So this is a little complex, but totally insane to me. A woman illegally parks in handicapped spot outside a convenience store and waits in the car while her family shops. A random citizen...
So this is a little complex, but totally insane to me.
A woman illegally parks in handicapped spot outside a convenience store and waits in the car while her family shops.
A random citizen confronts her about it. Her male partner comes out and pushes the man to the ground.
While on the ground, the man shoots and kills the other man. He cannot be charged under Florida’s stand your ground law.
What are your thoughts on this type of situation. Should you be allowed to kill someone in this type of situation?
Edit: holy crap, I just watched the video, there was no immediate threat to the jerk on the ground. What a fucked up law.
If I recall correctly homicide rates are up 7% where Stand Your Ground has been implemented and up 25% for white males. This is contrast to laws which require you to exhaust all other possible...
If I recall correctly homicide rates are up 7% where Stand Your Ground has been implemented and up 25% for white males.
This is contrast to laws which require you to exhaust all other possible options first, such as trying to escape (hence the 'Stand your ground' nomenclature)
The takeaway from the data is that these types of laws seem to speak to a certain kind of white male who also happens to be into guns and are in fact not de-escelating when they could, pulling a weapon, and either fatally shooting someone or getting fatally shot themselves.
I find the 'anyone can arm themselves to protect themselves against anyone doing the same" mindset is flawed and costing a lot to the american people, and others visiting their country, but you...
I find the 'anyone can arm themselves to protect themselves against anyone doing the same" mindset is flawed and costing a lot to the american people, and others visiting their country, but you can't use verbs like executing and murdering in this situation.
The guy that was assaulted was brutally pushed to the ground, for no reason. Talking to someone is not a reason to be brutally attacked. The assaulter keep approaching, and with a kick to the head or the chest could easily deal fatal damage to the guy on the ground.
You are being brutally attacked out of the blue, the aggressor is in no way defending themselves but came at you out of nowhere and keep getting closer after the first strike, and the second could be fatal. So you kill the attacker, or at least harm him with the risk of it in order to stop them at all cost.
In america where weapons are everywhere, the risk bar has to be set much lower than in other countries. It's absurd, but it's their law and culture. And in this context there was no murder nor execution.
If you're OK with concealed carry & any kind of self defence I struggle to see what could make the circumstances more acceptable? Shoving someone forcefully on concrete can kill. Yes he pauses...
If you're OK with concealed carry & any kind of self defence I struggle to see what could make the circumstances more acceptable?
Shoving someone forcefully on concrete can kill. Yes he pauses after he initiates his attack but he's certainly close enough he could resume it. When the shooter draws on him he twists away to present a smaller target but he's barely out of kicking distance.
I'd rather not live in a country where people can be wondering about with concealed firearms but if someone physically assaults you and remains a physical threat then anything necessary to defend yourself seems entirely fair to me.
Assuming that we accept the laws as they are, concealed carry and stand your ground, the original shove was not lethal. And there was no further immediate threat looking at the video. It looks...
Assuming that we accept the laws as they are, concealed carry and stand your ground, the original shove was not lethal. And there was no further immediate threat looking at the video. It looks like “oh, you shoved me, well I’m going to kill you for that now.”
Have you watched many videos of the Tueller Drill. It relates to an attacker with a knife vs a holstered gun but it's similar and doesn't involve watching people getting beaten to death. The point...
Have you watched many videos of the Tueller Drill. It relates to an attacker with a knife vs a holstered gun but it's similar and doesn't involve watching people getting beaten to death. The point I'm trying to make is the guy on the floor is in no way safe just because his attacker failed to injure him seriously on his first attempt and isn't currently wailing on him.
If the shover had instead shot and missed then paused would you feel the same about it?
Incidentally I don't think in this instance he should've shot him. I just think it's fairly understandable that he did in that situation.
It depends on the perception of the threat for the person being attacked. This is why initiating physical violence is such an incredibly bad idea. You have no clue what the mental state of your...
It depends on the perception of the threat for the person being attacked. This is why initiating physical violence is such an incredibly bad idea. You have no clue what the mental state of your 'victim' is. Will they see your unasked for friendly rough-housing as a serious attempt on their life or will they take it in the spirit you intended? Just a friendly display of dominance on a stranger? "it's just a prank mate!" you have no idea.
Are they expecting a mob hit? Or perhaps they spend too much time watching youtube - warning death, unless you know them you just don't know. So assuming an average male 'victim' the 40.8233kg woman and OAP should be safe. But initiating violence on a stranger and assuming they're average is of course risky.
