will have to see how it plays out.
-
Agree with most of the analysis and pretty much as discussed here. The part about high bar regarding criminal and civil was interesting and will have to see how it plays out.
For the high bar, the sheriff probably thought he couldnt get a unanamous verdict with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
He has a better chance of defending against a civil suit in Florida since they require unanimouse jury verdicts.
-
For the high bar, the sheriff probably thought he couldnt get a unanamous verdict with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
He has a better chance of defending against a civil suit in Florida since they require unanimouse jury verdicts.
I don't think the Sheriff declined to arrest the shooter because of lack of evidence disproving SYG. He decided it was more likely a case of self defense than not, and he referred the case to the DA for review. The DA could have decided to proceed to a pre-trial hearing on SYG, in which case, the shooter could have still been turned loose without charges if the DA failed to meet that burden.
"This will go to the state attorney. Drejka will not be charged [and] will not be arrested by us," Sheriff Gualtieri said.
"The state attorney will review it and either he’ll concur or not. And, if he concurs, then there’ll be no charge. Period.
If he doesn’t concur, then he’ll make a determination as to what to do with it. And, if he feels like he can overcome
that heavy burden at a Stand Your Ground hearing of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Drejka was not
entitled to use force in this circumstance, then that’s the state attorney’s determination to make."
My point being, it wasn't the Sheriff deciding if the case would be dropped. "Burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt" wasn't a factor, since he's not the one who must decide to prosecute. If the shooter makes a claim of immunity under "Stand Your Ground", that's what the hearing will examine and rule on.
Had initial testimony and evidence ruled out self defense, using SYG or not, I'm sure the shooter would have been cuffed and stuffed on the spot.
-
For the high bar, the sheriff probably thought he couldnt get a unanamous verdict with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
He has a better chance of defending against a civil suit in Florida since they require unanimouse jury verdicts.
I don't think that's what the guy in the video meant. In fact, I got the feeling he was commenting on the high standard in FL for both criminal and civil cases, so some questions there fore sure, but that he felt that this case was nowhere near over. Personally, I feel that no matter what happens in the criminal side, this guy loses in the civil side. By that I mean overall "payment" for his actions for choosing to be the handicap parking police and putting himself into that situation. He's going to be paying lawyers for a while. Even if he is found noy civilly liable, he is going to pay a steep price. At least IMO.
-
I don't think that's what the guy in the video meant. In fact, I got the feeling he was commenting on the high standard in FL for both criminal and civil cases, so some questions there fore sure, but that he felt that this case was nowhere near over. Personally, I feel that no matter what happens in the criminal side, this guy loses in the civil side. By that I mean overall "payment" for his actions for choosing to be the handicap parking police and putting himself into that situation. He's going to be paying lawyers for a while. Even if he is found noy civilly liable, he is going to pay a steep price. At least IMO.
Unless he has no assets
-
Unless he has no assets
They can garnish future wages, in many states his drivers license can get suspended, etc. Anyways, the point was that even though it might turn out that criminal charges may not be pursued, that that's not all that one needs to consider when using deadly force.
-
They can garnish future wages, in many states his drivers license can get suspended, etc. Anyways, the point was that even though it might turn out that criminal charges may not be pursued, that that's not all that one needs to consider when using deadly force.
When I took my CCW class in Vegas, the instructor said the cheapest he has ever scene just for defense cost is $50K. So in other words, the person using deadly force for self defense was found not guilty, but cost him $50K in attorney fees.
-
Buy insurance. $22 a month can get you $600 kof coverage. $2 mil is under $50. I buy the cheapest one since we cannot legally carry in Hawaii and on the mainland my chances of having to shoot someone is as close to zero as you can get. Even if I had to, it would easily be justified.
-
In Hawaii, you don't have the right to protect yourself.
You are supposed to call the cops and die waiting for them
to show up.
I practice the 3 S method of self defense.
I encourage all Democrats to only use 911.
Aloha!
-
I don't think that's what the guy in the video meant. In fact, I got the feeling he was commenting on the high standard in FL for both criminal and civil cases, so some questions there fore sure, but that he felt that this case was nowhere near over. Personally, I feel that no matter what happens in the criminal side, this guy loses in the civil side. By that I mean overall "payment" for his actions for choosing to be the handicap parking police and putting himself into that situation. He's going to be paying lawyers for a while. Even if he is found noy civilly liable, he is going to pay a steep price. At least IMO.
