Fla “Stand your ground” trial begins today. - Page 5

Fla “Stand your ground” trial begins today.

This is a discussion on Fla “Stand your ground” trial begins today. within the Home (And Away From Home) Defense Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by jmf552 Originally Posted by OldVet What he instigated was a discussion--or argument may be claimed--over a parking spot. My argument is if ...

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 103
Like Tree150Likes

Thread: Fla “Stand your ground” trial begins today.

  1. #61
    Senior Member Array OneGunTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    What he instigated was a discussion--or argument may be claimed--over a parking spot. My argument is if I were having a debate with you--heated or not--and someone else comes in and sucker punches me, how have I instigated that physical attack by a third party?

    Certainly the smart thing to do with his stated beef would be to photo the car, tag, and driver and call it in to LE or file a complaint.
    We had an incident a couple of years ago in VA that stemmed from an argument in a parking lot, with no physical contact during that argument. Argument ended, parties separated. End of argument.

    Then later that evening, the attackers, who were both Russian competitive weightlifters, followed and ambushed the defender, a small guy, outside his apartment and the defender shot them both. The defender claimed SD because of disparity of force, but the prosecutor put him on trial for murder. The prosecutor's whole case was that the defender had been involved in the earlier argument and therefore helped precipitate the confrontation. The defender was finally acquitted by a judge, not a jury, but it went all the way through the full trial. A different judge and it could have gone a different way. That is cutting it too close for me.
    If the parties separated, what is the minimum amount of time required for the retaliation to be considered a separate event? 1 hour? 1 day? I do not understand VA law of they charged the man for defending himself.
    OldVet likes this.
    Annoy a Liberal!! Get a job and think for yourself!

  2. #62
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,627
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    Apparently the jury did not believe there was a reasonable imminent threat of grave bodily harm or death. That has been my leaning all along, not being privileged to all the available evidence.
    True, Im just curious to know why. Was it the delay between the draw and the shot? The fact that someone much younger than him who was on drugs had attacked him, but was unarmed? From the CBS article, the jury didnt understand the self defense law. In my opinion, the law is very clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Not being on the jury I can't say for certain. But when you say in your statement to the police " I shot him because he did this." And the video shows he didn't do what you said he did, you have just wiped out your own justification for shooting. I imagine it is kind of hard to recover from that.
    I agree, but how often do police give one story, and video shows otherwise and they are not held criminally accountable. Is it possible he actually thought he saw the suspect move toward him, not away from him? In my opinion, they need to be held to the same standard. Of course I am saying this without having all the information in front of me, so I dont know what other information was presented at trial, but I do think he shouldnt have said anything without having a lawyer present.

    Ultimately, Im just curious to know more details. Did they set the precedent that speaking to someone means you started it, and now if that person attacks you, you're the aggressor even though you never touched them? (Just going off of memory, I believe the law says words can not be considered provoking.) Was it the delay? etc...
    We get the government we deserve.

  3. #63
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,245
    Quote Originally Posted by OneGunTX View Post
    If the parties separated, what is the minimum amount of time required for the retaliation to be considered a separate event? 1 hour? 1 day? I do not understand VA law of they charged the man for defending himself.
    I'm with you. Add to that, the weightlifters pretty much started the original argument and they willfully followed the guy home with the intent of assaulting him. The judge did admonished the prosecutor for even bringing the case. But that defender went through some tough times and his defense probably cost him a bunch. He also came "this close" to a second degree murder conviction.

    One thing I learned in the two SD law classes I took that were put on by Arsenal Attorneys, who specialize in gun law, is there are two parts to the law, what the law says and how it is commonly applied. There are things that prosecutors know they can sometimes get away with that are not in any statute or any law book. Sadly, we should all be aware of that.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #64
    Ex Member Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    19,639
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    What he instigated was a discussion--or argument may be claimed--over a parking spot. My argument is if I were having a debate with you--heated or not--and someone else comes in and sucker punches me, how have I instigated that physical attack by a third party?

    Certainly the smart thing to do with his stated beef would be to photo the car, tag, and driver and call it in to LE or file a complaint.
    He wasn't having a debate with the lady in the car, he was verbally assaulting her.
    Doghandler likes this.

  6. #65
    Ex Member Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    19,639
    Quote Originally Posted by OneGunTX View Post
    If the parties separated, what is the minimum amount of time required for the retaliation to be considered a separate event? 1 hour? 1 day? I do not understand VA law of they charged the man for defending himself.
    "It depends". Would a reasonable person believe the two incidents were separate or hot and fresh.

  7. #66
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    31,684
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post
    He wasn't having a debate with the lady in the car, he was verbally assaulting her.
    I don't know that either know what was actually said, but "verbally assaulting" someone does not in itself, nor should it, lead to battery by a third party or use of deadly force. Some may consider a simple disagreement as a verbal assault. Unless threats of physical injury were made, it is no more than arguing.

    And that is how I would judge it.
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  8. #67
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    31,684
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    True, Im just curious to know why. Was it the delay between the draw and the shot? The fact that someone much younger than him who was on drugs had attacked him, but was unarmed? From the CBS article, the jury didnt understand the self defense law. In my opinion, the law is very clear.



    I agree, but how often do police give one story, and video shows otherwise and they are not held criminally accountable. Is it possible he actually thought he saw the suspect move toward him, not away from him? In my opinion, they need to be held to the same standard. Of course I am saying this without having all the information in front of me, so I dont know what other information was presented at trial, but I do think he shouldnt have said anything without having a lawyer present.

    Ultimately, Im just curious to know more details. Did they set the precedent that speaking to someone means you started it, and now if that person attacks you, you're the aggressor even though you never touched them? (Just going off of memory, I believe the law says words can not be considered provoking.) Was it the delay? etc...
    Again, and I think I posted clips from the FL statutes, simple "assault" and "battery" are misdemeanors and not defensible with deadly force. "Aggravated" are "forcible" felonies and allow for use of deadly force, but neither a heated argument nor a push--with no "intent" to cause grave bodily harm or death or use of a weapon--is ground for deadly force.

    But that is my simple reading of the assault and/or battery statutes, not what the jury may have been instructed on.

    The guy got knocked on his butt for causing a ruckus with someone else's wife/girlfriend. I don't think the jury saw it as anything more than that and ruled accordingly so.
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  9. #68
    Ex Member Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    19,639
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    I don't know that either know what was actually said, but "verbally assaulting" someone does not in itself, nor should it, lead to battery by a third party or use of deadly force. Some may consider a simple disagreement as a verbal assault. Unless threats of physical injury were made, it is no more than arguing.

    And that is how I would judge it.
    Verbal assault usually involves threatening physical violence on someone, although sometimes yelling or aggressively using words to offend or attack someone can constitute verbal assault.

    You may judge it incorrectly as a layperson, the legal definition is what the courts will instruct the jury on.

  10. #69
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    31,684
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post
    Verbal assault usually involves threatening physical violence on someone, although sometimes yelling or aggressively using words to offend or attack someone can constitute verbal assault.

    You may judge it incorrectly as a layperson, the legal definition is what the courts will instruct the jury on.
    FL law says:
    784.011 Assault.—
    (1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

    Do you know the guy threatened violence by word? I don't know what was said, so threats of violence may or may not have occurred. So one can argue about a parking spot all day long, at the top of one's lungs, and it does not meet the FL statute on "assault" until threats of violence are involved.
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  11. #70
    Ex Member Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    19,639
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    FL law says:
    784.011 Assault.—
    (1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

    Do you know the guy threatened violence by word? I don't know what was said, so threats of violence may or may not have occurred. So one can argue about a parking spot all day long, at the top of one's lungs, and it does not meet the FL statute on "assault" until threats of violence are involved.
    The jury had all the information they needed to put his arse in jail for UNLAWFUL use of deadly force. She was put in fear enough to call the boyfriend to come out and intervene on her behalf. Obviously he wasn't calm, cool and collected just having a normal conversation,.

