FL Parking lot shooter arrested
- Thread starter TwinGlocks
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
The grocery store owner is on tape as saying he’d had problems with that guy [shooter] before. He said, “there’s something not right about that guy”. When I first saw/heard that video quote from the grocery store owner, I couldn’t help but wonder why he had not had the cops ‘criminally trespass’ him before.
I know if I owned a little convince store and had multiple problems with a “local”, I’d have the police write him a ‘criminal trespass’ notice. Some may argue that would be no more effective than a restraining order. But be that as it may, it would at least have added a significant charge to the shooter. AND it MAY have prevented this situation from happening.
Another thing I don’t understand about how this situation developed is, why didn’t the girlfriend (they weren’t married) didn’t just move the car and park it in a non-handicap space - especially after the crazy guy started jumping her case!
In my mind, I would consider whoever makes FIRST physical contact is the aggressor. And he’s got some serious explaining to do. Of course, in this case, he didn’t survive the encounter. Regardless of what we think, it looks like a jury will be called upon to help clarify and begin to set the boundaries of the Stand Your Ground doctrine.
I know if I owned a little convince store and had multiple problems with a “local”, I’d have the police write him a ‘criminal trespass’ notice. Some may argue that would be no more effective than a restraining order. But be that as it may, it would at least have added a significant charge to the shooter. AND it MAY have prevented this situation from happening.
Another thing I don’t understand about how this situation developed is, why didn’t the girlfriend (they weren’t married) didn’t just move the car and park it in a non-handicap space - especially after the crazy guy started jumping her case!
In my mind, I would consider whoever makes FIRST physical contact is the aggressor. And he’s got some serious explaining to do. Of course, in this case, he didn’t survive the encounter. Regardless of what we think, it looks like a jury will be called upon to help clarify and begin to set the boundaries of the Stand Your Ground doctrine.
May I point out that there was never any assault on the guy's wife. The guy spoke with her, and quite possibly harshly; however, the tape shows he kept his arms down by his side most of the time. He stayed several feet back from the car and approached no further. Words alone do NOT constitute assault, no matter how tender our ears or our feelz. The door of the car opens as the husband exits the store, but at no time did the white guy advance on or assault the wife.
I can understand the husband having been quite displeased for someone having verbally upbraided his wife; however, he had NO legal justification for assaulting the man by shoving him so hard he crumpled to the ground with a great amount of force.
All that is true, and the major has rightly pointed all that out; however, the assault had ended, and the assailant had back off once the weapon was drawn. Yet, the armed man fired a couple seconds later. I would argue that there is most definitely a question as to the legal justification for having fired the shot. Others have argued otherwise. I would point out that the very fact that reasonable minds can differ on this very point would seem to indicate there is probable cause to charge the man and let the case be tried before a judge and let the jury decide the facts.
The shooter having been charged does NOT mean he's guilty nor any proof of guilt. It merely means that he will stand trial. I believe the trial is legally necessary and I also believe the sheriff was playing at a "game" with his decision or attempting to show something less than a dispassionate enforcement of the law as written in Florida.
FireInTheWire
Caprock Crusader
In my mind, I would consider whoever makes FIRST physical contact is the aggressor. And he’s got some serious explaining to do. Of course, in this case, he didn’t survive the encounter. Regardless of what we think, it looks like a jury will be called upon to help clarify and begin to set the boundaries of the Stand Your Ground doctrine.[/QUOTE]
The shooter created the moment. The pusher failed at deescalating the issue. It was a stupid move on his part for sure! He paid the price for it.
I'm sure she didn't move because she is some hood rat that copped an attitude with the guy. Unless your LEO must folks don't take kindly to someone not minding their own business.
The shooter created the moment. The pusher failed at deescalating the issue. It was a stupid move on his part for sure! He paid the price for it.
I'm sure she didn't move because she is some hood rat that copped an attitude with the guy. Unless your LEO must folks don't take kindly to someone not minding their own business.
The jury will merely decide the facts of the case, they won't be deciding the boundaries of SYG. The only way cases become "precedent" in the way you mean is when they get appealed, decided, and the opinion gets chosen for publication. Then and ONLY then does it become precedent . . . and ONLY in the jurisdiction of that particular appellate court. For it to become precedent for the entire state of Florida, it would need to be appealed to the Florida Supreme Court and then decided, and an opinion be published.
FireInTheWire
Caprock Crusader
Man... that sounds like Chinese to me. I'm gonna have to brush up on what all that's saying. I'm not gonna lie. I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to the Court of Law. I've had jury duty 1 time in my life and I have always kept a clean recorded.
FireInTheWire
Caprock Crusader
So if this trail is based on "facts". The fact is... none of this would have happened if he would have minded his own business.
A trial court decision has very little precedential value. It can be instructive; however, it is not binding on anyone else. Precedent is made via appellate court decisions and published opinions. The higher up it goes, the higher is the precedential value.
This is where free will comes in. He violated no law in upbraiding the woman. Whether you would do it or advise your children against doing it is an entirely other matter.
And as for your "minding your business" theory, folks wind up having to defend themselves nearly every day in this country--even when they minded their own business in ways that you might approve of.
Of the (not very many) people who have tried to kill me over the course of my life, the one that scared me the most was literally triggered by me looking at him. He was incredibly drugged up and wild-eyed. He looked like a caricature of a person on drugs. I guess I stared at him for 2 seconds too long because as soon as we locked eyes, he came after me.
My point? MMM, you're absolutely right about never knowing what it takes to set someone off. Any person with whom you have contact during the day may be on a hair trigger to release insane violence for reasons no one can anticipate or even understand afterwards.
I won't say "It's dangerous out there" because it mostly isn't. People ready to explode aren't common. But they exist. Perhaps "It's weird out there" is more generally applicable.
Sock Puppet
Active Member
- Mar 8, 2015
- 565
- 46
Since nobody seems to have read the link I posted...the shooter in this case allegedly has a history of volatile behavior. I wouldn't be touting have as some innocent victim in this situation. JMO...YMMV....
And I am sure that the guy that assaulted him knew all about that history.
I don't think his history will play a part in the trial. But what do I know I have never been in that situation.
I have seen all Law and Order shows though
I don't think his history will play a part in the trial. But what do I know I have never been in that situation.
I have seen all Law and Order shows though
If you’re referring to post 68, it links to CNN, which I don’t visit.
I’ll help out though. The Tampa Bay Times published the article linked below last week, detailing multiple investigative reports from city and state police where the shooter had allegedly brandished a firearm and/or threatened to shoot others.
Though the shooter denied the accusations, multiple investigators did not believe his denials. One was quoted “How did someone you don’t know in another know you had a gun in yours if you didn’t show it to them?”
Whether those reports can be used against the shooter in this case is yet to be determined.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/publi...in-stand-your-ground-shooter-s-past_170719109
Sock Puppet
Active Member
- Mar 8, 2015
- 565
- 46