Agreed.
I am surprised he has not been charged given the video evidence. Of course I don't have the full police report to refer to but to me it doesn't look like a case of self defense. Looks like a case of "how dare you push me, now I shoot you"
-
Agreed.
I am surprised he has not been charged given the video evidence. Of course I don't have the full police report to refer to but to me it doesn't look like a case of self defense. Looks like a case of "how dare you push me, now I shoot you"
I guess everyone has their own opinion. IMO that push was equivalent to a sucker punch, and way out of line with the events leading up to it. I dont even see people getting shoved hard enough to go flying to the ground like that leading up to actual fist fights! Would he have pulled a firearm and shot if it was a little kid doing the pushing, and he was barely affected by it? If you answer "no" to that question, then you're acknowledging that extraordinary circumstances likely did lead him to feel threatened and use his firearm.
And being on the ground, on your back, with someone much younger and stronger than you standing over you is the same thing as being backed up in an alley with nowhere to go. Everyone is shitting on the guy because of what did happen, but what we don't know is what would have happened if he attempted to get up. Would he have taken a beatdown badly enough to put him in the hospital? Might he end up shot with his own gun once thuglife discovered he was carrying? Why does the UFC make such a big deal about being on the ground on one's back with an opponent on top of you? It's a DANGEROUS situation. Your "fight" options are seriously impaired, and you take away the "flight" option.
As someone who carries, he made his choice, and now must face the potential consequences and the costs of defending himself in court. Like threatening a lawsuit, pulling a weapon and shooting in self defense is the "nuclear option". I really can't say whether or not I would have made the same decision if I was in his shoes, but I do think it was justified in his case.
-
You can't know what's in someone's mind.
You don't know of the assailant was taking a step back to run up on him and continue attacking, or if he was going to walk away.
You don't know if the guy on the ground was terrified and in fear for his life, or if he was mad as hell and wasn't going to let that guy get away with blind-siding him like he did.
All we know is what actions resulted from their thought processes. In this case, it's impossible to second guess the shooter's reactions.
The standard for a self defense claim is that you believed your life was in jeopardy, or you felt you were going to be raped, severely injured or sodomized (by HI law).
It's why we are coached to repeat the phrase, "I did not intend to kill him, but I was in fear for my life."
The short 1-2 second lag between the hit and firing is easily chalked up to disorientation after such a fall. Ever trip and land on the base of your spine? It hurts like holy hell. It takes a few seconds to register pain and process what happened. All too easy to analyze the outcome without experiencing the physical results of the attack.
-
You can't know what's in someone's mind.
You don't know of the assailant was taking a step back to run up on him and continue attacking, or if he was going to walk away.
You don't know if the guy on the ground was terrified and in fear for his life, or if he was mad as hell and wasn't going to let that guy get away with blind-siding him like he did.
All we know is what actions resulted from their thought processes. In this case, it's impossible to second guess the shooter's reactions.
The standard for a self defense claim is that you believed your life was in jeopardy, or you felt you were going to be raped, severely injured or sodomized (by HI law).
It's why we are coached to repeat the phrase, "I did not intend to kill him, but I was in fear for my life."
The short 1-2 second lag between the hit and firing is easily chalked up to disorientation after such a fall. Ever trip and land on the base of your spine? It hurts like holy hell. It takes a few seconds to register pain and process what happened. All too easy to analyze the outcome without experiencing the physical results of the attack.
I don't disagree with any of that. My point was that I felt that the shooter put himself in that situation, which unfortunately is something that I see more folks doing if both open and concealed carry becomes more prevalent. I'm certainly not saying that I'm hoping that the guy gets convicted, nor that the shoot was bad. For me, just MO, was that this wasn't a clear cut case of a justified shoot. That this was a case of a guy looking for a confrontation and then playing victim. Yup, from the safety of sitting behind a computer and watching things do down in comfort.
My logic kind of goes back to the theory of if someone shouldn't have been in the situation in the first place, they need to be held accountable if they put themself in that situation. I'm not saying that the assault (the shove) was justified and it was a clear escalation. However, like the situation where a guy breaks into a home and gets messed up by the family dog and when sues the homeowner and wins. The guy shouldn't have been in the house in the first place, but yet, the court system rewarded that kind of behavior. Not quite apples and apples, but if the shooter hadn't confronted the woman parked in the disabled stall, this would never have happened. Yeah, just speculation and just my opinion.
-
From the recent comments I think everyone can agree that education, training, and scenario practice is essential. A basic pistol course or even most CCW classes arent enough.
-
I don't disagree with any of that. My point was that I felt that the shooter put himself in that situation, which unfortunately is something that I see more folks doing if both open and concealed carry becomes more prevalent. I'm certainly not saying that I'm hoping that the guy gets convicted, nor that the shoot was bad. For me, just MO, was that this wasn't a clear cut case of a justified shoot. That this was a case of a guy looking for a confrontation and then playing victim. Yup, from the safety of sitting behind a computer and watching things do down in comfort.
My logic kind of goes back to the theory of if someone shouldn't have been in the situation in the first place, they need to be held accountable if they put themself in that situation. I'm not saying that the assault (the shove) was justified and it was a clear escalation. However, like the situation where a guy breaks into a home and gets messed up by the family dog and when sues the homeowner and wins. The guy shouldn't have been in the house in the first place, but yet, the court system rewarded that kind of behavior. Not quite apples and apples, but if the shooter hadn't confronted the woman parked in the disabled stall, this would never have happened. Yeah, just speculation and just my opinion.
You just explained why stand your ground laws exist. People should not be required to live their lives "nonconfrontationally" if they are legally allowed to do what they are doing and be where they are.
Did he instigate the confrontation? Depends on who you want to side with. She created the situation that instigated the confrontation. He confronted her, and then the BF intervened. She was in the wrong, specifically because she did not have a legal right to be where she was (handicap space). Someone deciding to call her out on it might not be viewed as "something he needed to do or should have done," but he did nothing illegal.
Sure, we can live like deaf and dumb cattle, letting the wolves do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm us personally. I don't fault anyone for choosing the stand up to law breakers and bad behavior. There may be consequences to doing that, but more often, the bullies will back down ... not bum rush you, knocking you on your tail on hard pavement/concrete.
-
I don't disagree with any of that. My point was that I felt that the shooter put himself in that situation, which unfortunately is something that I see more folks doing if both open and concealed carry becomes more prevalent. I'm certainly not saying that I'm hoping that the guy gets convicted, nor that the shoot was bad. For me, just MO, was that this wasn't a clear cut case of a justified shoot. That this was a case of a guy looking for a confrontation and then playing victim. Yup, from the safety of sitting behind a computer and watching things do down in comfort.
My logic kind of goes back to the theory of if someone shouldn't have been in the situation in the first place, they need to be held accountable if they put themself in that situation. I'm not saying that the assault (the shove) was justified and it was a clear escalation. However, like the situation where a guy breaks into a home and gets messed up by the family dog and when sues the homeowner and wins. The guy shouldn't have been in the house in the first place, but yet, the court system rewarded that kind of behavior. Not quite apples and apples, but if the shooter hadn't confronted the woman parked in the disabled stall, this would never have happened. Yeah, just speculation and just my opinion.
I can agree with the shooter putting himself in the position unnecessarily. Here in hawaii, local style = mind your own business unless you are trying to be helpful. Mainland haole style is mind everyone else's business and make dumb comments about it, which raises the chances of a confrontation. However, someone saying "hey you dont have a handicap placard, youre not supposed to be parking here" doesn't justify the overly escalated response. While walking down hotel street today, a bum was saying some dumb shit to me. Does that give me the right to shove him off the bench he was sitting on or otherwise physically assault him?
That point of view is almost like victim blaming. Like if someone gets mugged, they shouldn't have withdrawn so much from the ATM and have a fat wallet. Or if a girl gets raped, she shouldn't have dressed so slutty and flirted with those guys.
-
Whether or not you agree with the self defense or Stand Your Ground claims, one thing is undeniable:
The guy who assaulted him won't do that again ... to anyone.
-
I can agree with the shooter putting himself in the position unnecessarily. Here in hawaii, local style = mind your own business unless you are trying to be helpful. Mainland haole style is mind everyone else's business and make dumb comments about it, which raises the chances of a confrontation. However, someone saying "hey you dont have a handicap placard, youre not supposed to be parking here" doesn't justify the overly escalated response. While walking down hotel street today, a bum was saying some dumb shit to me. Does that give me the right to shove him off the bench he was sitting on or otherwise physically assault him?
