Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News Articles' started by busykngt, Aug 18, 2019.
You just proved my point!
Good on ya!
Funny ironic thing, only the far left loonies consider words as an assault requiring a full retaliatory scorched earth offensive to kill and destroy your life and justification for a good ol fashioned mob style beat down..
But guns are bad because of tempers and shit.
First day of jury selection. One guy had a novel way of getting dismissed: he was moving to Tennessee to work on a hemp farm.
BTW a Glock 40 cal was used. Also got an answer to my earlier question: a 12-member jury is used in Florida only in a capital punishment trial. This guy apparently faces a maximum of thirty years.
When it comes to a SYG situation words are not considered enough provocation to constitute starting the confrontation. Sticks and stones. ...
For sure words can start a fight. That wasn’t the context, no matter how you chose to misread it. Yo mamma stuff, racial slurs, etc. The standard for SYG is different.
Had the incident happened in Texas the dead guy would have been the one who started the confrontation with the bull-rush and pushing the shooter violently to the ground. Having words with his girl did not justify the violence. The violence, however, justified the shooting. I can only presume FL is similar, but someone from FL will have to weigh in.
If I was kidding I’d have had an emoji in there.
In Texas if you run your mouth and get assaulted you can lose your justification to fight back. Bottom line: if you carry a gun don't run your mouth to strangers.
Wise man once say little ars big mouth no good.
Trial - day three starts
Jury: 5 men and 1 woman seated
Day 2 Trial article
Mostly about the jury selection process (long):
I'm not a lawyer, never been in Florida and you cant call me from jail. Now that my legal uselessness is stated I will be more useless as a court watcher.
We see the prosecution trying to dismantle any disparity in force related to age and age related durability. We also see them clearly building the narrative this guy was armed and armed specifically looking to shoot disabled parking violations at that store. Weather you believe that I would think is tenuous at best. One argument 5 years ago doesn't support that.
You dont get to claim self defense if you took specific steps to arm and enter a situation expecting to have an opportunity to shoot. His mouth and history wont help.
His mouth and history could also be used by the defense to show he never actually directly threatened people that day and never acted like he was going to that day or before and didnt take special precautions like extended mags or extra mags he didnt normally carry etc. All that stuff has been used to successfully convict people of gun related misconduct and menacing crimes before and recently.
This said we have to see the defense. It's never good for the prosecution when the star on scene witnesses start changing words or phrases people said once on the stand. It makes them look like they exaggerated. Doing that can easily get 1 jury member to ignore their testimony.
This guy actions and words clearly showed he felt justified, almost arrogantly so, and displayed no negative feelings about having to kill someone in front of their kid. That can also get a juror to disregard your testimony or important parts or support the prosecution assertion you intended for this to eventually happen.
The prosecution is still going to have to get past the fact the dead guy assaulted the shooter with out seeing or hearing an actual threat, words arent a threat, the defense already got to witnesses to admit they heard no actual threat after asserting so in the beginning and or depositions, and stepping between the shooter and his family would be a more appropriate response if someone is hollering as would telling her to get the kids out of this danger she says she felt. Which by the way is probably an appropriate response for the girlfriend. Remember there was no gun and no threat. Infact the woman's statement of do you want me to get my man seems to be the first escalation of the rhetoric. She clearly wanted to see the old guy get his ass whipped as that's how she acted imho. Still though meaningless and not a crime, except that the defense can use her words to show who started ratcheting up the rhetoric and that she wasnt thinking of her babies.
Still a crap shoot. This is why you avoid conflict while carrying and dont threaten people or mention gun or force or fight. It takes you into grey areas that may seriously cost you.
The legalities of the sign are meaningless. The idiot thought it justified his arshole-ish attitude but means nothing to the deadly force justification.
So, who started it?