Florida stand your ground. Dont play stupid games

[Hatin Since 87]

I bet his conversation was really nice and he politely asked her to please move your car...

Gunman confronted another man weeks before fatal shooting

 

[maxmayhem]

this may be true but does not mitigate the violence from the attacker (if the 47 yr old made no threats of violence). your argument is pointless as the two incidents are not related.
This article's content might be called hearsay which defined is "the report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law"
Furthermore, were charges filed? was he convicted? If not then its just nonsense. How do you know this story wasnt trumped up by those who want to stir up thing? i say this is a FAIL

Again, people have no duty to be polite and talk nicely but they do have a duty to not make football hits in a parking lot because someone complains loudly about them breaking the law. Actions have consequences.

I bet his conversation was really nice and he politely asked her to please move your car...

Gunman confronted another man weeks before fatal shooting

 

[Hatin Since 87]

this may be true but does not mitigate the violen e from the attacker (if the 47 yr old made no threats of violence). your argument is pointless as the two incidents are not related. Was there charges filed? was he convicted? If not then its just nonsense. How do you know this story wasnt trumped up by those who want to stir up racial discontent. FAIL

Lol forget it. I’ve wasted too much time trying to apply logic where it isn’t being grasped. You can discount everything you read if you don’t wanna believe it, and add your own spin on it to cement your reasons for not accepting it. So if that’s the game you intend to play, instead of thinking logically, it’s pointless to continue. You honestly think the guy acted out that way in the past, threatening to shoot someone over a parking space, but was a sweet angel in this instance? As soon as he presented the gun the guy backed up, that’s hardly a life threatening situation. Isn’t that what we are taught in training, to stop the threat? If you can do that without pulling the trigger, wouldn’t that be the best course of action? All this does is cements the leftist ideas of “people will die over arguments about parking spaces”.

So can I shoot people at political rallies when they push me now? Can i scream at someone’s kids to provoke a situation I can use my gun?

 

[Hatin Since 87]

This thread could go on for months without gaining any ground. I’ve spent too much time here. Agree to disagree, was a fun discussion, maybe some more facts will come out after the civil case and we can revisit. For now, I’m signing out of this thread. No hard feelings. It has no clear answers, and each individual will have their own opinion on what could’ve should’ve and would’ve happened in their case. To each their own, my job is to protect my wife and kids and that’s what I intend to do. Nice to meet you, have a good night

 

[maxmayhem]

you dont get it- his words (polite or not) did not warrant violence. explain to me how the past incident allowed for the violence inflicted on him- your argument is not good. you suggest because you dont like someones tone or rhetoric or methods or history for that matter(that was unknown to the attacker) that someone has the right to physically attack some one. You should take a law class or two (like I have) and understand what is illegally violent and what is simply annoying or stupid.

I am not stating that I agree with the shooter's action. I think, from what I observed and read, that action was immoral/unecessary but not illegal. The person making the decision about charges (edit) agrees with me but you know better because you can tell from the video (and the words of another entitled guy who parks in handicapped) that he wasnt polite. I'm telling you that impolite and annoying does not justify VIOLENCE. I know a guy who got a felony for simply touching an officers finger when he slammed the pen on a clipboard after he signed a ticket in a clipboard.

By the way, you cant touch, push, hit or otherwise harm people for being violent-unless they are threatening you with imminent harm. You also will need to prove that they are threatening to harm you. In this example, one witness is dead and the other is a known liar (from her own words).

Lol forget it. I’ve wasted too much time trying to apply logic where it isn’t being grasped. You can discount everything you read if you don’t wanna believe it, and add your own spin on it to cement your reasons for not accepting it. So if that’s the game you intend to play, instead of thinking logically, it’s pointless to continue. You honestly think the guy acted out that way in the past, threatening to shoot someone over a parking space, but was a sweet angel in this instance? As soon as he presented the gun the guy backed up, that’s hardly a life threatening situation. Isn’t that what we are taught in training, to stop the threat? If you can do that without pulling the trigger, wouldn’t that be the best course of action? All this does is cements the leftist ideas of “people will die over arguments about parking spaces”.

So can I shoot people at political rallies when they push me now? Can i scream at someone’s kids to provoke a situation I can use my gun?

 

[Hatin Since 87]

you dont get it- his words (polite or not) did not warrant violence. explain to me how the past incident allowed for the violence inflicted on him- your argument is not good. you suggest because you dont like someones tone or rhetoric or methods or history for that matter(that was unknown to the attacker) that someone has the right to physically attack some one. You should take a law class or two (like I have) and understand what is illegally violent and what is simply annoying or stupid.

Dude. You don’t get it. If he threatened to shoot someone over a parking spot before, it’s probably safe to say he did it in this situation as well. You don’t know if he did or he didn’t, but using his history and a bit of logic, it’s probably a good indicator of his attitude and willingness to make threats of violence. That would warrant a push at the least.

