'Stand Your Ground' Shooter Charged After Fatal Altercation Over Parking Space | HuffPost

Wounded pride is apparently no defense. YMMV.

__________________
On the whistle draw and fire 6

If anyone couldn't see this coming, you should schedule an appointment with your eye doctor.

Speaking of seeing stuff, that unnamed store owner is going to see a great deal of the defense attorney come the trial.

__________________
Release the Kraken

To shoot someone (right or wrong) over a freakin' parking space is absurd! When a person carry's a gun they should have a better sense of what is life threatening or not. They should be MORE aware of when to fight and when not to. Many situations can be avoided - pride, stubbornness and even stupidity sometimes interfere. People who carry should really think about situations like this one.

This is not isolated to guns - just look at how many people use road rage as an excuse to go after people for stupid minor incidences. Just look at how many fist fights there are over ridiculous situations.

You can pass all the laws you want, people are human and people "fudge-up". Guns, knives, cars, chains, baseball bats, or bare fists - unfortunately it is a fact of life! As Forrest Gump's Mother said, "stupid is what stupid does".

I'm actually kind've surprised they're only going for manslaughter.

I am not. No evidence of malice aforethought, an element needed for murder and other crimes. Still never looked like a “stand your ground case.”

Guy was an idiot. Correction guys were both idiots.

I am all for stand your ground, but, since when can you start an confrontation in a parking lot and make it your ground? The idiot with the gun was the initiator of the whole event. Plus, it wasn't his first rodeo. Rather than look at his past expediences and learning something, they just made him bolder.

Everyone should have to make an oath when they get a CC permit. This does not make me a cop. This means I still have to mind my own business.

Guys like this make it bad for the rest of us.

Stupid people.

__________________
Hue 68 noli me tangere

No surprise in today's PC climate. That, and invoking Stand Your Ground over a parking space dispute that the shooter initiated? It was only a matter of time.

I don't think this case has anything to do with a parking space. The man who got shot had access to a cellphone and could have called police to intervene but he chose violence instead. This case is about a shove to the ground that was absolutely not necessary. The shooter did not start the violence but the other man did. You can't shove a man down onto the blacktop like he did over a parking issue. I think both men acted irresponsibly but thats no excuse for an assault that puts one man down on the parking lot. If you get shoved down by a larger person who is enraged, do you think he might not stop? Can you make that determination in a split second?

Quick we gotta protect our phoney bologny jobs, I didn't get a harrumph from that guy. The buck is being passed, & it's rolling downhill fast.

He should not have pushed him. However, if a person is harassing my family over a parking space, they better get the hell away from my car quickly.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

Doesn't meet the elements necessary for 2nd degree or higher.

And "stand your ground" does not apply to this case. It was attributed in error early on and somehow stuck.

__________________
642-1, M&P15 TS

The shooters behavior fuels the arguments against legal carry. Put him in prison for a long time. Send a message.

__________________
Just hanging with my dogs

Up until the shove all was verbal. Put yourself in that situation, would you be in fear of death or great bodily injury? I sure would have been. Before the gun was produced the deceased was advancing, a large man was heading towards him & not looking to lend aid, Those are just the ones caught on the video. As the gun was produced, the deceased backed off & the big guy made a fast (cowardly???) exit stage right. Had the gun NOT been produced??? Did the shooter need to fire once the gun was produced & the "tough guys" began retreating??? It doesn't appear so from the limited view of the video. The odds that someone else was armed & out of view??? I'D GUESS they were pretty good, being the Gunshine state & all. Did the shooter set the ball. in motion, playing parking police, Yes. OR one might argue the illegal parking started it. I'll state it again, a perfect storm of bad/stupid choices.

I’ve chosen NOT to comment on this before, but here goes. First that all my comments are based on multiple media information, and nothing more.

The shooter had made a habit to harassing people who were parking in the handicapped parking spot, even though he did not have a handicapped parking permit. On the day of the shooting, after observing a car without a handicapped placard he armed himself before confronting the driver of the vehicle. After he was pushed to the ground the man who pushed him made no further movement to attack the shooter. After he drew his weapon the man who pushed him to the ground threw up his hands and was stepping backward when he was shot. So, IMO. If the shooter has simply displayed his weapon I would have been OK with that. But there was no need for shots to be fired.

