Stand Your Ground

[muon]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44917413

Of all stand your ground cases I've read, this really takes the biscuit.

We don't get to hear the side of the dead guy. Seems like an easy way to escape prosecution (in fact the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to say that the killer was not in fear or further harm).

edit:

Link with video.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-ground/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8bef4637e5af

You can clearly see the guy shot him after he was backing off on seeing the gun.

The guy also has a history of initiating confrontations.

 

[muon]

Well firstly the laws are the laws. Secondly he could still be charged will probably depend on how good the lawyer arguing the case and how good the state lawyer is. Smells a bit like racism so maybe they can find a connection.

Life can be so cheap.

I agree it's the law. In fact recently as in the Washington Post article there is a nice part where it also quotes the Sheriff.

Last year, lawmakers shifted the burden of proof from defense attorneys to prosecutors. It has made the law no less controversial.

“Does this law create a situation potentially where people shoot first and ask questions later?” Gualtieri asked. “You can have that discussion. You can have that debate. I don’t make the law. We enforce the law. And I’m going to enforce it the way it’s written, the way the legislature intended for it to be applied, and others can have the debate about whether they like it or not.”

Also as the Sheriff says, can he say for sure that the killer wasn't in fear of bodily harm? No.

In this case the burden of proof is messed up. Any reasonable person would say that once he had the gun out, there was no further danger with the guy actually retreating.

From article linked by WaPo

https://eu.news-press.com/story/new...aw-shifts-burden-proof-prosecutors/102721106/

The Florida Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that defendants have to prove in pretrial hearings that they were defending themselves in order to avoid prosecution on charges for a violent act.

That led Republicans to seek to shift that burden. They argued that it protects a defendant’s constitutional right that presumes they are innocent until proven guilty. But opponents said it will embolden people to shoot to kill, and then claim self-defense knowing that the only witness against them can no longer testify.

 

[muon]

Guess he won't be getting all uppity and aggressive again.

Depends who you think started it all.

The only reason he got away with it is because, regardless of anything he may have done wrong, all he had to say was that he was in fear of his life.

I could provoke you into taking a swing at me and then shoot you dead.

 

[muon]

State prosecutors as I'm sure you know have unlimited resources and tend to get to that position as they are very skilled and ruthless. So you really need a Perry Mason to counter punch sort of thing.

It is also all about politics as well. In 2015 the law was changed to deliberately favour the the shooter here and effectively make it such that the person that got shot having to prove beyond doubt they didn't deserve to get shot.

Prosecutors also have political views and know that the state is Republican.

 

[muon]

Well it is pretty clear who started it, the boyfriend came out of the shop, didn't even seem to stop to speak to the guy but instead just shoved him onto a concrete floor.

I do think it was excessive to actually shoot, I'm pretty sure the attacker would have backed off and left him as soon as the pistol was drawn, he didn't need to kill him

I guess though their law allows the use of deadly force if attacked like that though and thus why he's not been charged, perhaps the state attorney can take another look at the tape and have a go at charging him, maybe an argument about the guy backing off etc.. just before the trigger was pulled etc.. but I suspect that it would be rather difficult to argue.

While it is tragic that he died as a result of this event they weren't exactly saints here, he points out to the woman that she's parked in a disabled space and seemingly gets a whole load of attitude back from her as she kicks off, the guy inside the shop learns that something is happening outside and rather than ask he just goes into full aggression mode and attacks the old bloke... wouldn't be too surprising to learn he's got a criminal past.

Lol, what a post. That last sentence summarises your entire post and isn't surprising given your far right posting history.

You suddenly expect perfect rationaility from one person but let it slide for the other.

What would you have said if the woman shot the guy dead? He was verbally attacking a vulnerable woman with small kids. Given it is Florida she could (correctly in this case) have been concerned he was armed and dangerous. Stand your ground would potentially have have protected her if that is how it played out.

 

[muon]

I think you'll find it doesn't take a physical altercation for stand your ground to apply.

I think I'm mistaken the posting history bit though.

You have zero evidence the guy is a criminal.