SYG Shooter Found Guilty of Manslaughter

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is no 21-foot rule.
Click to expand...

As a legal counselor; no there is not a 21 foot rule

As a principle of unarmed combat yes....and you better think of it as minimum distance too. :)

As the photo series illustrates, even if your draw and shots are perfect, you are cutting things awfully close (no pun intended). And even if your shots do take the wind out of his sails, his forward momentum may carry him right over the top of you, unless, of course, you manage to get out of his way.
Click to expand...

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm

It is a well established principle that is taught in almost every LEO organization as well as Department of Defense.
 
Wow. It is a well established principle. Yes, the SCOTUS has ruled each encounter is unique and the factors that dictate the 21 foot rule assume someone who is ready to draw their weapon, trained, as well as aware of the impending attack.
Click to expand...
You did not note where its been used effectively in a nonLEO case in Florida. Unless you have evidence of it being successfully used and relevant then I am assuming your are ceding the point.

All unarmed combat is about creating space to deliver an attack.
Click to expand...
Walking away does not create space to deliver an attack. Evidently the jury agreed.

The perpetrator was shot in the chest backing away after violently knocking down the victim.
Click to expand...
Did you see the video?
 
davidsog said:
Simply put the jury was racist and reactionary. I think this guys legal counsel was extremely weak at best too.
Click to expand...
Objection your honor. Statement is made without evidence.

In getting back to the thread, the SYG shooters violent attacker was well within distance to kill him on the ground.
Click to expand...
1. No.
2. Was moving away.

Lets restate. A threat has to be reasonably viewed as continuing. There is ample evidence the attack had ceased. The prosecution thought so. The jury thought so.
 
Last edited:
zincwarrior said:
A threat has to be reasonably viewed as continuing. There is ample evidence the attack had ceased. The prosecution thought so. The jury thought so.
Click to expand...

Of course the prosecution thought the threat had stopped; it's the prosecution.

I would resist a simple test that concludes that an attack has stopped soley based on an assailant's direction of travel. That a person is walking away from me doesn't mean that he is done attacking me.

Andrew Brannan walked away from a PO...to his truck, from which he retrieved a carbine he use to kill the PO. I don't recommend watching the dashcam video, but it does exist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsrC5QV_Yrc
 
True however one cannot shoot someone on suspicion they are walking somewhere to get a gun.

Lets look at it this way. Once the victim starting stepping back, could the shooter have legally gotten up and punched him?
 
Last edited:
True however one cannot shoot someone on suspicion they are walking somewhere to get a gun.
Click to expand...

The video illustrates that moving away from a victim doesn't mean that an attack is over.

I don't suggest that one can justifiably shoot another on a mere suspicion of a later act. One can employ deadly force if he fears grave injury or death from an attack. An attack can feature moving away from the victim for the purpose of continuing the attack.

Lets look at it this way. Once the victim starting stepping back, could the shooter have legally gotten up and punched him?
Click to expand...

Yes, stepping backward can indicate that an attack has ceased, but that isn't all it can mean depending on other circumstances. When a boxer backs up, it doesn't mean the match is over. It only means that he perceives a temporary advantage in it.

In this incident, the attacker backed away slightly only once he saw a pistol drawn. He didn't turn and run, raise his hands, or look for cover. That doesn't mean the jury was wrong, but that it's reasonable to see the attacker's pause as ambiguous.
 
Last edited:
zincwarrior said:
That doesn't mean the jury was wrong, but that it's reasonable to see the attacker's pause as ambiguous.
Click to expand...
The jury thought it was not reasonable, actually.
Click to expand...

That's incorrect. The jury wasn't asked whether it was reasonable for others to see the pause in the video as ambiguous.

The jury was tasked with determining whether the defendant had committed manslaughter, which can mean that he acted with simple negligence, and they make that determination having viewed all the admissible evidence, not just the tape.

That a jury reaches a conclusion doesn't make a different take on the evidence categorically unreasonable. Many people followed the big OJ case, and were sure of his guilt. That doesn't mean the jury didn't do its job, and it doesn't mean that others coming to their own conclusions did so unreasonably.
 
Do you have the actual jury charge? They would have been given components of the charge, and it would be interesting to see.

If not, they found he committed manslaughter AND he did not prove self defense. Typically self defense is an affirmative defense that has to be proven. Florida may be different for some reason.
 
A man is dead for pushing someone than was verbally abusing his partner, i don't understand how some people are defending the shooters actions. Where i come from what he did would be seen as unnecessary and cowardly.
 
A man is dead for pushing someone than was verbally abusing his partner,
Click to expand...

He did not merely push.

The attack was of such violence as to strip the veneer of civilization.

Verbal abuse does not warrant physical violence, ever.
 
zincwarrior said:
Again he took five steps back and turned away when he was shot.
Click to expand...
Again, I've watched the video probably twenty times or more, many at reduced speed. Granting that part of the "retreat" is mostly hidden behind the guy in the tee shirt, I'll give you three steps. I definitely can't see five.
 
You've led a sheltered life. I guess my last post was too obtuse for folks to take the offense they should have done.

So, you don't like people parking in handicapped spaces, or texting in theaters, or dressing funny or...whatever annoys you. You decide to do something about it. But what to do? You could call the cops or the theater manager or the local fashion critic, but they are unlikely to deliver the dramatic justice you desire. But the solution is right in your pocket! Just pick a fight. Sure, you won't strike the first blow, but you will berate the subject until, you hope, he reacts with a shove or a deadly barrage of popcorn. Not necessarily the smart, or legal, thing to do, but where I come from (and most of you, too) aggressively correcting a stranger for a perceived slight may get you on the ground in a hurry. But now you've got him! He's within 21 feet. He's moving away, could be for a weapon, could be for a refill on popcorn. But you have your weapon, and now you have justice!

I sincerely hope many of the posters here do take deep offense at my words. But I also hope you think about what you're saying. And I really hope you never do anything so senseless and evil as the parking lot enforcer or the theater cell phone cop. You'll end up where they're going.
 
manta49 said:
A man is dead for pushing someone than was verbally abusing his partner, i don't understand how some people are defending the shooters actions. Where i come from what he did would be seen as unnecessary and cowardly.
Click to expand...

What's the brave and proportionate response? Sitting and cowering? Waiting to see what sort of beating ensues? Getting up and punching the attacker? If an attack has ceased, initiating a counter assault isn't countenanced either.

I've not seen a lot of defense of the defendant's actions. Seems like a bad idea to make a hobby of haranguing able-bodied people for parking in handicapped spots. It's a worse idea to do it armed.

If you find it genuinely incomprehensible that someone could take being violently shoved to the ground by someone larger and stronger as a dangerous attack and one you could foresee progressing in the absence of deadly force, I'd say you are missing something in this episode.

Both parties can display poor judgment in a confrontation. That a jury reaches a decision doesn't mean it is the only one it could have reached.
 
zukiphile said:
What's the brave and proportionate response? Sitting and cowering? Waiting to see what sort of beating ensues? Getting up and punching the attacker? If an attack has ceased, initiating a counter assault isn't countenanced either.

I've not seen a lot of defense of the defendant's actions. Seems like a bad idea to make a hobby of haranguing able-bodied people for parking in handicapped spots. It's a worse idea to do it armed.

If you find it genuinely incomprehensible that someone could take being violently shoved to the ground by someone larger and stronger as a dangerous attack and one you could foresee progressing in the absence of deadly force, I'd say you are missing something in this episode.

Both parties can display poor judgment in a confrontation. That a jury reaches a decision doesn't mean it is the only one it could have reached.
Click to expand...
Do you have a case where it went the other way?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top