If you're going to let people carry around handguns, which quickly raise the stakes to lethal in any altercation then the above video seems entirely the kind of interaction you would expect to me. A physically threatening aggressor is too close to leave alive once the gun is involved. Should he wait until he's taken a few stomps to the head before he draws? Ideally I think he should ask the aggressor to back off but apparently you're allowed to wonder around with a concealed hand gun and very little training so understandable mistakes are to be expected.
For the record I'm very happy with the gun & even knife laws in the UK (where I live). I just think initiating violence when your 'victim' can form a narrative that you intend them serious harm ideally results in you getting hurt immediately. I think it is a far better norm to prevent violence than hoping that society will step in later and arrest people who step so far from civility.
A while ago there were a spate of stabbings in Turkey where British football fans went over there got drunk and started fights with young Turkish guys in just the way they would back home. They discovered that Turkish guys considered these sort of fun drunken beatings unacceptable and stabbed them. This was unfortunate but I'd much rather that aggressive drunken people get stabbed than civil people have to put up with potentially lethal beatings. Something 2 house mates and a relative have had to endure here.
I don’t think the lines are fuzzy. In both of your scenarios there’s no risk to the person on the grounds life while in ops situation there is some risk to his life. When you’ve been assaulted and...
I don’t think the lines are fuzzy. In both of your scenarios there’s no risk to the person on the grounds life while in ops situation there is some risk to his life.
When you’ve been assaulted and are lying on your back on the ground, you’re in a very vulnerable position. You pose two situations where there was no assault, therefore no fear of serious injury or death
The shoving person wasn't armed. Drawing your firearm should be more than sufficient to establish safety without having to actually pull the trigger. Self-defense isn't really a valid argument if...
The shoving person wasn't armed. Drawing your firearm should be more than sufficient to establish safety without having to actually pull the trigger. Self-defense isn't really a valid argument if you use excessive force, and because shooting wasn't actually necessary, that would qualify as excessive.
In hindsight we know the shoving person wasn’t armed in this situation, but the guy on the ground has no way of knowing if he’s armed and what his intentions are.
In hindsight we know the shoving person wasn’t armed in this situation, but the guy on the ground has no way of knowing if he’s armed and what his intentions are.
I would argue that if you're able to accurately aim at and shoot someone, then you should be able to tell whether or not they're currently holding a weapon before you pull the trigger. If you...
I would argue that if you're able to accurately aim at and shoot someone, then you should be able to tell whether or not they're currently holding a weapon before you pull the trigger. If you can't tell that much before pulling the trigger, then you're just panic shooting and you shouldn't even be carrying a concealed weapon in the first place.
If you carry a firearm--concealed or not--then it's your responsibility to ensure that it's only used when absolutely necessary.
The guy on the ground shot the guy who pushed him down. There is a video in the linked story that is surprisingly gore-free if you want to watch it. The guy who got shot was many feet from the...
The guy on the ground shot the guy who pushed him down. There is a video in the linked story that is surprisingly gore-free if you want to watch it. The guy who got shot was many feet from the shooter and no longer threatening him.
The way I saw it, the guy came out and pretty much defended his girlfriend. He didn’t even punch the guy. Just a shove got him legally shot.
Watching the video, the shooting looked unwarranted. Once the guy had his gun drawn the other guy was backing up and clearly not going to do anything else. What I think a lot of people don't...
Watching the video, the shooting looked unwarranted. Once the guy had his gun drawn the other guy was backing up and clearly not going to do anything else.
What I think a lot of people don't realize in situations like this is, there are people out there who want to be put in a certain situation to make him feel justified in doing something because they just want to do it. They look for any opening they can get to have validation to do something. It looked like the guy on the ground wanted to shoot him just to shoot him. Maybe it was over anger, maybe he saw an opportunity and took it. But watching the video it clearly wasn't justified. I have a strong feeling he just wanted to shoot someone and then claim stand your ground to say he did it.
The guy who approached the woman about parking in a handicap spot with her kids in the car knew there was going to be some man coming at him. A huge part about being a man in our society is knowing that people don't really care when men are assaulted in public. So you have to pick your battles and watch what you do even if you're in the right they'll still say will you shouldn't have done X or Y. And x or y could just be breathing.
Don't start violence, don't die. Seems pretty clear to me what a reasonable person should have done in that situation (i.e. not shoved anybody). Once you move into violent territory, you MUST...
Don't start violence, don't die. Seems pretty clear to me what a reasonable person should have done in that situation (i.e. not shoved anybody).
