Florida Stand your Ground Law

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Thomas

The Daily Signal. Is this where I dismiss your source because it was created by The Heritage Foundation?

RIF.

Indeed, it is impossible to think of any other group in the U.S. that is anywhere near as law-abiding,” says the report, titled “Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States 2016.”

They are writing about another study.

Fact is access to gun and lower bars to concealed carry have no bearing on crime crime.

Just look at NH murder rate VS MA.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Originally Posted by VITE1

RIF.




They are writing about another study.

Fact is access to gun and lower bars to concealed carry have no bearing on crime crime.

Just look at NH murder rate VS MA.

I’ll ask you again; should I dismiss your source? This is a fairly simple
question and a practice you engage in with aplomb.

Your source supports your facts. I would expect them to. I wouldn’t expect you to cite HuffPo for example for your statistics.

My point, and my only point (and question) was this; does pushing someone to the ground warrant the use of deadly force?

FYI; he’s in a HEAP of trouble and I imagine his defense will devastate him financially. But this is Florida. If he’s gonna beat this, Florida is the place to do it.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I’ll ask you again; should I dismiss your source? This is a fairly simple
question and a practice you engage in with aplomb.

Your source supports your facts. I would expect them to. I wouldn’t expect you to cite HuffPo for example for your statistics.

My point, and my only point (and question) was this; does pushing someone to the ground warrant the use of deadly force?

FYI; he’s in a HEAP of trouble and I imagine his defense will devastate him financially. But this is Florida. If he’s gonna beat this, Florida is the place to do it.

You can do what you want with the source I produced.

As to the point of pushing someone to the ground Warrant of deadly force the answer is "It depends on all the facts".

Since I don't have all the facts I don't know if the shooter is guilty or not.

From what facts I do have I would not have shot the guy.

[MrPeabody]

The problem with these cases that have video evidence is it's a silent movie.

I'm assuming that the dead guy could probably hear at least some of whet the guy was saying to his girlfriend. We couldn't.

Let's imagine that he was saying

a) Listen here you n----- bitch. you move this car or I've got a gun and I'll blow your brains out, and your kids, too!


or,


b) Excuse me, miss, I believe you have mistakenly pulled into a handicapped space. Would you please be kind enough to move your car?

Now the truth is, what he was saying was probably somewhere in between the two. And any of us would react differently depending on what we heard him saying. Perhaps there are witnesses who heard what the guy was saying, there are several people in the video nearby. That's why I think it's appropriate to have a trial and review all the facts before a jury, and not pass judgement on the basis of a silent video. What the shooter was saying to the woman would have a huge a huge influence on me as a juror in deciding if pushing that guy was an appropriate thing to do. I won't call him guilty or not guilty until I know more about that.

I also notice that the prosecution is not being over-zealous and going for murder one or two, but the lesser charge of manslaughter.

[JRD77VET]

Originally Posted by MrPeabody

The problem with these cases that have video evidence is it's a silent movie.

I'm assuming that the dead guy could probably hear at least some of whet the guy was saying to his girlfriend. We couldn't.

Let's imagine that he was saying

a) Listen here you n----- bitch. you move this car or I've got a gun and I'll blow your brains out, and your kids, too!


or,


b) Excuse me, miss, I believe you have mistakenly pulled into a handicapped space. Would you please be kind enough to move your car?

Now the truth is, what he was saying was probably somewhere in between the two. And any of us would react differently depending on what we heard him saying. Perhaps there are witnesses who heard what the guy was saying, there are several people in the video nearby. That's why I think it's appropriate to have a trial and review all the facts before a jury, and not pass judgement on the basis of a silent video. What the shooter was saying to the woman would have a huge a huge influence on me as a juror in deciding if pushing that guy was an appropriate thing to do. I won't call him guilty or not guilty until I know more about that.

I also notice that the prosecution is not being over-zealous and going for murder one or two, but the lesser charge of manslaughter.

It's my opinion that the prosecutor filed these charges to take the heat off themselves and when/if he's found not guilty, it's off their hands.

[MrPeabody]

Originally Posted by JRD77VET

It's my opinion that the prosecutor filed these charges to take the heat off themselves and when/if he's found not guilty, it's off their hands.

True. It also took the heat off the Sheriff, who has to get elected.

[VatorMan]

Originally Posted by JRD77VET

It's my opinion that the prosecutor filed these charges to take the heat off themselves and when/if he's found not guilty, it's off their hands.

Not all CCW carriers are legit.

[JRD77VET]

Originally Posted by VatorMan

Not all CCW carriers are legit.

Agreed but it could have ended up much differently if either of the two parties a"behaved".