Replies

Looking forward to the comments on this. Pretty sure what they’ll be though.

I do know what I was taught when I was being trained in firearms. I have every right to defend myself, but I need to always adhere to three principles:

1. Innocence (I should be innocent in the eyes of the law, and should not be the one who provoked a situation and then claimed self defense when there was a reaction to my provocation)

2. Imminence (there should be clearly imminent violence coming my way)

3. Proportionality (I shouldn’t fire a 9mm HST in response to a slap to the face ...and yes, I know for some that’s perfectly okay).

4. Avoidance

That’s what I follow, and it has worked quite well for me. I stay away from certain places, I don’t get into arguments, I don’t get ‘triggered’ or whatever people call it nowadays, my situational awareness is well honed, etc etc etc.

What I see happening here is some man arguing with a woman, that woman’s boyfriend/whatever comes out and shoved the first man hard, the shoved man (who was the one having the argument with the Lady) draws a pistol and aims it at the second man, the second man starts to back away, and the first man shoots him.

If this goes to court I am very curious what the jury says.

On FR ...does not matter much. The man shot was black - or as a poster on this thread said, a ‘thug’ - and I’m sure many in the ‘new FR’ are thus okay with him being shot. After all, the ‘thug violently shoved the other man to the ground because he was arguing with his Baby Mama.’ Thus, totally justified as per the rules here.

I am really curious how some of the posters here would react if I (a black man) was having a shouting match with their spouse in the parking lot. I wonder if they would come out, and maybe even shove me ‘violently.’ I wonder what would happen if as soon as my ass hit the ground I drew my Glock 17 and put my carry round for the day (depending on month, a 147g HST or 147g Winchester Bonded) into them. As an IDPA ranked Sharpshooter (no USPSA where I am), at that range I wouldn’t miss. Couldn’t miss.

I’m sure though that when that video was shown on FR the narrative would be ‘I’ would be the thug.

And no, I’m usually not concerned with the silly racial mumbojumbo in the US. A some of you may know, there is VERY little love lost between Africans and African Americans. But the hypocrisy is ridiculous.

Trayvon Martin deserved the S&B 115gr 9mm he got ...that was proper self defense, and Trayvon should not have done what he did.

The man in this video however did not deserve to die. His killer may get away with it, and probably will, but the man did not deserve to die.

I don't care what the race or religion was of the “thug” who pushed the guy down. It was violent so the first test here we do not know - was it provoked? I think having that answer is a must to start down the road regarding was this self defense. SO yes it changed the entire situation, either thug was protecting his girlfriend from clear abuse and perhaps a threat, or he over reacted and pummeled a guy who "may" have been having a "conversation" about the illegality of parking in a handicapped spot. That would go to the character of the shover, if he violently shoved the guy for no reason than I think the shooter had every right to believe he might have attacked again, for no reason. You see it gets complicated, that's what courts are for.

1. Innocence (I should be innocent in the eyes of the law, and should not be the one who provoked a situation and then claimed self defense when there was a reaction to my provocation)
2. Imminence (there should be clearly imminent violence coming my way)
3. Proportionality (I shouldn’t fire a 9mm HST in response to a slap to the face ...and yes, I know for some that’s perfectly okay).
4. Avoidance

The additional legal principle involved is Reasonableness. The perception of a deadly threat must be subjectively and *objectively* reasonable. Simply feeling fear is not enough.

Stand Your Ground strikes the Avoidance principle, and that's all it does.

"On FR ...does not matter much. The man shot was black - or as a poster on this thread said, a ‘thug’ - and I’m sure many in the ‘new FR’ are thus okay with him being shot."

Yeah, I've noticed that. But I don't know what the "new FR" is.

Are you from FL spetz? Most of the FL FReepers defending this shooting are doing so because the law specifies it was legal. We are engaged primarily in a legal rather than moral discussion.

I think many here believe no one should die over a parking space, or a shove, etc. But that is not the issue it is simply opinion and values.

We have rights and liberties because the reasoning within the Declaration of Independence and Constitution provide compelling reasoning in support of our freedom and right of self-determination. When people are allowed to act unreasonably and behave according to what they want and feel on a whim subject only to public opinion can we expect to retain our rights and liberties? Are children, guided by emotion and feelings, considered legally responsible? Then why would adults guided by emotion and feelings be considered responsible? You see where this leads?

Example: if Russia is meddling in our elections and changing the outcome should people retain the right to vote? Should such an important choice be left to them to decide? The Left is already going there.