  12. #71
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,627
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    Again, and I think I posted clips from the FL statutes, simple "assault" and "battery" are misdemeanors and not defensible with deadly force. "Aggravated" are "forcible" felonies and allow for use of deadly force, but neither a heated argument nor a push--with no "intent" to cause grave bodily harm or death or use of a weapon--is ground for deadly force.

    But that is my simple reading of the assault and/or battery statutes, not what the jury may have been instructed on.

    The guy got knocked on his butt for causing a ruckus with someone else's wife/girlfriend. I don't think the jury saw it as anything more than that and ruled accordingly so.
    Florida self defense law states someone must "reasonably believe" it is necessary to prevent great bodily harm or death. Whether he did, or just decided he was going to shoot him to get him back, I dont know. If they took into account the shove, but not the fact that the attacker continued to move toward the victim until the gun was drawn, then the jury was wrong here, and in that case, I look forward to the appeal.
    We get the government we deserve.

  13. #72
    DG
    DG is offline
    Senior Member Array DG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    966
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    Florida self defense law states someone must "reasonably believe" it is necessary to prevent great bodily harm or death. Whether he did, or just decided he was going to shoot him to get him back, I dont know. If they took into account the shove, but not the fact that the attacker continued to move toward the victim until the gun was drawn, then the jury was wrong here, and in that case, I look forward to the appeal.
    Appeals cost money. If this individual had deep pockets, he wouldn't be in this predicament in the first place.
    Havok likes this.

  14. #73
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    31,684
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post
    The jury had all the information they needed to put his arse in jail for UNLAWFUL use of deadly force. She was put in fear enough to call the boyfriend to come out and intervene on her behalf. Obviously he wasn't calm, cool and collected just having a normal conversation,.
    That's not the point. Unless he made threats of physical violence to her, his actions--like them or not--did not meet the requirements of assault, per FL law. Likewise, until intent to cause grave bodily harm or use of a deadly weapon can be shown with the boyfriend's push, it was only misdemeanor assault and did not meet the level of "forcible felony" required to justify use of deadly force--and that is where I think the defendant's case went off the cliff.

    Until we can see a transcript of the trial, all discussion on this thread is moot. No more, no less.
    Havok likes this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  15. #74
    Ex Member Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    19,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    Florida self defense law states someone must "reasonably believe" it is necessary to prevent great bodily harm or death. Whether he did, or just decided he was going to shoot him to get him back, I dont know. If they took into account the shove, but not the fact that the attacker continued to move toward the victim until the gun was drawn, then the jury was wrong here, and in that case, I look forward to the appeal.
    Watch the video again, by the time he went for the gun, the shover was back stepping. He had time enough to draw, and wasn't being aggressed on. He had to bring the gun to line of sight and wasn't being aggressed on. He had time to extend the gun out and wasn't being aggressed upon.

    Thus there was NO imminent threat AT THE TIME HE FIRED. The jury got it right. I can't believe how many people here are posting responses like they'd have fired on him under the same circumstances.

  16. #75
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,601
    Quote Originally Posted by DG View Post

    Appeals cost money. If this individual had deep pockets, he wouldn't be in this predicament in the first place.
    I read an article the other night describing the circus going on around this case. Drejka's first lawyer is no longer practicing law. Gave up her license while under investigation regarding how he became her client. Current lawyer I believe recently had domestic violence charges against him that were dropped. The lead detective on the case was arrested after driving drunk to a crime scene.

    I have always enjoyed the novels of Carl Hiaasin. I used to think he had a fantastic imagination. Now I wonder if he is just reporting what he sees.
    DG and Instymp like this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •