Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by oragator1, Jul 21, 2018.
Will him being an alleged troublemaker be allowed to taint him in court?
I've only noticed that from a small minority of vocal 2A enthusiasts. Almost no one has said he shouldn't be charged. He started an altercation while armed, consciously shot someone (after taking a second to think / turn the safety off), who was unarmed and retreating.
This isn't a Traveon Martin / George Zimmerman situation where it was debatable if deadly force was needed. With the video, I would be shocked if the shooter walks.
If he does, the law needs to be changed. You should not be allowed to start altercations, over nothing, while armed and then take someone's life before a punch is even thrown.
You confused me at first when you called the instigator the "victim," regardless, you are right, and if this case doesn't go to trial, we may never know what was going through the guy's mind. But it may just be that society suspects that whatever was going through his mind unjustly led to the next event, and a consequence must logically be applied to the action and/or the thought that caused it. It will be an interesting trial.
People don't typically respond well to others lacking in social grace telling them what they should or shouldn't do...even if the suggestion is a good idea or even preferable to the party being instructed. The problem for the victim wasn't parking in the wrong spot (he wasn't even the driver).
I don't know the legal end of it, but if he's had a habit of starting confrontations, it seems like it ought to be allowed in court.
I tend to agree with this. The one thing I'll say is you can't tell from the video how threatening the shooter was. If the victim were never shot, I would think the guy doing the shoving would be arrested. I never thought the pusher never did anything wrong, just thought that he didn't deserve to be shot for what happened. When it comes to situations like this, it's easy to identify ways in which every party (except for the kid(s)) could have better acted to not further escalate the situation:
- shooter: if you can't respectfully address people about non-threatening behavior that you disagree with, mind your own business
- driver: if someone's engaging you, yelling at you, whatever, don't get out of the car and engage them back...I don't fault the driver for parking in that spot, because it was not sufficiently marked. If she knew it was a handicap spot (or intended to be one), then sure, park somewhere else; but I don't put it on her if she wasn't aware that the spot was supposed to be a handicap spot
- victim: a few more things on the checklist ahead of shoving someone to the ground.
It seems to me is whether the setup for the case can go towards "why was he there in the first place", kind of like A Few Good Men and Nicholson. If the prosecution is given leeway then the "facts" can be pretty damning. Otherwise I think it will all be about parsing each word and phrase in the statute and then interpreting what the jurists see on the video. And then that goes to who is selected on the jury.
It plainly s__ks but it is what it is.
It can't be used as evidence that he committed a wrong doing in the incident. However, under FRE 404 you can introduce prior incidents to prove "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident." I haven't practiced in Florida but I'm assuming it has similar evidentiary rules.
If an unfortunate situation should occur and I have to pull the trigger I could be fearful that what I am using is inadequate for STOPPING a person. Fear doesn’t go away just because you have a gun in your hand. Speculation of course but as a juror I would pose that thought for consideration.
Around these here dull knife parts in Jacksonville we go to the convenience stores cuz that where the 98% of the gas is sold. And beer and Copenhagen. Yupper.
I don't see why any history of arguing over parking spaces would be relevant evidence, but certainly I think the state will have evidence about him arguing over this parking space being part of their argument that getting shoved down made him flash so angry he shot a guy.
If this crazy dude isn't packing, nobody gets shot. So if I encounter some nutbar confronting/threatening Mrs. GK and I protect her, then I deserve to be shot?
I sometimes see people basically dong their shopping at convenience stores. I often think to myself that these are the same people who don’t understand how much interest they are paying on their credit cards or how they are wasting money at work by not taking the company 401k match. Some people just aren’t good with money.
Side note, I was watching some relationship show on TV, and the couple had their biggest fights over money. The two had but not great decent jobs, she had bought something like 200 pairs of shoes and he spent $700 a month on lottery tickets. Those are who I see hanging out at convenience stores.
I don't think "fear" is a sufficient bar for justified shooting (my opinion, not legal speculation). It needs to be a "reasonable fear" - no clue how the law is interpreted, but I would hope that is taken into consideration. How many people would say that this man reasonably feared for his life with the guy standing 12 feet away with a gun pointed at him starting to turn the other direction? I think he would have had more justification if he had shot immediately before the guy started backing up, but the threat was diminishing as time passed after the push. There never appeared to be any imminent threat on the shooter's life, AFTER the push. Even if you think he might jump on you, you have time and space for that person to take a step towards you...he didn't. If you're going to own a gun and carry it with you, I think we need to have a high bar on how we allow people to use that gun. For those who think this might have been a justified shooting, to what extent are you confident that the shooting wasn't about anger and frustration rather than fear? Because that's where my skepticism lies.
It's tough, and I absolutely want to hear from the shooter's perspective to see if I'm missing something. I want to hear from those who heard the arguing and whether or not anything significant was said there that warranted a shove. My default position is one of skepticism, but I like that there's a trial so all the facts (hopefully) can be laid out on the table for all to review.
Not all prior conduct is admissible. I will defer to the criminal attorneys here since I practice civil law. But, there are restrictions as to what can and cannot be presented regarding prior conduct at trial.
Another aspect not being discussed......
Shooter is violently assaulted.....knocked down...on his knees now......big dude who knocked him down is angry.....no telling what he's saying - but my bet is it's something of a threatening manner. We don't know - no audio nor witness testimony - yet.
Two other people converging on the shooter at this point. Baby mama getting out of her car and dude coming down sidewalk.
Now it's 3 on 1.
No telling what's coming out of baby mama's mouth - but could be something of a threatening manner (?)
As soon as the gun comes out - everyone suddenly backs off. Shooter at that point "should have" froze with gun in hand - no shot. Until everyone left the scene and he knew he was safe.
This all happened in a split second.
But with 3 people converging on him......what was his state of mind at that moment?
True. But you should have responsibility for the gun in your hand and responsibility for your actions.
Very well put. One thing that I don't understand is why a lot of people seemingly have no interest in hearing what the shooter has to say. Even if you could make a argument that the shooter reasonably could have feared for his life, that doesn't mean he actually did fear for his life. As you point out, it's just as possible that he was just angry and shot the guy dead in cold blood. How can we know unless we ask him what happened?
This isn't a situation where it's so facially obvious that a person feared for his life that we have no need to ask. It's not a home invasion. It's not a carjacking. No one is pointing a gun at him. He was pushed unexpectedly. Maybe that type of situation triggers his PTSD and puts him into a full on panic. Or maybe he's been in thirty bar fights and a push like that doesn't even phase him, let alone put him in fear for his life. Or, more likely, he's somewhere in between. So the sensible thing is to ask him -- why did you pull the trigger? What was going through your head? Those are fair questions, and ones anyone should expect to answer after choosing to take someone's life.
Seems like with the differing opinions on this shooting coming from law enforcement agencies, a reasonable doubt has already been established.
I'm sure the shooter has already been coached up on what to say "I was scared, I feared for me life, etc." ...
Stand your ground has pretty much legalized murder/manslaughter in Florida if you have some basis to claim you were scared ... or if there are no (living) witnesses around to dispute that you had reason to be scared.
If the roles were reversed in this case, young black man shoots and kills middle aged white man, would you be as adamant in your interpretation? Your use of the term "baby mama" is telling.
BTW, I wouldn't characterize this as a "split second" decision.