Again. I’m done with this. This thread could go for an eternity. It’s all speculation and personal opinions as of now. You have yours, I have mine. Have a good night.

Also, what you deem to be threatening is subjective. I deem somebody yelling at my wife and kids with a gun on their hip to be extremely threatening. You have a deadly weapon on your hip, and you can’t control your temper enough to talk calmly. Ya, that’s threatening to me.

Have a good night.

 

[maxmayhem]

The article you cited is hearsay and unrelated to the VIDEO documented evidence of what happened. Absent evidence of a threat of violence from the shooter in this incident then "indicators" mean nothing. you have no idea what your are talking about. A prosecuting attorney is looking at this situation and to date has declined to press charges(edit); what part of that dont you understand?-

Also, his gun was concealed as in Florida, where I live, we are not allowed to open carry (like in Indiana); so your point about a gun on the hip being threatening is perplexing to those of ususing logic and knowledge. This is especially true because the gun did not appear until he was assaulted and sitting on the pavement. That is not "speculation" because i observed that. You can be prosecuted for open carry or not concealing your carry pistol in Florida. I know that he wasnt because the authorities (edit) here observed, like me, that he had his pistol concealed until he was ASSAULTED.


unless this is Matlock im talking to then you are wrong lol.

Dude. You don’t get it. If he threatened to shoot someone over a parking spot before, it’s probably safe to say he did it in this situation as well. You don’t know if he did or he didn’t, but using his history and a bit of logic, it’s probably a good indicator of his attitude and willingness to make threats of violence. That would warrant a push at the least.

Again. I’m done with this. This thread could go for an eternity. It’s all speculation and personal opinions as of now. You have yours, I have mine. Have a good night.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

hearsay and unrelated to the VIDEO documented evidence of what happened. Absent evidence of a threat of violence from the shooter in this incident then "indicators" mean nothing. you have no idea what your are talking about. An attorney has already looked at this situation and declined to press charges; what part of that dont you understand?- unless this is Matlock im talking to then you are wrong lol.

Ok inspector gadget I tried being civil, and I’m not gonna make the mods close a thread that has potential for educational discussion. Not sure why you’re not a prosecutor since your education in law and moral superiority is obviously much greater than that of us minions. Again, regardless what you think you know, a man with a gun on his hip yelling is a threat to me. If you can’t control your anger when carrying a deadly weapon, that’s all the threat I need to intervene. If you wanna go go gadget pistol because of it, hope you’re quicker and more accurate. I will not let a man with a gun show his anger and inability to control his emotions while i sit and wait for him to act out his anger physically.

And when did attorneys or prosecutors make the decision? It says police didn’t charge him. Remember, police didn’t charge Zimmerman either, the prosecutor did later, then it went to trial. But, with your education in law as you stated as a “I’m above you on the subject”, surely you knew that already.


Again, have a good night!

 

[maxmayhem]

you are blurring moral and legal- what he did was legal but , in my opinion, immoral. I think the shooter is a stupid moron. I think the woman was wrong to park there. I think its unfair that hes dead but its justified legally from what i know and understand. you are letting emotion and your good character cloud the application of our law here. There are a several legal defenses for the shooter and not one for the attacker (absent proof that he threatened them), you are citing an event from something that is based on a guy that supposedly had a beef with the guy where its the word of one guy against another. that event will have no legal standing in this matter-its nothing

some legal defenses:
shooter was disoriented from the hit to the pavement; he acted in fear of his life from the violent attack

Shooter had a concussion and even if it is conceded the attacker was retreating he could not see clearly and fired at a shape of his attacker

there was no threat of violence though the woman now inconsistently states that there is- we already know she lied about there being no spaces. because she lied, there is no reason to believe anything this liar says.

the shooter attacked because he sustained an injury. he was concerned that the attacker would retreat and present a weapon.


There is no evidence of a threat as the video shows the victim standing stationary and not advancing until attacked.

Stand your grand requires that a victim has no duty to retreat but may fight until the threat is gone. The shooter was nearly unconscious and was not sure, at that moment, with his injuries that the assault was over.

Lol forget it. I’ve wasted too much time trying to apply logic where it isn’t being grasped. You can discount everything you read if you don’t wanna believe it, and add your own spin on it to cement your reasons for not accepting it. So if that’s the game you intend to play, instead of thinking logically, it’s pointless to continue. You honestly think the guy acted out that way in the past, threatening to shoot someone over a parking space, but was a sweet angel in this instance? As soon as he presented the gun the guy backed up, that’s hardly a life threatening situation. Isn’t that what we are taught in training, to stop the threat? If you can do that without pulling the trigger, wouldn’t that be the best course of action? All this does is cements the leftist ideas of “people will die over arguments about parking spaces”.

So can I shoot people at political rallies when they push me now? Can i scream at someone’s kids to provoke a situation I can use my gun?

