FL:Stand your ground law under fire for parking space dispute murder

[Paladin]

I think it is important for everyone to know how to evaluate the truthfulness of statements and witnesses. Particularly in an era where the legacy media is so heavily biased.

As LTC's we all passed a tough background check. But states like Florida and Texas have an adult population with a felony conviction rate of over 10%. link

It would be foolish to give equal weight to the word of a convicted felon and an LTC.

With the abysmal growth in the unholy belief of moral relativism:

By a 3-to-1 margin (64% vs. 22%) adults said truth is always relative to the person and their situation. The perspective was even more lopsided among teenagers, 83% of whom said moral truth depends on the circumstances, and only 6% of whom said moral truth is absolute.

link

It's safe to assume that there are a whole lot of people out there who lie whenever they "feel" like it.

We shouldn't rush to judgement. We need to give LTC's the chance to explain/defend their actions. Our judgement should be based on known facts once we have them, and not the dubious words of criminals or moral relativists.

[mojo84]

The video makes it pretty obvious what happened.

[dlh]

The video makes it pretty obvious what happened.

The video is certainly helpful but there is quite a bit we as "arm-chair jurors" do not know. What was said between the shooter and the girlfriend? What was said between the shooter and the boyfriend? How did it feel to get thrown to the hot asphalt in a convenience store parking lot while you are wearing shorts? The skinny shooter looked somewhat frail to me--certainly not a husky football type.

Maybe we will learn more in the coming days---maybe not.

[mojo84]

The video makes it pretty obvious what happened.

The video is certainly helpful but there is quite a bit we as "arm-chair jurors" do not know.

1) What was said between the shooter and the girlfriend?

2) What was said between the shooter and the boyfriend?

3) How did it feel to get thrown to the hot asphalt in a convenience store parking lot while you are wearing shorts?

4) The skinny shooter looked somewhat frail to me--certainly not a husky football type.

Maybe we will learn more in the coming days---maybe not.

1) Given the outcome of the situation, this is largely irrelevant, if the interaction was more than ~10 seconds.
If the shooter said, "Ma'am, this is a disabled parking spot, would you mind moving your car?", any further words or actions on his part, other than,
"Ok, thank you..." and walking away escalated the situation. If he started with something less cordial, he was seeking a confrontation.

2) Legally, if the shooter intentionally places himself in a situation of conflict, this is (within very limited confines) irrelevant. It is generally
legally insufficient to act solely on the words of another person, in the absence of imminent danger. I.e., even if BF threatened to kill the
shooter, BF is backing up and not obviously trying to get into the car for a weapon, reaching to his waistband, etc.. Had BF continued advancing,
that would be a different situation as well. Bottom line, as LTCs we are responsible for assessing the situation, in the context of being a,
"reasonable person".

3) Probably hurt. If I pee on a light-socket, that will probably hurt too. This is a consequential progression, not a thoroughly unforseen event.
Shooter thought he could utilize verbal command-presence to dominate a woman in a car. He was so focused on the conflict he felt confident and
justified of winning that he neglected to assess for other factors in play. Ask any LE, when you amp-up with commands, you should have
reasonable expectation of physical conflict. Again, if the shooter is/was so completely unaware of violence dynamics that this is not part of his
consciousness, he should not be carrying. Yes, these are Big Boy Rules. The State has authorized him to apply lethal force. Some
actions/behaviors make applying that level of force more a certainty than a possibility brought about by multi-tiered failure to assess risk.

4) Agreed. Which falls under the, "don't let your mouth write checks your butt can't cash," paradigm. Again, this was not an unprovoked assault.
Regardless of her floral, or thorny, personality, the woman is at a distinct disadvantage, seated in the car, not to mention the level of "disrespect"
imparted by the lecture. Street-norms indicate you'll get a butt-whuppin' if you try that too many times. If you're skinny dude, and you start
altercations with Big Dude, and you do so knowing you have lethal force at hand, you are not functioning within the intent of SDA. Again, you
might skate by, but sooner or later...

One of the big messages not to miss in this is the proper and adequate utilization of verbal skills. Out and about, if we feel the need to try and direct others in what we consider appropriate behavior, we need to be able to do so very affably, and in a highly self-effacing fashion. If we are not aware of how others perceive us we may end up in very hot water, through the best of intentions. One might even suggest that helping someone who was disabled with their groceries/other tasks, perhaps even looking for such people and situations, would be a better use of time and energy than "preaching righteousness to the unwashed." But that is an attitude of service, not Authority, and perhaps that is the difference in this situation.

Lastly,

1Peter 3:15-16
But in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you the reason for the hope you possess. But respond with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who slander you will be put to shame by your good behavior in Christ.

Whether one is Christian or not, that is excellent advice, and will keep one out of enormous quantities of trouble.

Those are some excellent thoughts and perspective.

[BBYC]

The video makes it pretty obvious what happened.

It does. It shows a man come out of the store and hit another man with so much force it knocks the other man to the ground. Then he gets shot once by the other man. Then he runs into the store and doesn't get shot in the back as he runs away.

[dlh]

The video makes it pretty obvious what happened.

