Clearwater stand your ground shooting

[Mainah]

Imagine you were hanging out with a friend and he stood up and holstered his gun and said; "I'm going to head out and confront strangers about parking violations." This guy was looking for trouble, that's why he carried.

My wife is handicapped. If I came out of a store and saw a stranger standing outside my car and they were yelling at each other I might perceive him as a threat.

 

[FITASC]

If you think spending the rest of your life in prison is better than being punched, then shoot him.*

Or would you rather possibly be dead because the attacker (and his gf) were about to continue the attack???

 

[MandolinMan]

If you think spending the rest of your life in prison is better than being punched, then shoot him.*

Or would you rather possibly be dead because the attacker (and his gf) were about to continue the attack???

I think the point is that the shooter didn't wait to see if the attacker had intentions on continuing the attack. And, since his attacker was unarmed and not within striking distance, his decision to fire at that exact moment is highly questionable.

 

[FITASC]

There were other accounts, so to be fair, it would be advisable to wait until the media hoopla is done and all of the actual facts come out.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Advisable in what sense? The shooter’s life is absolutely going to turn in a direction he didn’t want to travel in. The road he is on will kill him a lot more certainly than a punch to the head will - it will just do it slower and more drawn out. Stress, state-run medical care, etc.

A gun isn’t a magic talisman. When you use it, there will be problems. That’s why you don’t use it unless the problem is an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury. I understand people who live their entire lives unexposed to violence have difficulty recognizing when they are in that situation - that’s why I’m an advocate of quality training and well-run force-on-force training.

This guy did not end up in his situation because he had too much training.

 

[spacemanspiff]

Or would you rather possibly be dead because the attacker (and his gf) were about to continue the attack???

You can read the attacker(s) minds? You know their full intent? You can foresee the future?

I'm happy for your ability to do all that. But I am not that gifted. The one thing I can do though, is check my ego at the door. I don't have anything to prove out there. I don't have to be Billy Bada**. If I find myself shoved to the ground and my attacker who is twice my size and his gf have not yet jumped on top of me, I know I still have other options. I'm short and fat, I can roll rather easily to put distance between me and them. I can still scream for help.

In some cases the gun will be the ONLY resort, I understand that. But in MOST cases, there will be other options at my disposal.

 

[FITASC]

You can read the attacker(s) minds? You know their full intent? You can foresee the future?

And you can?

 

[MoArk Willy]

The shooter probably feared for his life. Who knows what was said or if there were threats.
But the fact that the "pusher" had started to turn away makes the shooter the aggressor.
Whatever the shooter thought was happening simply wasn't.
A prosecutor with any knowledge of self defense and when it is warranted can win this. But many prosecutors will just gripe about the stand your ground law, the NRA and all others associated with guns and miss the point. Too close to call.

 

[briandg]

If you have been attacked and you are positive in your heart the guy is going to kick the living crap out of you and cause you serious, bad, terrible injury or even death with only a single punch from his naked hand, then you SHOOT him in self defense, so you don't die. Then, a series of investigations will decide whether or not you should go to jail and lose everything you ever lived for. Are you going to just throw away your life and let otis the seven foot tall gorilla with a monkey wrench smash your skull?

It's really, really simple. If you are genuinely in fear of your life and shoot someone, you will be alive. the stand your ground laws will protect you if you have done the right thing, but if you did the wrong thing, you are just as screwed as if there was no stand your ground law. if you shot someone when you shouldn't have then nothing at all matters.

if a person broke the law and either maimed or killed someone the make my day doctrine will not give a free pass to someone who does something stupid. The only reason we have stand your ground laws is to preserve the rights of the citizen to defend themselves from serious injury or even death, and if you read the laws, that's it. It doesn't say that the other guy must be armed, fifty years younger, whatever. If the citizen is under attack and truly feels that deadly force is needed, then the citizen should act on that with the full knowledge that he is going to dipped in egg and corn meal and deep fried until crispy and golden if he is found to have violated the terms.

It seems that over and over, people are wanting to hear what they want to hear. It's like people want a guarantee that a person can use poor judgement and not suffer consequences, but that's just not what the thing involves. It involves protecting the people who don't do stupid things.