Finally, I've noticed that most of the clients of the store where this occurred were African American and the shooter was Caucasian. I can’t help but believe this played a part in the shooters decision to shoot the other person.

__________________
Always Stay Strong!

We have all seen the video.
Would YOU have shot the guy ?

One guy got a sore butt...one guy got dead.
Bad shoot.

...found this during a little research...

..."Florida prosecutes manslaughter as a second degree felony, which may result in a term of imprisonment for up to fifteen years, a fine of an amount up to $10,000, or both. There is a mandatory minimum of 9 ¼ years if convicted."...

...his gun rights are definitely gone with a conviction...and 9 1/4 years is pretty hard time...

__________________
A Country Boy Can Survive

I'm sorry, but I'm not killing or getting killed over a parking space and/or a push to the ground.

I don't know, but maybe it's my mentality, knowing how to fight, and not being intimidated by large males, but my first thought is to get up not sit and pull my piece.

Big people, generally, don't know how to fight and rely on size to intimidate and end things before they begin. If the big guy knew what he was doing, or being truly aggressive, he'd likely be on top of the shooter either kicking or ground and pound. Instead, the big stood there likely yelling, giving, the shooter enough time and space to draw his weapon and shoot.

For me, in this situation, after being shoved to the ground, it's either get up and fight or walk away. In my younger days, the fight is on, now it's avoid conflicts and walk away, armed or not.

Either way, everybody is an idiot for letting the situation get this far. The armed guy was picking fights knowing he had backup because he was armed, and the big dude for escalating things with a shove being big and loud to intimidate - and all over a parking space. Anybody could've walked away at anytime. Nobody could or would.

__________________
Thread Killer.

I've read the reports, and I've seen the video. I've reached this conclusion:

I'm going to let the judge and jury sort it out.

__________________
Reg. Magnum wants/Rossi wallet

One thing is fer sure, that ain't the first nor will it be the last crazy violent confrontation in Florida, over a dang parking space. Joe

__________________
Wisdom chases me; I'm faster

I've noticed that most of the clients of the store where this occurred were African American and the shooter was Caucasian. I can’t help but believe this played a part in the shooters decision to shoot the other person.[/QUOTE]

IF we are going to speculate, the flip side of that coin might be a reasonable fear/expectation of death or great bodily harm to the shooter. It seems like it would be hard to PROVE THE LEVEL/LEGITIMACY of the shooters fear. I'd like to see/hear the ORIGINAL witness statements & how much they MAY HAVE changed by now.

Way too many stupid decisions were made by both sides. Illegal parking is just that illegal. The man challenging that was also out of line. The larger man charging and knocking the man down is a physical assault, no way of denying that. When the larger man began backing up seems to be in question, was it retreat before or after he saw the gun? What was said prior to the gun being drawn, did the woman off camera have a gun too? Both sides badly wrong. One dead, one likely to spend his remaining years in prison. Very sad all around.

The video sure makes it look bad for the shooter, but I wouldn’t want to be a juror who has to make a decision based mainly on the video, even though it does appear to show the decedent was retreating or at least ceasing hostile action when he was shot. As has been said, two fools who collided, one with gun, results predictable.

(1) I didn't say that's what he did, I said that's what I thought they'd try for.
(2) Florida statute--

No premeditation or prior relationship required.

I didn't think they would get a conviction, but I really thought they'd have tried, based solely on appearances and public opinion.

Voluntary manslaughter fits perfectly, and in FL, has a 9-year minimum. So even if he gets out early, he'll still do more time than he would for Big-Time Murder in NJ or Chicago.

Must be something in Florida’s water. A few years ago two fools collided, one with a gun the other with a bag of Skittles.

Just because you have a permit don't mean you get to be a self appointed Zimmerman.

__________________
Dum vivo cano

.. a verbal confrontation at most. The guy aggravated it by pushing the man down. Then HE aggravated it by killing the guy.

I believe that the Zimmerman case and this one are improper grounds for 'stand your ground'.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

The same oath you take when you vote or go to church?

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

As I understand the debate since the shooting, the whole issue with “stand your ground” in this case was that the sheriff at his initial press conference seemed to argue that the law was subjective, a “reasonable person” standard didn’t apply, and he couldn’t arrest the shooter as long as the shooter claimed to have been in fear of his life.

This interpretation was criticized, not just by the “usual suspects”, but more significantly also by the conservative politicians who had sponsored Florida’s “stand your ground” law and said that a “reasonable person” standard most certainly should still apply.

