Florida Man Not Charged Due To "Stand Your Ground" Law

[Venom72]

haven't read all the posts here, only a few, but think he will ultimately be charged by the state attrny's office.... not because the allow didn't allow him to do what he did, but because the political pressure and the optics of the video will rule the day....

the fla law is flawed when it gives the right to shoot even retreating culprits; I expect to see that law, and similar laws of other states adopting "stand ur ground" statutes, to be revised to omit the "yes, you can shoot em even if they are in retreat" provisions.....


this douche bag didn't need to shoot the guy; he was backing the fuk up upon the coward pulling the gun on him.... confrontation was over at that point in the brutha's mind, cause he didn't want to get shot.... coward blasted him anyway

This^^^

[reigle9]

its murder

it's murder, she wrote

but in reality, it's manslaughter

[reigle9]

some stand-up bit about how murder sounds way better than manslaughter...i'm sure 100 hacks have done it

it was pretty terrible, i think he even went into about birds

[Auto Donk]

bird slaughter.... nice.....

reminds me of the time I picked up a wounded dove I'd downed, shotgun in the other hand, as other doves were coming into the waterhole we were hunting around, as I didn't have time to set the shotgun down, I just quickly bit the wounded dove's head off (quickly spit it out), dropped the now mortally wounded dove, and immediately gunned down two more.....

definite bird slaughter

[jtoler]

it's murder, she wrote

but in reality, it's manslaughter

in your reality perhaps. you dont understand the difference.

[reigle9]

oh, ok

[reigle9]

lol

this is like George jetson questioning me about reality, are you fukkin serious?

[Auto Donk]

i quickly looked over the fla statutes invovled, and didn't see any "shoot em while they retreat" provision, rather the only references to retreating concerned the shooter not having a duty to retreat in the face of a threat.....

not sure if the media is conflating the two concepts, but what I do see is the need for the shooter to reasonably believe such deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

as the victim in this case was backing off upon the brandishing of the gun, unless there is some case law interpretting the statute to give broader rights to the shooter (judicial activism), I think the cowardly shooter clearly doesn't qualify for any defense under florida law.

Pretty sure this is the relevant statute:

CRIMES Chapter 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force. (2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be. History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27; s. 3, ch. 2014-195.

there might be a definition of deadly force somewhere that provides that exception (to shoot even retreating individuals), but I haven't had time to look for it due to other business, and, of course, participation in sbr fat bitch threads.....

[Auto Donk]

just read the rest of chapter 776; it's not in there....

but, I know there is a body of law in Texas re: use of deadly force that you may continue to use such force so long as you reasonably fear for your life or that serious bodily injury may still occur, such that you can shoot even if the person is in retreat so long as doing so is reasonable according to your subjective belief.

Florida probably has some case law to the same effect out there somewhere, applied not so much in the "stand your ground" context as the traditional self defense context, tho it is reasonable to apply that precedent to the stand your ground provisions of florida law.

still say the shooter gets indicted, particularly given what I've seen of the video, and read of the law on the books (excluding case law), and the obvious public outcry and political pressure to indict.

[reigle9]

ad, it sounds like you think he was super wrong on one hand

but on the other hand, you think he goes away cause of policat pressure

which is it?

[PharaohUB]

If you've ever been clocked like this, especially when it is unexpected, you know the amount of adrenaline, fear, confusion, and nerves that shoots through your body. Fight or flight, and this guy did not have option of flight. You can't expect someone to act rationally, and evaluate the situation perfectly in that state of mind after being decked. If you're responsible for putting the guy in that state of mind, you are responsible for what he does next. It's a shitty way to learn a lesson, but you can't blame or charge the older guy for this. It's not like he showed up at the gas station that day planning to shoot someone.

[Auto Donk]

If you've ever been clocked like this, especially when it is unexpected, you know the amount of adrenaline, fear, confusion, and nerves that shoots through your body. Fight or flight, and this guy did not have option of flight. You can't expect someone to act rationally, and evaluate the situation perfectly in that state of mind after being decked. If you're responsible for putting the guy in that state of mind, you are responsible for what he does next. It's a shitty way to learn a lesson, but you can't blame or charge the older guy for this. It's not like he showed up at the gas station that day planning to shoot someone.

I agree with everything here except for the last sentence.....

you go out with a f'n concealed handgun, you have it for a reason, and in the back of your mind you know you may use it, otherwise why have it all?

[Auto Donk]

ad, it sounds like you think he was super wrong on one hand

but on the other hand, you think he goes away cause of policat pressure

which is it?

no, i think the public outcry and political pressure will lean toward an indictment, as well.....

maybe I haven't seen enough coverage, but abc news was "astounded" that the shooter could do this and not be charged with murder, and the only coverage I saw seemed to share the outrage.

is the local coverage "pro-shooter", I was just making that comment based on the outraged national liberal media

clearly, from a political standpoint, the local sheriff didn't want anything to do with it, thus why he punted to the state atty's office. I thought the pressure would presumably be on that office to charge the shooter....