In the real world, rather than the world that the unwashed have given us, the make my day law isn't changing much. All that has been changed is that you have certain immunities from prosecution if you behave yourself. the negative of the make my day law is that one idiot after another has heard that he can shoot people who scare him, and some of them have.

Right now, castle laws have become a great boon to the members of civilization. People are safer in their own homes because they are mostly protected from prosecution if they have to defend their homes or lives. The stand your ground laws are a whole different kettle of fish, because with them, you can just kill anyone, anywhere, and make that claim. In the home castle laws, well, that person has to be in the home.

I can get completely tanked and be sitting naked on my couch, and if someone breaks through my door, I can do what I need to defend myself. Get me tanked and naked in public, doesn't that change? I'm possibly going to do something stupid. Putting people with guns in their own living room limits the level of trouble that they can get into. Let some idiot carry his 1911 into the Piggly Wiggly, and that idiot may just mistake an angry clown with a plastic axe for someone who poses a lethal threat. We've opened the arena up wider, and given access to the tools to more people, and more mistakes are bound to occur.

Seriously, if you think that the guy is going to kill you, shoot him, stay alive.

The key to that is you had better be very, very certain that you are in danger. Stand your ground laws don't change that at all.

 

[JohnKSa]

And when the unarmed assailant is twice your size and one punch could kill you? Then what?

Do what you think you need to do to survive but expect that you will escape with your life and not much else.

The first TX CHL shooting involved circumstances very similar to your hypothetical situation. A very large unarmed man attacked a much smaller man who was in his car. He was boxed in and could not drive away and became tangled in his seatbelt and could not move away from the man who was punching him. He was beaten badly and ended up with permanent injuries to his head.

During the beating he managed to retrieve his pistol and killed the attacker. He was arrested, indicted, and tried. He was acquitted, largely due to the fact that his lawyer was very good and according to one source, the fact that the attacker had a "Born to Kill" tattoo which impressed the jury as to the mindset of the attacker.

I do not have the information on how much the trial cost him, but you can poke around and get a pretty good idea of how much a murder trial will cost the defendant. Six figures is the right neighborhood.

We all have an idea of how we THINK things should be and how we WANT things to work. Neither of those things has any bearing on how things actually ARE.

And you can?

No one can read thoughts or predict the future. That is why the actual circumstances are critically important and speculation about what people were thinking or what could have happened is largely pointless.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The stand your ground laws are a whole different kettle of fish, because with them, you can just kill anyone, anywhere, and make that claim. In the home castle laws, well, that person has to be in the home.

What you just said is horse-poo, to put it in terms Art’s grandma might accept.

“Stand your ground” laws do one thing, and one thing only. Under English common-law, before using lethal force, you had a duty to retreat to the “wall” IF you could safely do so. This has carried over into American law such that if you have the ability to retreat in complete safety before shooting, then you must first attempt retreat.

Unforunately, this led to dozens of cases where people who used firearms in self-defense were sent to prison because juries decided (after the fact with many hours to contemplate each step while they sat comfortably in the jury box) that the person might have theoretically been able to retreat.

In one heinous example, it was applied to a man in NY who answered his door and was attacked by his neighbor.

All “Stand Your Ground” laws do is remove a duty to retreat for law-abiding citizens. So here, instead of arguing it would be too dangerous to stand up and run after he was knocked down, all the shooter has to prove is that A) he was in fear of his wice;

 

[Rangerrich99]

I can get completely tanked and be sitting naked on my couch, and if someone breaks through my door, I can do what I need to defend myself. Get me tanked and naked in public, doesn't that change? I'm possibly going to do something stupid.

(I'm sorry but I have to reply to this; it's too teed up not to)

I am reasonably certain that I've never carried a firearm while tanked and naked, ever. Unsure how I would even carry any weapon under those circumstances.

I guess I could superglue my holster to my hip or something (btw, I highly dis-recommend this: Handling/using superglue while intoxicated and naked is absolutely going to end up badly and almost surely will lead to a highly uncomfortable/embarrassing situation for the user).

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

So, someone died because of being parked in the wrong parking space.

So, someone died because of being parked in the wrong parking space.
I disagree. This is the same as saying someone died because they got out of bed in the morning. Someone died as a result of a violent attack. You can start the chain of events anywhere you wish, but I look at the event immediately preceding the shot, not the event before that, or further back in time.

Not so much, really. The shooter could have either minded his own business and gone into the store, got what he wanted and left or simply called the police if he thought the 2nd party was illegally parked.

Instead, he chose to confront someone where it was not his place to do so and it ended up escalating into violence ending in death. This was not an "I couldn't have chosen a different path" situation. This was an "I instigated an attack" situation.

I'm pro-concealed carry. I'm pro-defend yourself. What I am not for is the "I'm going to act like a cop simply because I a have a CWP". Just go in the store and get your stuff, call the cops if feel like you have to be that much of a "sheepdog".

At the end of the day someone died over a parking space because someone just couldn't just leave it alone. If I walked around confronting idiots all day, I'd spend my whole day fighting. Just leave it alone and go home, I guarantee this guy wishes he had.

 

[thallub]

I guarantee this guy wishes he had.

Meanwhile the shooter languishes in jail, unable to make bail. Someone set up a GoFundMe account but it was taken down.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

After images of naked and glued guns, is there anymore to say?

We are just going in circles. Please spare us unless you have something factual or a NEW analysis. Not just:

He's stupid
I would have shot him

---- get the point?

 

[TheDevilThatYouKnow]

The guy who shot actually had a history of harassing people in the parking lot. AND...bringing firearms into it. It's kind of surprising it didn't get him into lower level trouble earlier.
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/r...documents-show

Honestly, bringing "prior acts" into this isn't a wise choice, it opens up a whole 'nother can of worms should someone look up Markeis McGlockton's criminal c.v. which includes....

I should note that the above is only a preliminary report, I have not fully researched/confirmed the results of each of his many brushes with the criminal justice system. He does seem to have found lodging at the people's expense at least 5 times (4 felony & 1 misdemeanor) during his career, according to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

From a legal perspective, McGlockton’s past criminal history is irrelevant unless you can show the shooter was aware of it. That was one of the key issues in the Harold Fish case. They attempted to show the man he shot had a past history of rage and anger issues. The judge shut it down because there was no indication Mr. Fish knew that.

On appeal, Mr. Fish was allowed to use that evidence because the prosecution opened the door through a basic mistake.

 

[briandg]

You can't judge on a person's history at the event. Can you judge the book by the cover? yep, and it's smart. Give the mormon missionary a little space and thought before you fire.

OTOH, The guy who looks like a columbian cartel enforcer might be a bad guy, or just a poser. His true face isn't there. You can judge only by his actions.

A shooting is an in the moment event. You must act in seconds, or less, with only appearance and actions, maybe location to form your decision, right?

But you have to remember that this decision, if a person has the intuitive skills necessary, wil be made on more than just the obvious things. Most people will act based on subliminal cues as well. They may smell the liquor on his breath, see, smell, or hear the little things that might not be noticed.

Can't most of us tell the difference between an aggressive dog and one that's bluffing?

So, when you have to put the case in front of the DA, if there are any questions, finding that rap sheet will factor in. That rap sheet tells who he is and how he behaves, and that is something that is visible in his demeanor.

Look at the guys who live like motorcycle outlaws. Some dress like that for fun, and you can usually tell that he's not a terrible person. Then there are the bad ones, and you can usually see and feel the badness.

That history can't help in making the decision, but it must be used in assessing the decision in the past tense. Why is that? because it is part and parcel of what made you fear for your life. Will you feel that the mormon missionary is a threat to your life? will you feel that way about the seven foot tall ogre?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Honestly, bringing "prior acts" into this isn't a wise choice, it opens up a whole 'nother can of worms should someone look up Markeis McGlockton's criminal c.v. which includes....
[redacted for brevity]

But he was a good boy at heart, and he was just turning his life around ...

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So, when you have to put the case in front of the DA, if there are any questions, finding that rap sheet will factor in. That rap sheet tells who he is and how he behaves, and that is something that is visible in his demeanor?

Not necessarily. People have this misunderstanding that at a trial where they get to argue their case however they like. However, you only get to introduce evidence that the court allows - and getting evidence into court is an art form in its own right.

Unless the prosecution says something that allows you to bring in rebuttal evidence, McGlockton’s rap sheet is generally not allowed into evidence.