As others have pointed out, the video evidence appears to show that after the initial shove there is no follow-up and the victim begins to back off as soon as the gun comes up. Then comes a very deliberate shot. As a reasonable person it’s very hard to see this as justified.

And I would refute any argument that I wasn’t in his shoes and don’t know how terrified he felt with Harry Truman: ”If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” If you’re such a fearful wuss, don’t provoke unnecessary confrontations.

Here are two of the statutes:

To me it is significant that when the defendant raises in a pretrial hearing a prima facie case of justification to use deadly force, the prosecution then has the burden of overcoming the prima facie case by clear and convincing evidence. As I understand it, a prima facie case in this situation means that there is evidence presented by the defendant, with no rebuttal from the prosecution, from which a jury could conclude that the defendant was justified. In other words, after making a prima facie case in a pre-trial hearing the defendant does not have to face a trial unless the prosecution can prove to the Judge that there was not justification. [NOTE, I am NOT a Florida attorney]

IIRC, in the famous case against George Zimmerman several years ago, Mr. Zimmerman did not try to establish justification in a pre-trial hearing. Rather, I believe his lawyer argued justification only to the jury, who then had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that there was not justification. This was a good strategic move because he could have easily lost at the pre-trial hearing and this would have had a very negative impact on the jury at trial. My understanding is that the pre-trial procedure is to prevent a shooter with a strong case of justification from ever getting in front of a jury.

In the recent case I think the defendant might take the same strategy, bypassing the pre-trial procedure and going straight to the jury. If the defendant testifies and is at all credible about having a reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm, and was not engaged in criminal activity, the jury will be duty bound to acquit.

__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly

Yes, and the owner of the same store apparently reported him previously. I wonder why he wasn’t “patrolling” Worth Ave, Palm Beach.

Amen brother! Say, whose planning on watching the Treyvon (sp?) Martin movie? Not interested myself, but isn't that the one that got it all brought to light? A true to the core fool, is going to act foolish most of the time anyway. Give him or her a permit to act foolish with a gun, is going to make the news everytime. ( sometimes even a movie deal)

I sincerely hope some foolish man or woman learns something from this.

I don't know what watching it would do. We know the situation and how it turned out. All a movie will do is raise doubts for some Hollywood Horse****. Or raise some conspiracy claims about the highest levels of government. Zimmerman walked. I don't believe that he should have walked. I don't need to know any more so it will probably make me emotional for no reason.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

I see some obstacles for the prosecution. The shooter could have talked to illegal parkers a million times, it had nothing to do with what happened that day. I can't imagine the defense letting the jury hear about it. How is the prosecution going to handel the sheriff when the tape is played of him saying we investigated it, and not only did no crime happen it would have been illegal for us to arrest the man. When the head law enforcement officer testified we investigated and no crime was comitted, what is a prosecuter to do ? this wasn't about a parking place. It was about the introduction if violence by the guy that got shot. That violent shove was a criminal act that could have very likely caused death or severe bodily ingury. The shooter only had to have a reasonable belief, it was a fact , he was in danger, it already was happening.
While laying on the ground after being violently assaulted, with the bigger stronger assailant hoovering over him how can anyone prove the fear was not reasonable ? The shover demonstrated he would use violence that would kill or injure. We dont know what the guy that got shot said after his attack. I hope this guy walks out of this courtroom. In the civil trial however, this guys goose is cooked.

All I am gonna say, as the real reason this is going forward can not be discussed.

All the news and papers say the same things over and over, all about the argument with the Girlfriend, all about the children, all about the shooters past encounters with others who hang around the store. Maybe he was a pest, but that is not relevant IMHO. He didn't shoot the girl in the car.

If they are going to allow all that past nonsense by people not involved, than they damn well better allow the deceased past arrest records which I have looked up and not gonna post them here. Don't care if he was guilty or not, he had several not minor arrests

The media wants to play this out based on past actions and not the actual facts of what happened.

The case has to be moved someplace far far away for a impartial trial, if there is one.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

The shooter in this case knew he was armed and proceeded to fuel the fire(strike1) the shooter has had many confrontations at this store(strike2) the shooter got pushed to the ground by the significant other(did NOT need to happen) the shooter presented his firearm. Had plenty time to decide to pull that trigger!!!!!!!!!!! He pulled that trigger after the other man stopped!
As I see it the shooter has been wanting to shoot someone and claim self defense. In a nutshell the shooter made a plethora of bad decisions.
No matter what it was a sad day for many. Using a firearm is a permanent solution to a temporary problem..........