 

[Hatin Since 87]

you are blurring moral and legal- what he did was legal but , in my opinion, immoral. I think the shooter is a stupid moron. I think the woman was wrong to park there. I think its unfair that hes dead but its justified legally from what i know and understand. you are letting emotion and your good character cloud the application of our law here. There are a several legal defenses for the shooter and not one for the attacker (absent proof that he threatened them), you are citing an event from something that is based on a guy that supposedly had a beef with the guy where its the word of one guy against another. that event will have no legal standing in this matter-its nothing

I agree with almost all of this. Where it is speculation is you don’t know and I don’t know what he said to the woman. That could make what could be a legal shoot to an illegal shoot, depending if the boyfriend shoved him based on what he expressed verbally or not. I wasn’t there, and neither were you. So at this time we don’t know what he said, and that could be a very big factor in the legality of this. I’m not arguing if it was legal or not, given he didn’t make a verbal threat. (If he did, then the boyfriend is the one who acted in self defense). I’m arguing whether, as a gun owner, we should act this way and approach somebody over a parking spot, and put ourselves into a situation where this should even become an issue of self defense.

But ive spent too long in this thread. It’s really nice to meet you, really hope to see you in other threads where we can laugh and have a good time without debating questionable situations. Have a good night!

 

[churchmouse]

As usual this is getting way to intense. It will stop right now. I will put people off the playground. If that is your desire then carry one.

This is and will be the only warning.

-CM-

 

[KellyinAvon]

As usual this is getting way to intense. It will stop right now. I will put people off the playground. If that is your desire then carry one.

This is and will be the only warning.

-CM-

Well CM, at least that "INGO is an echo chamber" myth got busted seven ways from Sunday with this thread.

Edit: back to the subject. An old Colonel in Qatar back in the day used the phrase "that's below noise level" when referring to things that just weren't that important. As lawful carriers of firearms, there are times to ignore things. I'm not saying parking in handicapped spots for convenience is cool. I am saying pick your battles and use appropriate tactics.

 

[churchmouse]

Well CM, at least that "INGO is an echo chamber" myth got busted seven ways from Sunday with this thread.

Edit: back to the subject. An old Colonel in Qatar back in the day used the phrase "that's below noise level" when referring to things that just weren't that important. As lawful carriers of firearms, there are times to ignore things. I'm not saying parking in handicapped spots for convenience is cool. I am saying pick your battles and use appropriate tactics.

Winner

 

[Denny347]

When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[Punkinhead]

Another one: "Don't let your mouth write a check your ass can't cash.". And the corollary: "Don't carry a gun thinking it'll allow you to ignore rule 1."

 

[KLB]

i am surprised at how ignorant and illogical some of the comments on this thread. everything is irrelevant in the video until the assault. This is true assuming bodily harm was not verbally threatened and heard/known about before the initial ASSAULT happened. Being an entitled idiot will get you yelled at. Yelling at someone is not a crime unless you are yelling threats of violence. You cant push someone like this for yelling at you. You can,evidently in Florida, shoot someone for shoving you to the pavement violently for simply (albeit foolishly) exercising your right if free speech.

I just wanted to point out that the younger guy committed battery, not ASSAULT. Yelling at someone can be ASSAULT depending upon what was actually said.

For your reading pleasure
https://www.criminalattorneymelbour...etween-assault-and-battery-under-florida-law/

In popular culture, people often use the phrase “assault and battery.” In some states, “assault and battery” is its own crime. In the state of Florida, however, the crime of assault is different and separate from the crime of battery. Assault involves a threat of violence while battery involves actual violence through an offensive touching.

 

[2OLD2W8]

I don't know how the handicap placard/license plate process works in other states. Here in Florida, the use of handicap parking spots come with a cost; my elderly mother reminds me of this yearly :>).
You must see a doctor$$$, you file the required documentation and for most people you pay for the handicap placard/license plate repeatedly$$$$$, . So, properly marked handicap parking spots "are not free" ,
the privilege comes with a cost. IMHO, the unauthorized scofflaws that park in these spaces are selfish petty thieves. I know this is a stretch, but sometimes in life; taking something that does not legally
belong to you can have deadly consequences!!! Failure to enforce laws creates scofflaws!!!!! Quite the web we have weaved.

My 2 cents.

 

[rhino]

Well CM, at least that "INGO is an echo chamber" myth got busted seven ways from Sunday with this thread.

No, no, NO! Yet another example of vigorous disagreements is irrelevant because it does not support the assertion that INGO is an echo chamber. The accusation was already made by people whose accusations are more important than facts and evidence. Therefore, your evidence is inadmissible and INGO returns to its rightful status as echo chamber (for racists).

 

[HoughMade]

Longer video- more context:

[video=youtube;zmftUBst71o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmftUBst71o[/video]

 

[Denny347]

Longer video- more context:

[video=youtube;zmftUBst71o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmftUBst71o[/video]

The more I watch it, the longer the pause between the shove and the shot feels. Such a long time. I'm quite certain that this same scenario happened in Indiana the shooter would be facing serious charges. As he should.