[reigle9]

shit, you're right

i'm loaded so was thinking logically

forgot guns are bad politically

[Itsamazing777]

Store owner had previously called police on the shooter for harrassing past customers about parking

[reigle9]

Store owner had previously called police on the shooter for harrassing past customers about parking

needs to go down

i dont even need that tidbit

you (i) could tell by his demeanor he's a jagoff

[JIBBBY]

Don't push the old white men down, they pack..

[Auto Donk]

after reveiwing enough of this case to be in the know, i'd indict the son of a bitch.....

the "pause" the local sheriff found so troubling, in which the shooter brandished the gun, and the victim started to retreat, ends any reasonableness to the subjective belief of the shooter that he was facing imminent death or serious bodily injury.....

st atty's office should announce a clear line here, that if you pull a weapon, u cannot immediately shoot (unless you are under physical attack), and if the threat is not on you, you have to assess his reaction to you pulling heat, and if it's in any way defensive or in retreat, and you go ahead and pull the trigger, you will be charged with murder......

this shooter's conduct fell outside of the "bookends" that envelope "stand your ground", I would find.....

while the pinellas cnty sheriff did a good job explaining the law, he got it wrong....

indict the fukker for murder

[Ebumdude]

How am I wildly speculating that the shooter wasn't being confrontational.....he confronted the woman. Did he call the police like a normal person would/should do when there's a disagreement?

Please.

He's clearly being rude, and she problaby was, too.

Michael Derjka is clearly an instigator. Like Kermit said, not losing sleep if he's convicted.

Again, the kid....

Reports of the shooter being confrontational with a different person at the same location for the same thing.

[reigle9]

Don't push the old white men down, they pack..

friend messaged me last night asking which 357 he should buy (he could buy a rental property for the amount of money he's spent on guns the last 6 months just to fukk liberals lol)

this is the one i picked

[JIBBBY]

^^ I have the snub nose .357 S&W magnum myself.. Packs a little pop...

Reliable, small enough to carry, good for home defense.. Short range reliability and a man stopper you got right there..

[Auto Donk]

^^ I have the snub nose .357 S&W magnum myself.. Packs a little pop...

Reliable, small enough to carry, good for home defense.. Short range reliability and a man stopper you got right there..

if ur going to the bash and i get drunk and you stack me in some half ass cash game, kindly remind me not to punch you in the head, please

[reigle9]

lol

[Ebumdude]

The best part about revolvers; no shell casings left behind....just saying. That’s what a friend told me once.

[JIBBBY]

The best part about revolvers; no shell casings left behind....just saying. That’s what a friend told me once.

If ya gotta reload in a hurry that's not always the case.. You only get 6 shots in a revolver and then it's time to reload.. To reload a revolver you have to eject those spent casings still in the gun.. I guess you can put them in your pocket, but most might drop on the ground in a hairy situation..

As you can see in the first 15 seconds of this video below..

[Thrilla]

[jtoler]

If ya gotta reload in a hurry that's not always the case.. You only get 6 shots in a revolver and then it's time to reload.. To reload a revolver you have to eject those spent casings still in the gun.. I guess you can put them in your pocket, but most might drop on the ground in a hairy situation..

As you can see in the first 15 seconds of this video below..

speedloader

[qwertvt]

My bet would be this goes to a grand jury. The SA doesn’t want to touch this incident.

[JIBBBY]

speedloader

I knew someone was going to say that...

[dlowilly]

This guy isn’t trained in threat assessment and just got violently blindsided to the pavement

The Guy was still facing him it’s not like he was running away

It was imperfect and like I said it could have been avoided but the parking illegally and the physical attack were the two illegal things that set it all in motion

[Thrilla]

^^^
This D racist fukkbag low-iq still defending the white guy?

[Ebumdude]

This guy isn’t trained in threat assessment and just got violently blindsided to the pavement

The Guy was still facing him it’s not like he was running away

It was imperfect and like I said it could have been avoided but the parking illegally and the physical attack were the two illegal things that set it all in motion

I am going to partially disagree with you.

(1) The shooter is not the parking police and he has no right to try to enforce such parking violations by yelling at people just like he did at the same store over the same thing with someone else one week prior. Yes, the couple parked illegally and should not have been there...

Many believe he only argued with people so that he could have a reason to shoot them.