__________________
M&P 357sig,G31 357sig,M&P 9

I've said all along that it was a bad shoot and stupid things were done by both sides. The local law enforcement investigated and determined that no charges should be filed. Now if you agree with that ruling or not, that should have been the end of it.

But NOOOOO!........ The media and the court of public opinion got involved. The media made a big thing out of it, stirred up the public, who in turn put pressure on the politicians, who want to cover their own butts. So now the State Attorney's office has filed charges. No doubt under considerable pressure.
Further, a white guy killed a black guy. That really shouldn't be an issue. But, like it or not, that does make a big difference.
For me, that's the real problem here. Our Justice system is supposed to be based on facts. Not media, not public opinion and certainly not on political pressure.
Personally, I think the shooter screwed up and should be punished. However, I firmly believe that guilt or innocence should be determined by a FAIR trial. And I have major doubts that this man will be able to get one.

As I have said before .. Some people shouldn't be allowed to carry a weapon !! For the good of themselves and others !!

Just like some people shouldn't have children !!

Arguing with someone over their ILLEGAL parking is not "instigating a physical assault". Words are not violence.

Good lawyer will get this guy off. All you have to do is prove that you feared for your life for even one second.

And the guy didn't "back off after he pushed the other guy down". If you watch the surveillance footage, you will see him closing in on the guy and grab his shorts and hike them up. This was to get the saggy draws pulled up above the knees so he could commence to stomping him out in the parking lot. That's about the time the piece came out.

As far as I'm concerned, you lay your hands on somebody, it might as well be attempted murder. I know personally of one case where a guy was killed with one punch in a bar fight in a parking lot. Happened the next county over. Guy got punched one time, then fell and hit his head on a concrete parking curb. Deader than Elvis from one lick.

Don't wanna get shot? Keep your hands to yourself.

In some cases they are. "Fighting words" is/are not protected speech per a number of Supreme Court cases.

I don't know if Florida has a "fighting words" or similar statute.

__________________
Thread Killer.

Yeah, citizens really don’t get to argue “illegal.” Defining a handicapped parking space is a term of art. Most that I see don’t meet the Missouri definition. Arguing over something stupid that you don’t have a stake in is stupid. Stop defending this idiot . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

There are "terroristic threats", as well - like a threat of physical harm. Stuff like "I will punch you in the face", etc.

"Stop parking in this spot woman you ain't even handicapped" probably doesn't count, though.

I don’t want to live in a country where this is the standard. Relax . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Shooting someone is not a logical response to that situation . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

This handicapped guy was physically assaulted by a violent multiple felon and did nothing wrong as far as I'm concerned.

I'd like to live in a country where the man exited the convenience store and said, "Excuse me, sir. What seems to be the problem? You appear to be engaging in a spirited discussion with my lady friend. I implore you to cease this immediately so that we may be on our way to church." Instead he attacked a guy and got dead.

With that attitude...WoW!!!

Is it attempted murder if someone grabs your arm? How about a finger poked in your chest. Or someone steps on your toes? Are you going to shoot someone over that?

There's a bit more to it than than just that that. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

In this situation, how do you know what was or wasn't said? Were you there?

__________________
Thread Killer.

Yeah I was there. I was getting a pack of Camels and a slurpee and saw the whole thing.

Of course I wasn't there. But you know what was? A video camera - which provided enough evidence so that the cops didn't feel the need to charge the guy. This is just Zimmerman all over again. Political and social pressure being brought down to ruin this guy financially with lawyer fees.

And allow me to reiterate since it's not getting through - don't want to get shot? Don't go around assaulting people. If Markeis McGlockton (award for most ironic name if the year) hadn't assaulted this guy, he'd still be alive today to do stuff like sell fake cocaine and felony elude the police - a mere two of the felonies he was convicted of.

Duly noted. Hopefully, we live far away from each other. Your prejudices are duly noted as well. Good luck . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Yep... I'm prejudiced against cocaine-dealing felons with rap sheets like this one. I also I spent a brief period in Kansas so don't worry I now live far, far, away from Missouri. Here's something for you to duly note: