Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law

July 24, 2018, 09:20 AM

jhe888

quote:
Originally posted by HayesGreener:
quote:
Originally posted by Rick Lee:
Does FL allow wrongful death/civil suits in cases justifiable use of deadly force? AZ does not. Not saying this was justifiable. But if the sheriff and DA say it is, that would be pretty compelling in a civil case. I'd think the plaintiff would then have to prove the decision to not charge the shooter was politically motivated, in order to get SYG changed. But then that's probably a sovereign immunity issue.

No civil suit if justified. Look at 776.032 posted above

Yeah, but you can't know it was justified until there is a suit.

July 24, 2018, 09:37 AM

Shaql

The top 4 posts on page three would be why the shooter would not want me on his jury.

July 24, 2018, 09:46 AM

Redford1970

quote:
Originally posted by Rick Lee:
I don't know how it works in FL, but in AZ, if you're not charged because it's a, legally-speaking, "good shoot," you also cannot be sued civilly.

Whether a Castle Doctrine Law or a Stand Your Ground Law, some have Civil Immunity provisions, some don't.

Michigan would probably apply its Self Defense Act. The relevant question would be, were you somewhere you had a legal right to be and were you acting in a lawful manner (not committing some crime yourself).

July 24, 2018, 10:45 AM

V-Tail

quote:
Originally posted by jhe888:
quote:
Originally posted by HayesGreener:
quote:
Originally posted by Rick Lee:
Does FL allow wrongful death/civil suits in cases justifiable use of deadly force? AZ does not. Not saying this was justifiable. But if the sheriff and DA say it is, that would be pretty compelling in a civil case. I'd think the plaintiff would then have to prove the decision to not charge the shooter was politically motivated, in order to get SYG changed. But then that's probably a sovereign immunity issue.
No civil suit if justified. Look at 776.032 posted above
Yeah, but you can't know it was justified until there is a suit.

Are you sure 'bout that? If LE and prosecutor's office say that it was justified, isn't that sufficient under Florida law?

July 24, 2018, 11:01 AM

HRK

Florida Law After the Enactment of the "Stand Your Ground" Law

The "Stand Your Ground" Law introduced two (2) conclusive presumptions that favor a criminal defendant who is making a self-defense claim:

The presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear that deadly force was necessary; and

The presumption that the intruder intended to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

These two presumptions protect the defender from both civil and criminal prosecution for unlawful use of deadly or non-deadly force in self-defense. In addition, the defender/gun owner has no duty to retreat, regardless of where he is attacked, so long as he is in a place where he is lawfully entitled to be when the danger occurs.

In passing the "Stand Your Ground" Law, the Florida Legislature expressed its intent that no person should be "required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack." The "Stand Your Ground" Law effectively expands the "Castle Doctrine" by expanding what is meant by the concept of one's "castle" to include any place where a person is lawfully entitled to be.

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law now provides immunity from prosecution, as opposed to an affirmative defense that you would need to assert in Trial (after being arrested and charged by the State of Florida).

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

F.S. §776.013(3)

July 24, 2018, 11:09 AM

gearhounds

quote:
Originally posted by HRK:
Florida Law After the Enactment of the "Stand Your Ground" Law

The "Stand Your Ground" Law introduced two (2) conclusive presumptions that favor a criminal defendant who is making a self-defense claim:

The presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear that deadly force was necessary; and

The presumption that the intruder intended to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

These two presumptions protect the defender from both civil and criminal prosecution for unlawful use of deadly or non-deadly force in self-defense. In addition, the defender/gun owner has no duty to retreat, regardless of where he is attacked, so long as he is in a place where he is lawfully entitled to be when the danger occurs.

In passing the "Stand Your Ground" Law, the Florida Legislature expressed its intent that no person should be "required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack." The "Stand Your Ground" Law effectively expands the "Castle Doctrine" by expanding what is meant by the concept of one's "castle" to include any place where a person is lawfully entitled to be.

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law now provides immunity from prosecution, as opposed to an affirmative defense that you would need to assert in Trial (after being arrested and charged by the State of Florida).

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

F.S. §776.013(3)

While I personally didn’t see the need for deadly force, the shooter seems to have either met the criteria, or at least appear to. It’s going to come down to his articulation of his fear of death or severe bodily harm, should he be sued civilly. The other half of the criteria was clearly met.

July 24, 2018, 11:26 AM

Yanert98

The girlfriend was out of the car. The boyfriend had just attacked the 'victim'. It was a 2-v-1 situation with violence in play.

Drawing to protect yourself in a situation like that is legal almost everywhere in the US.

Watching the video, it appears if the 'victim' had stopped at that point then he would have successfully re-established his safety and no one needed to die.