That point of view is almost like victim blaming. Like if someone gets mugged, they shouldn't have withdrawn so much from the ATM and have a fat wallet. Or if a girl gets raped, she shouldn't have dressed so slutty and flirted with those guys.
I hear ya. Definitely not victim blaming. And like many things in life, there’s a right way and a wrong way. I’m pretty sure "hey you dont have a handicap placard, youre not supposed to be parking here" wasn’t it. Now that my dad needs the HC stall, I definitely notice it and see folks abuse all the time. But for me, just not worth it. For someone else, go for it.
-
You just explained why stand your ground laws exist. People should not be required to live their lives "nonconfrontationally" if they are legally allowed to do what they are doing and be where they are.
Did he instigate the confrontation? Depends on who you want to side with. She created the situation that instigated the confrontation. He confronted her, and then the BF intervened. She was in the wrong, specifically because she did not have a legal right to be where she was (handicap space). Someone deciding to call her out on it might not be viewed as "something he needed to do or should have done," but he did nothing illegal.
Sure, we can live like deaf and dumb cattle, letting the wolves do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm us personally. I don't fault anyone for choosing the stand up to law breakers and bad behavior. There may be consequences to doing that, but more often, the bullies will back down ... not bum rush you, knocking you on your tail on hard pavement/concrete.
I’m not against stand your ground laws nor people sticking up for themselves. I just too much potential for people to “wannabe sheep” themselves being empowered by situations like this.
-
Whether or not you agree with the self defense or Stand Your Ground claims, one thing is undeniable:
The guy who assaulted him won't do that again ... to anyone.
That’s for sure. Unless you believe in white walkers, biters or other zombies. ;D
-
I’m not against stand your ground laws nor people sticking up for themselves. I just too much potential for people to “wannabe sheep” themselves being empowered by situations like this.
In this situation? He was assaulted.
Had the BF come out and told him to leave without threats or hands-on violence, the shooter would have had the option to diffuse the situation and walk away. That's not the choice he was given.
Once you've been knocked down, the dynamics change. You are now in a situation that could get much worse for you. What you do next isn't as cut and dried as "just walk away."
-
In this situation? He was assaulted.
Had the BF come out and told him to leave without threats or hands-on violence, the shooter would have had the option to diffuse the situation and walk away. That's not the choice he was given.
Once you've been knocked down, the dynamics change. You are now in a situation that could get much worse for you. What you do next isn't as cut and dried as "just walk away."
Wasn’t referring to this situation.
And I meant “wannabe wolf” type of sheep. Just think this isn’t too far from SJW type BS.
Again, not disagreeing with you. You’re right. So :thumbsup:
-
In this situation? He was assaulted.
Had the BF come out and told him to leave without threats or hands-on violence, the shooter would have had the option to diffuse the situation and walk away. That's not the choice he was given.
Once you've been knocked down, the dynamics change. You are now in a situation that could get much worse for you. What you do next isn't as cut and dried as "just walk away."
Or if the boyfriend was immediately apologetic afterwards and said that he let his temper get the best of him, didn't mean to push him so hard, etc. that should have diffused the situation, even after the assault. Or if the boyfriend simply walked away and shown he wasn't a threat any longer, chances are a lot less that he'd get a bullet in his back. of course hind sight is 20/20 in all of this.
-
Wasn’t referring to this situation.
And I meant “wannabe wolf” type of sheep. Just think this isn’t too far from SJW type BS.
Again, not disagreeing with you. You’re right. So :thumbsup:
Thanks. Just making sure we keep this in perspective. As can be seen in the video, these situations are over in seconds. Hindsight is 20/20, especially with audio and/or video recordings of the events.
I tried to stay focused on this situation and how there's more than what the video offers for facts.
In general, people do what they are "programmed" to do. Principle is one thing, but discretion is the better part of valor. Live to fight another day, and all that.
But, when you really feel your safety is in the balance, you only have a second or two to decide -- am I safer being docile, or is this the moment I need to defend myself?
I hope I never have to make that choice, especially since I've had the best means to defend myself legislatively taken from me.