The video is certainly helpful but there is quite a bit we as "arm-chair jurors" do not know.

1) What was said between the shooter and the girlfriend?

2) What was said between the shooter and the boyfriend?

3) How did it feel to get thrown to the hot asphalt in a convenience store parking lot while you are wearing shorts?

4) The skinny shooter looked somewhat frail to me--certainly not a husky football type.

Maybe we will learn more in the coming days---maybe not.

1) Given the outcome of the situation, this is largely irrelevant, if the interaction was more than ~10 seconds.
If the shooter said, "Ma'am, this is a disabled parking spot, would you mind moving your car?", any further words or actions on his part, other than,
"Ok, thank you..." and walking away escalated the situation. If he started with something less cordial, he was seeking a confrontation.

2) Legally, if the shooter intentionally places himself in a situation of conflict, this is (within very limited confines) irrelevant. It is generally
legally insufficient to act solely on the words of another person, in the absence of imminent danger. I.e., even if BF threatened to kill the
shooter, BF is backing up and not obviously trying to get into the car for a weapon, reaching to his waistband, etc.. Had BF continued advancing,
that would be a different situation as well. Bottom line, as LTCs we are responsible for assessing the situation, in the context of being a,
"reasonable person".

3) Probably hurt. If I pee on a light-socket, that will probably hurt too. This is a consequential progression, not a thoroughly unforseen event.
Shooter thought he could utilize verbal command-presence to dominate a woman in a car. He was so focused on the conflict he felt confident and
justified of winning that he neglected to assess for other factors in play. Ask any LE, when you amp-up with commands, you should have
reasonable expectation of physical conflict. Again, if the shooter is/was so completely unaware of violence dynamics that this is not part of his
consciousness, he should not be carrying. Yes, these are Big Boy Rules. The State has authorized him to apply lethal force. Some
actions/behaviors make applying that level of force more a certainty than a possibility brought about by multi-tiered failure to assess risk.

4) Agreed. Which falls under the, "don't let your mouth write checks your butt can't cash," paradigm. Again, this was not an unprovoked assault.
Regardless of her floral, or thorny, personality, the woman is at a distinct disadvantage, seated in the car, not to mention the level of "disrespect"
imparted by the lecture. Street-norms indicate you'll get a butt-whuppin' if you try that too many times. If you're skinny dude, and you start
altercations with Big Dude, and you do so knowing you have lethal force at hand, you are not functioning within the intent of SDA. Again, you
might skate by, but sooner or later...

One of the big messages not to miss in this is the proper and adequate utilization of verbal skills. Out and about, if we feel the need to try and direct others in what we consider appropriate behavior, we need to be able to do so very affably, and in a highly self-effacing fashion. If we are not aware of how others perceive us we may end up in very hot water, through the best of intentions. One might even suggest that helping someone who was disabled with their groceries/other tasks, perhaps even looking for such people and situations, would be a better use of time and energy than "preaching righteousness to the unwashed." But that is an attitude of service, not Authority, and perhaps that is the difference in this situation.

Lastly,

1Peter 3:15-16
But in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you the reason for the hope you possess. But respond with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who slander you will be put to shame by your good behavior in Christ.

Whether one is Christian or not, that is excellent advice, and will keep one out of enormous quantities of trouble.

Regarding 1 and 2...Florida evidence law will govern the admissibility of those statements---they may or may not be relevant and admissible. What if the girlfriend told the shooter, "I just texted my boyfriend and he said he is coming out of the store to beat your ***!"...hmmmm. If I defended the shooter I would certainly want the jury to hear that....

Regarding 3 it is easy to speculate about what we would do or not do if we were, wearing shorts and sandals, thrown onto some hot asphalt and experienced some road rash from a larger man in a convenience store parking lot...Until it actually happens we don't know. Yes, most of us would not put ourselves in that position to begin with---I understand that too.

This is an ambiguous event and in my opinion different juries would reach different results. The Sheriff looked at it after interviewing all the witnesses (something we have not done) and decided not to pursue it on his end. That leaves a state or district attorney to decide whether to pursue a "ham sandwich case." Stay tuned.

[BBYC]

The video makes it pretty obvious what happened.

The video is certainly helpful but there is quite a bit we as "arm-chair jurors" do not know.

1) What was said between the shooter and the girlfriend?

2) What was said between the shooter and the boyfriend?

3) How did it feel to get thrown to the hot asphalt in a convenience store parking lot while you are wearing shorts?

4) The skinny shooter looked somewhat frail to me--certainly not a husky football type.

Maybe we will learn more in the coming days---maybe not.

1) Given the outcome of the situation, this is largely irrelevant, if the interaction was more than ~10 seconds.
If the shooter said, "Ma'am, this is a disabled parking spot, would you mind moving your car?", any further words or actions on his part, other than,
"Ok, thank you..." and walking away escalated the situation. If he started with something less cordial, he was seeking a confrontation.