(2) The guy that came out of the store and pushed the shooter, well let's face it....should not have pushed the shooter. That is not how a contributing member of society would react. Keep in mind the who, what and where he was raised to make him think it is acceptable to do shove someone to the ground. It wasn't necassarily his fault, but maybe his parent's fault. His lengthy prior criminal record is what helped shape him into the person that he was.

(3) When the shooter reached behind his back to draw his personal defense weapon, BEFORE the weapon was even visible, the victim took a step back, then the gun was drawn....the shooter paused for aim to recognize his target and what was behind him and made the conscious decision to pull the trigger...

It was that moment before the gun was visible, when the shooter reached behind him, is when the victim took a tiny step back; that is what is in question.

It is at that point that people are debating if he was even a threat at that very particular crucial moment.

A ton of questions, no answers. There was more than one victim there that day. Think about the child? Now the cycle repeats itself......

There is a difference between standing your ground and going out actively looking for trouble. I am not saying either party was right in this situation...people just need to stop being fuckheads.

[JIBBBY]

I am going to partially disagree with you.

(1) The shooter is not the parking police and he has no right to try to enforce such parking violations by yelling at people just like he did at the same store over the same thing with someone else one week prior. Yes, the couple parked illegally and should not have been there...

Many believe he only argued with people so that he could have a reason to shoot them.

(2) The guy that came out of the store and pushed the shooter, well let's face it....should not have pushed the shooter. That is not how a contributing member of society would react. Keep in mind the who, what and where he was raised to make him think it is acceptable to do shove someone to the ground. It wasn't necassarily his fault, but maybe his parent's fault. His lengthy prior criminal record is what helped shape him into the person that he was.

(3) When the shooter reached behind his back to draw his personal defense weapon, BEFORE the weapon was even visible, the victim took a step back, then the gun was drawn....the shooter paused for aim to recognize his target and what was behind him and made the conscious decision to pull the trigger...

It was that moment before the gun was visible, when the shooter reached behind him, is when the victim took a tiny step back; that is what is in question.

It is at that point that people are debating if he was even a threat at that very particular crucial moment.

A ton of questions, no answers. There was more than one victim there that day. Think about the child? Now the cycle repeats itself......

There is a difference between standing your ground and going out actively looking for trouble. I am not saying either party was right in this situation...people just need to stop being fuckheads.

While I completely agree with your assessment there are some details you left out, the shooter did not unload the clip or shoot multiple shots, it was one shot and done to stop the threat.... Getting thrown to the ground like that could cause panic and confusion also.. Go into self preservation mode so to speak..

Also while the guy is not the parking lot police some people are very offended when people use the Handicap spaces for clearly selfish reasons.. Citizens do typically speak up if it doesn't seem legit at times..

The dead man was extreme also in immediately surprise pushing the smaller older man causing him to go to the ground.. Can't physically attack people like that especially if he is the right..

Tough situation to break down and you can go really deep into all the potential emotions and scenarios at hand here.. There are layers to peal back..

[dlowilly]

I am going to partially disagree with you.

(1) The shooter is not the parking police and he has no right to try to enforce such parking violations by yelling at people just like he did at the same store over the same thing with someone else one week prior. Yes, the couple parked illegally and should not have been there...

Many believe he only argued with people so that he could have a reason to shoot them.

(2) The guy that came out of the store and pushed the shooter, well let's face it....should not have pushed the shooter. That is not how a contributing member of society would react. Keep in mind the who, what and where he was raised to make him think it is acceptable to do shove someone to the ground. It wasn't necassarily his fault, but maybe his parent's fault. His lengthy prior criminal record is what helped shape him into the person that he was.

(3) When the shooter reached behind his back to draw his personal defense weapon, BEFORE the weapon was even visible, the victim took a step back, then the gun was drawn....the shooter paused for aim to recognize his target and what was behind him and made the conscious decision to pull the trigger...

It was that moment before the gun was visible, when the shooter reached behind him, is when the victim took a tiny step back; that is what is in question.

It is at that point that people are debating if he was even a threat at that very particular crucial moment.

A ton of questions, no answers. There was more than one victim there that day. Think about the child? Now the cycle repeats itself......

There is a difference between standing your ground and going out actively looking for trouble. I am not saying either party was right in this situation...people just need to stop being fuckheads.

I think a lot of people misunderstand what I'm saying. I agree the threat was over once he pulled the gun and I know the attacker took a step back. It should have ended there in a perfect world, however both the woman and the guy who got shot made serious mistakes, yet the guy who got attacked is supposed to know how to perfectly assess a threat in one second after being thrown to the pavement? It was unnecessary but I just don't think it was murder/manslaughter. All 3 of them fuked up but the guy who got attacked happened to have a gun.

[Thrilla]

The obvious posters who support Trump and have a history of racism on Sbr still trying to justify this shit.

It was murder!