-
So what i see is a case of assault and a case of murder.
-
Here's why it's irrational to believe the shooter overreacted for "just being pushed down." More people die from assault with just hands and feet each year than die from attack with blunt force objects - almost twice as many.
An assistant men's basketball coach at Wake Forest University has been arrested and charged with
assault in connection with a deadly attack on a tourist in the New York City borough of Queens, police
said Thursday.
Investigators say Jamill Jones, 35, punched Sandor Szabo, also 35, in the head following a confrontation
early Sunday. Szabo fell and hit his head on the pavement, knocking him unconscious. He was rushed
to a local hospital, but died two days later.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/09/wake-forest-assistant-basketball-coach-charged-with-assault-in-deadly-nyc-attack.html
The victim was waiting for an Uber driver to arrive. He saw the coach and knocked on his car window to ask if he's the Uber. The coach got out and knock the man down with a punch to the head.
That's all it takes to die from a punch. If you don't feel being knocked down on hard payment is sufficient to justify a feeling your life is in danger, you're ignoring reality.
-
Drejka, the shooter in this parking lot situation, charged with Manslaughter.
Currently being held on $100,000 bail.
"He will now go through the court system. "
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/13/white-man-charged-with-fatally-shooting-black-man-in-florida.print.html
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/shooter-florida-stand-ground-case-charged-manslaughter-160052449--abc-news-topstories.html
-
Drejka, the shooter in this parking lot situation, charged with Manslaughter.
Currently being held on $100,000 bail.
"He will now go through the court system. "
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/13/white-man-charged-with-fatally-shooting-black-man-in-florida.print.html
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/shooter-florida-stand-ground-case-charged-manslaughter-160052449--abc-news-topstories.html
Yup, the decision to defend yourself with a firearm is not one to be taken lightly. Now comes the legal battle and the financial costs that come with it.
Chances are, he'll see a civil lawsuit as well as the criminal trial.
-
It all boils down to that he should have never touched him. Then the entire situation would have happened differently. But due to his priors, it seems like he messed with the wrong guy this time.
There is a big difference between parking illegally and assaulting someone.
And for anyone who's been blindsided and pushed, its a shocking experience. The closest that I've come to XPing this is when playing football. I was the strong safety and next thing you know, I'm on the ground. And i'm playing football, so some what expecting to get hit at all times. So I can imagine if it was unexpected like when out in public.
-
He was just charged with manslaughter and bail set at $100K.
-
Hmmm, I am going to be in AZ and NV for 10 days in Oct. I wonder if I should up my insurance.
-
Drejka, the shooter in this parking lot situation, charged with Manslaughter.
Currently being held on $100,000 bail.
"He will now go through the court system. "
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/13/white-man-charged-with-fatally-shooting-black-man-in-florida.print.html
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/shooter-florida-stand-ground-case-charged-manslaughter-160052449--abc-news-topstories.html
Read the Foxnews article. If all that the investigation dug up on Drejka's past is true, that's pretty bad. Still no justification for assault. But reminds me of a good friend and his stories about getting into fights in college. He and another friend used to get buzzed and hit up greek row. He would always say that he never started fights, but fully admits putting himself in the middle of situations where there would be a fight.
In any case, will be interesting to see how this one plays out and impact on self defense and gun laws. I feel this is another example of the reckless minority who ruins it for the responsible majority of gun owners. JMO
Another interesting thing about the Foxnews article is the opening lines of:
"Prosecutors charged a white man with manslaughter Monday in the death of an unarmed black man whose video-recorded shooting in a store parking lot has revived debate over Florida's "stand your ground" law."
And why the other MSM channels are making a bigger deal of that. Guess that is not the narrative that is being highlighted anymore to divide this country. . .
-
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/michael-drejka-charged-florida-stand-your-ground-killing-why-wasn-n900406
In Florida, a first-degree murder conviction can require that the state proves a homicide was premeditated, while in a second-degree murder case, they must prove the defendant acted with a "depraved mind."
Rickman said second-degree murder can be classified as "heat of passion" crimes. While the people involved didn't have to know one another, the prosecution must show the aggressor harbored ill will or hatred or some type of evil intent — descriptions that speak to one's state of mind.
In a manslaughter case, prosecutors wouldn't even have to prove Drejka acted out of premeditation or a "depraved mind."