July 24, 2018, 11:49 AM

bendable

I am 6'4" tall and close to 400 lbs.

If I were 5'5" or 5'7" and some one my size
knocked me to the ground and towered over me ,
in the blind sided fashion......

I wonder what size the two guys were?

July 24, 2018, 06:10 PM

benny6

I just watched the footage about 20 times. The guy who got killed may have paused and backed off a couple of steps, but I don't think I'd call it a retreat. He wasn't in a position of surrender or compliance. His stature and hand position, to me, still indicate that he held a hesitant power pose.

If a guy pointed a gun at me for assaulting him, and if I wanted to back down, I'd probably naturally raise my hands and try to say "Be cool, man, whoah, whoah there... sorry... we're moving the car now..."

The body language tells me the attacker may be thinking "$hit, man, dis mufukah got a gun but I'mma kikis ayahs when he back off..."

The guy in the blue shirt flat out retreated which is what the other guy should have done, or at least retreated to the other side of the car.

If I had been blindsided like that, I'd probably have the adrenaline rushing and have little to no perception of time or when the threat was over or when the threat would stop.

If you look at his hands, this is not a "hands up, don't shoot!" scenario. We don't know what facial expressions were exchanged. Did the attacker look scared, concerned or pissed off even more? Same can be said about the shooter.

I'm not saying he deserved to die over a parking spot but its easy to judge sitting at a computer watching video without audio which is still different than being there and being the attacked.

Tony.

July 24, 2018, 07:02 PM

bubbatime

This is Trayvon Martin all over again. If you’ll remember the police thought Zimmerman was justified and refused to charge him. A shit bag special prosecutor was brought in for a 3rd party examination of the evidence and almost immediately filed charges. I imagine the same thing will happen here due to the now nationwide outrage. They are bussing in folks to protest, and before you know it, we have another Ferguson on our hands.

July 24, 2018, 07:52 PM

Balzé Halzé

quote:
Originally posted by bubbatime:
This is Trayvon Martin all over again.

Man, this is absolutely nothing like the T. Martin case. That wasn't even a Stand Your Ground case.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Balzé Halzé,

August 13, 2018, 11:21 AM

vinnybass

Charged with manslaughter.

http://www.fox13news.com/news/...and-your-ground-case

August 13, 2018, 01:42 PM

Poacher

quote:
Originally posted by vinnybass:
Charged with manslaughter.

http://www.fox13news.com/news/...and-your-ground-case

Any thoughts on whether law shield or carry guard would defend him? I have LS, but would not count on them taking this on.

August 13, 2018, 07:19 PM

Sig209

quote:
Originally posted by vinnybass:
Charged with manslaughter.

http://www.fox13news.com/news/...and-your-ground-case

so after weeks of grandstanding by the 'anti' sheriff - and others - ... apparently he CAN be charged...

they have tried very hard here over the last couple weeks to get 'Stand Your Ground' re-visited in the legislature

----------------------------------------------

August 13, 2018, 07:48 PM

TigerDore

quote:
Originally posted by synthplayer:
quote:
Originally posted by TigerDore:
This is a lot like the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case: hotheaded punks clashed and tragedy ensued.

This is NOTHING like the Trayvon Martin case, unless you've fallen for the lies the media made out of the Martin case.

Just in case you have, here is the truth on the matter: link

Thanks for that info, synthplayer. I appreciate it.

.

August 13, 2018, 07:56 PM

RHINOWSO

Well looks like the guy will have to face the music and from my viewing the video, he likely deserves to tapdance for his freedom.

Had he drawn and fired quicker, or the deceased remained squared up and menacing, it would have been a cut and dried SYG defense IMO. But then again maybe he and the defense can articulate actions by the deceased which acquit him.

I know it’s measuring with a micrometer, but with video cameras everywhere you have to know your actions are going to be recorded. You can’t kill someone just because you are embarrassed and pissed off.

August 13, 2018, 08:15 PM

SpinZone

That the police did not arrest the shooter does not mean that the “Stand your ground” defense was used or approved. It just means that the police did not see enough evidence to discount the justifiable use of deadly force. The police threw out SYG as why they thought that the shooter should not be arrested. They passed it to the prosecutor’s office to sort it out. The shooter never claimed SYG as a defense because he had not been charged with anything (until now)

After being charged, if the SYG defense is introduced, then a special hearing is held by a judge to determine if the shooting meets the requirements for SYG. If the judge rules that SYG was met then the charges are removed. If the judge rule that SYG was not met then the case moves forward towards trial like any other case. It is important to remember that you can lose the SYG hearing but still have a justifiable shooting.