Once you move into violent territory, you MUST accept the possibility someone is going to be injured or killed, and that person might be you. Anything past that is semantics, honestly.
A bit. Yeah, I started out saying that this is a complex situation. I still do not see guns as solutions to problems in the vast majority of cases though. I can only guess that if a gun was not...
A bit. Yeah, I started out saying that this is a complex situation. I still do not see guns as solutions to problems in the vast majority of cases though. I can only guess that if a gun was not present, then no one would have died that day.
So this is a little complex, but totally insane to me.
A woman illegally parks in handicapped spot outside a convenience store and waits in the car while her family shops.
A random citizen confronts her about it. Her male partner comes out and pushes the man to the ground.
While on the ground, the man shoots and kills the other man. He cannot be charged under Florida’s stand your ground law.
What are your thoughts on this type of situation. Should you be allowed to kill someone in this type of situation?
Edit: holy crap, I just watched the video, there was no immediate threat to the jerk on the ground. What a fucked up law.
This thread needs the 'Florida Man' tag. Nothing out of the ordinary here. :/
Obviously not what the 'stand your ground' law is for.
I’m curious how many other spurious “stand your ground” shootings there have been.
They seem to be on the rise lately in any case.
Can’t be sure without statistics but my guess would be that they haven’t increased but media attention to them has increased.
If I recall correctly homicide rates are up 7% where Stand Your Ground has been implemented and up 25% for white males.
This is contrast to laws which require you to exhaust all other possible options first, such as trying to escape (hence the 'Stand your ground' nomenclature)
The takeaway from the data is that these types of laws seem to speak to a certain kind of white male who also happens to be into guns and are in fact not de-escelating when they could, pulling a weapon, and either fatally shooting someone or getting fatally shot themselves.
25% is a huge increase.
Homicide rates are up where stand your ground is implemented? But I thought something something good guys with guns.
Legal experimentation is a good thing as long as the system is able to adapt in a sober manner.
I find the 'anyone can arm themselves to protect themselves against anyone doing the same" mindset is flawed and costing a lot to the american people, and others visiting their country, but you can't use verbs like executing and murdering in this situation.
The guy that was assaulted was brutally pushed to the ground, for no reason. Talking to someone is not a reason to be brutally attacked. The assaulter keep approaching, and with a kick to the head or the chest could easily deal fatal damage to the guy on the ground.
You are being brutally attacked out of the blue, the aggressor is in no way defending themselves but came at you out of nowhere and keep getting closer after the first strike, and the second could be fatal. So you kill the attacker, or at least harm him with the risk of it in order to stop them at all cost.
In america where weapons are everywhere, the risk bar has to be set much lower than in other countries. It's absurd, but it's their law and culture. And in this context there was no murder nor execution.
If you're OK with concealed carry & any kind of self defence I struggle to see what could make the circumstances more acceptable?
Shoving someone forcefully on concrete can kill. Yes he pauses after he initiates his attack but he's certainly close enough he could resume it. When the shooter draws on him he twists away to present a smaller target but he's barely out of kicking distance.
I'd rather not live in a country where people can be wondering about with concealed firearms but if someone physically assaults you and remains a physical threat then anything necessary to defend yourself seems entirely fair to me.
Assuming that we accept the laws as they are, concealed carry and stand your ground, the original shove was not lethal. And there was no further immediate threat looking at the video. It looks like “oh, you shoved me, well I’m going to kill you for that now.”
Have you watched many videos of the Tueller Drill. It relates to an attacker with a knife vs a holstered gun but it's similar and doesn't involve watching people getting beaten to death. The point I'm trying to make is the guy on the floor is in no way safe just because his attacker failed to injure him seriously on his first attempt and isn't currently wailing on him.
If the shover had instead shot and missed then paused would you feel the same about it?
Incidentally I don't think in this instance he should've shot him. I just think it's fairly understandable that he did in that situation.
It depends on the perception of the threat for the person being attacked. This is why initiating physical violence is such an incredibly bad idea. You have no clue what the mental state of your 'victim' is. Will they see your unasked for friendly rough-housing as a serious attempt on their life or will they take it in the spirit you intended? Just a friendly display of dominance on a stranger? "it's just a prank mate!" you have no idea.
Are they expecting a mob hit? Or perhaps they spend too much time watching youtube - warning death, unless you know them you just don't know. So assuming an average male 'victim' the 40.8233kg woman and OAP should be safe. But initiating violence on a stranger and assuming they're average is of course risky.