2) Legally, if the shooter intentionally places himself in a situation of conflict, this is (within very limited confines) irrelevant. It is generally
legally insufficient to act solely on the words of another person, in the absence of imminent danger. I.e., even if BF threatened to kill the
shooter, BF is backing up and not obviously trying to get into the car for a weapon, reaching to his waistband, etc.. Had BF continued advancing,
that would be a different situation as well. Bottom line, as LTCs we are responsible for assessing the situation, in the context of being a,
"reasonable person".

3) Probably hurt. If I pee on a light-socket, that will probably hurt too. This is a consequential progression, not a thoroughly unforseen event.
Shooter thought he could utilize verbal command-presence to dominate a woman in a car. He was so focused on the conflict he felt confident and
justified of winning that he neglected to assess for other factors in play. Ask any LE, when you amp-up with commands, you should have
reasonable expectation of physical conflict. Again, if the shooter is/was so completely unaware of violence dynamics that this is not part of his
consciousness, he should not be carrying. Yes, these are Big Boy Rules. The State has authorized him to apply lethal force. Some
actions/behaviors make applying that level of force more a certainty than a possibility brought about by multi-tiered failure to assess risk.

4) Agreed. Which falls under the, "don't let your mouth write checks your butt can't cash," paradigm. Again, this was not an unprovoked assault.
Regardless of her floral, or thorny, personality, the woman is at a distinct disadvantage, seated in the car, not to mention the level of "disrespect"
imparted by the lecture. Street-norms indicate you'll get a butt-whuppin' if you try that too many times. If you're skinny dude, and you start
altercations with Big Dude, and you do so knowing you have lethal force at hand, you are not functioning within the intent of SDA. Again, you
might skate by, but sooner or later...

One of the big messages not to miss in this is the proper and adequate utilization of verbal skills. Out and about, if we feel the need to try and direct others in what we consider appropriate behavior, we need to be able to do so very affably, and in a highly self-effacing fashion. If we are not aware of how others perceive us we may end up in very hot water, through the best of intentions. One might even suggest that helping someone who was disabled with their groceries/other tasks, perhaps even looking for such people and situations, would be a better use of time and energy than "preaching righteousness to the unwashed." But that is an attitude of service, not Authority, and perhaps that is the difference in this situation.

Lastly,

1Peter 3:15-16
But in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you the reason for the hope you possess. But respond with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who slander you will be put to shame by your good behavior in Christ.

Whether one is Christian or not, that is excellent advice, and will keep one out of enormous quantities of trouble.

Feel better now?

[mojo84]

The video makes it pretty obvious what happened.

It does. It shows a man come out of the store and hit another man with so much force it knocks the other man to the ground. Then he gets shot once by the other man. Then he runs into the store and doesn't get shot in the back as he runs away.

Did he continue the attack after he shoved him or after the gun was produced? We don't get to shoot people for revenge. What was the guy's physical response to the gun being produced?

Try watching the video without any bias or preconceived ideas about who you want to be in the right.

[mojo84]

I know the incident being discussed happened in Florida. However, who wants to bet the Houston volunteer parking enforement program's procedures, guidelines and code of conduct do not include delivering a verbal tongue lashing to violators?

http://www.houstontx.gov/parking/volunteer.html

I wonder if Florida cities have similar volunteer programs.


Here is a nonconfrontational way to report violators if anyone is interested. http://www.parkingmobility.com/volunteer I understand one will not get the feeling of moral superiority of adrenaline rush without the confrontation but this may be an option.

[bblhd672]

The latest: https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politi ... cglockton/

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson and Rep. Charlie Crist are calling on the Department of Justice to investigate the shooting death of Markeis McGlockton.

Can always count on the federal level hustlers to show up when an election is pending.

[mojo84]

Another self-appointed parking cop's action gone bad. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/c ... 84395.html

Is it really worth it to confront someone over a parking violation when there are better ways to deal with it available?

For full disclosure. I have said something to people that were illegally parked in a handicapped spot but I did not stop and give them a verbal tongue lashing or engage them in an argument or verbal altercation. I made them aware their actions were wrong and noted and kept on my way. A couple have actually gone back to their cars and moved them. A couple have told me where to go. Either way, my point was made and I didn't have to shoot anyone.

[Beiruty]

In Texas, the retreat of the Aggressor was not factor in a case happened many years ago in DFW. The Father ( felon) and son shot the aggressors while fleeing from and outside the house the Aggressors threw bricks at. The defense of the shooters (Fathers and Son) claim under the castle law the shooters were justified to shoot from the house and outside the house. And the because the Aggressors fleeing the scene can come back with weapon and shoot back, engaging the Aggressors while they are fleeing is also justified.

The shooters were acquitted but the father was convicted on a Felon with Firearm charge.

Now retreating after shoving is not enough as the aggressor can be argued is repositioning for more attacks. In addition, Girlfriend and Boyfriend against a man off balanced on the ground can be a factor in disparity of force.

In Florida, the fear of great bodily harm can justify the use of deadly force.

The whole thing started with unwise decision play the parking lot guard, and it can be argued the whole thing started with an illegal parking in the first place.

Do you see the parallel with Zimmerman case? However, in Zimmerman case, the black kid was not doing anything wrong until he attacked Zimmerman.


Recommendation, verbal arguments should not lead to battery assault as such act can be countered with deadly force.