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.



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.