If you're going to let people carry around handguns, which quickly raise the stakes to lethal in any altercation then the above video seems entirely the kind of interaction you would expect to me. A physically threatening aggressor is too close to leave alive once the gun is involved. Should he wait until he's taken a few stomps to the head before he draws? Ideally I think he should ask the aggressor to back off but apparently you're allowed to wonder around with a concealed hand gun and very little training so understandable mistakes are to be expected.
For the record I'm very happy with the gun & even knife laws in the UK (where I live). I just think initiating violence when your 'victim' can form a narrative that you intend them serious harm ideally results in you getting hurt immediately. I think it is a far better norm to prevent violence than hoping that society will step in later and arrest people who step so far from civility.
A while ago there were a spate of stabbings in Turkey where British football fans went over there got drunk and started fights with young Turkish guys in just the way they would back home. They discovered that Turkish guys considered these sort of fun drunken beatings unacceptable and stabbed them. This was unfortunate but I'd much rather that aggressive drunken people get stabbed than civil people have to put up with potentially lethal beatings. Something 2 house mates and a relative have had to endure here.
I don’t think the lines are fuzzy. In both of your scenarios there’s no risk to the person on the grounds life while in ops situation there is some risk to his life.
When you’ve been assaulted and are lying on your back on the ground, you’re in a very vulnerable position. You pose two situations where there was no assault, therefore no fear of serious injury or death
The shoving person wasn't armed. Drawing your firearm should be more than sufficient to establish safety without having to actually pull the trigger. Self-defense isn't really a valid argument if you use excessive force, and because shooting wasn't actually necessary, that would qualify as excessive.
In hindsight we know the shoving person wasn’t armed in this situation, but the guy on the ground has no way of knowing if he’s armed and what his intentions are.
I would argue that if you're able to accurately aim at and shoot someone, then you should be able to tell whether or not they're currently holding a weapon before you pull the trigger. If you can't tell that much before pulling the trigger, then you're just panic shooting and you shouldn't even be carrying a concealed weapon in the first place.
If you carry a firearm--concealed or not--then it's your responsibility to ensure that it's only used when absolutely necessary.
So the guy in the store got shot or the guy on the ground?
The guy on the ground shot the guy who pushed him down. There is a video in the linked story that is surprisingly gore-free if you want to watch it. The guy who got shot was many feet from the shooter and no longer threatening him.
The way I saw it, the guy came out and pretty much defended his girlfriend. He didn’t even punch the guy. Just a shove got him legally shot.
You think launching someone onto concrete is a reasonable defence of your girlfriend & kids from the terror of a verbal telling off?
I have no idea what was being said as there was no audio, but generally, no I don’t.
Watching the video, the shooting looked unwarranted. Once the guy had his gun drawn the other guy was backing up and clearly not going to do anything else.
What I think a lot of people don't realize in situations like this is, there are people out there who want to be put in a certain situation to make him feel justified in doing something because they just want to do it. They look for any opening they can get to have validation to do something. It looked like the guy on the ground wanted to shoot him just to shoot him. Maybe it was over anger, maybe he saw an opportunity and took it. But watching the video it clearly wasn't justified. I have a strong feeling he just wanted to shoot someone and then claim stand your ground to say he did it.
The guy who approached the woman about parking in a handicap spot with her kids in the car knew there was going to be some man coming at him. A huge part about being a man in our society is knowing that people don't really care when men are assaulted in public. So you have to pick your battles and watch what you do even if you're in the right they'll still say will you shouldn't have done X or Y. And x or y could just be breathing.
Don't start violence, don't die. Seems pretty clear to me what a reasonable person should have done in that situation (i.e. not shoved anybody).
Once you move into violent territory, you MUST accept the possibility someone is going to be injured or killed, and that person might be you. Anything past that is semantics, honestly.
I grew up, and live, in a very different world where guys punch each other and then go have a beer together.
Why not try and live in a better world? Because a world where people throw punches is a world where people can and DO end up dead.
This finally hit one of my favorite Reddit subs, r/Law.
Here is the link to the mostly interesting discussion
So did the lawyer & police officer in that thread saying SYG is irrelevant and this looks like simple self defence change your view at all?
A bit. Yeah, I started out saying that this is a complex situation. I still do not see guns as solutions to problems in the vast majority of cases though. I can only guess that if a gun was not present, then no one would have died that day.
Much less likely I'd agree, although if anyone it's the guy on the floor getting beaten to death.
I just rewatched the video in case I missed something, and I could never in million years characterize that as “getting beaten to death.”