OtherGround Forums Florida Man Stands his Ground over Parking Dispute

7/26/18 6:41 PM
2/20/09
Posts: 12760
homegrowncone -
donkypunch55 -
RATINGSKILLER -
RATINGSKILLER -
King Trav -

Screen names on here are always 100% true. I’m a King. 

I kill ratings

Literally 

Literally.

like me bro.

ALL I do is walk around donkey punchin’ ho’s.

all day yo.

Pfft, think you're so tough punching donkeys.

 

Let's see you try and grow a cone.

*hangs head in shame*

 

I tried.  Couldn’t do it.

7/26/18 6:42 PM
2/20/09
Posts: 12761
TexDeuce -
donkypunch55 -

I thought you were.  

I bring it up because there isn’t a more “Stand Your Ground” state in the union and yet you feel the way many others do.

A gaggle of pro-2A, Stand-Your-Ground, CCW motherfuckers on this thread that say that was a terrible shoot.

I think that says something.

Yes born and raised Texan. Very strong self defense and harsh punishment for criminals culture. I'm LTC and also a member of the NRA.

All that being said, I think that is terrible to shoot someone just because they pushed you.

No way I can condone that nor do I want that to be acceptable in society.

That’s what I thought and I agree with everything you said.

7/26/18 6:51 PM
2/20/09
Posts: 12762
holly9000 - Just out of curiosity how far apart do you think our positions are here? I don't think that guy deserved to get killed for what he did. It was stupid, and violent and uncalled for. But did he deserve to die for it? Of course not.

Did the shooter have the right to kill him? Absolutely. Those are 2 different questions though. The law agrees with me on the shooter's rights.

Is the law morally correct? Therein lies the real question; I think it is.

When the pusher started the encounter with a violent act there was no way for anyone else to understand how threatened the shooter felt when he hit the ground. Unless you're under attack it's pretty hard to imagine how you'd react. It's a lot easier to watch a video and armchair quarterback the situation. If you have a propensity towards violence, it might seem like the shooter went overboard. If you're a meeker person with a less than confrontational disposition you might feel otherwise. The fact is there was no way to know what would happen next just as there was no way to go back and un-start the encounter. IMO the benefit of the doubt has to go to the person who got attacked.

I believe that there's no place in a civilized society for problem solving through violent methods. That's a big reason that our society is so fucked up to begin with. A "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude is outdated and needs to be replaced by honest, sober dialog. That's the only way we can change the world for the better.

The bottom line is if the pusher had come out and assessed, and de-escalated the situation instead of acting out violently he probably would be alive today.

I feel sorry for his family but I understand the essential need to have laws protecting society from that sort of behavior in general.

That’s a civil response.  I’ll respond in kind.

 

I don’t condone the original push.  It was a terrible idea and a piss-poor way of addressing the situation.

I don’t believe he deserved to die over that incident.

 

As far as his experience or propensity for violence?  I can’t help but think that he answered that question before the shooting by carrying a weapon and initiating potentially volitial confrontations.

He certainly answered that question after, no?

 

 

 

Edited: 7/26/18 6:57 PM
2/23/05
Posts: 11898
donkypunch55 - 
holly9000 - Just out of curiosity how far apart do you think our positions are here? I don't think that guy deserved to get killed for what he did. It was stupid, and violent and uncalled for. But did he deserve to die for it? Of course not.

Did the shooter have the right to kill him? Absolutely. Those are 2 different questions though. The law agrees with me on the shooter's rights.

Is the law morally correct? Therein lies the real question; I think it is.

When the pusher started the encounter with a violent act there was no way for anyone else to understand how threatened the shooter felt when he hit the ground. Unless you're under attack it's pretty hard to imagine how you'd react. It's a lot easier to watch a video and armchair quarterback the situation. If you have a propensity towards violence, it might seem like the shooter went overboard. If you're a meeker person with a less than confrontational disposition you might feel otherwise. The fact is there was no way to know what would happen next just as there was no way to go back and un-start the encounter. IMO the benefit of the doubt has to go to the person who got attacked.

I believe that there's no place in a civilized society for problem solving through violent methods. That's a big reason that our society is so fucked up to begin with. A "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude is outdated and needs to be replaced by honest, sober dialog. That's the only way we can change the world for the better.

The bottom line is if the pusher had come out and assessed, and de-escalated the situation instead of acting out violently he probably would be alive today.

I feel sorry for his family but I understand the essential need to have laws protecting society from that sort of behavior in general.

That’s a civil response.  I’ll respond in kind.

 

I don’t condone the original push.  It was a terrible idea and a piss-poor way of addressing the situation.

I don’t believe he deserved to die over that incident.

 

As far as his experience or propensity for violence?  I can’t help but think that he answered that question before the shooting by carrying a weapon and initiating potentially volitial confrontations.

He certainly answered that question after, no?

 

 

 


He didn't shy away from it. This is one of those cases that's morally ambiguous so the best we can hope to do is debate it. As long as we're not shooting each other over the debate it's all good 

7/26/18 7:21 PM
2/20/09
Posts: 12763
holly9000 -
donkypunch55 - 
holly9000 - Just out of curiosity how far apart do you think our positions are here? I don't think that guy deserved to get killed for what he did. It was stupid, and violent and uncalled for. But did he deserve to die for it? Of course not.

Did the shooter have the right to kill him? Absolutely. Those are 2 different questions though. The law agrees with me on the shooter's rights.

Is the law morally correct? Therein lies the real question; I think it is.

When the pusher started the encounter with a violent act there was no way for anyone else to understand how threatened the shooter felt when he hit the ground. Unless you're under attack it's pretty hard to imagine how you'd react. It's a lot easier to watch a video and armchair quarterback the situation. If you have a propensity towards violence, it might seem like the shooter went overboard. If you're a meeker person with a less than confrontational disposition you might feel otherwise. The fact is there was no way to know what would happen next just as there was no way to go back and un-start the encounter. IMO the benefit of the doubt has to go to the person who got attacked.

I believe that there's no place in a civilized society for problem solving through violent methods. That's a big reason that our society is so fucked up to begin with. A "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude is outdated and needs to be replaced by honest, sober dialog. That's the only way we can change the world for the better.

The bottom line is if the pusher had come out and assessed, and de-escalated the situation instead of acting out violently he probably would be alive today.

I feel sorry for his family but I understand the essential need to have laws protecting society from that sort of behavior in general.

That’s a civil response.  I’ll respond in kind.

 

I don’t condone the original push.  It was a terrible idea and a piss-poor way of addressing the situation.

I don’t believe he deserved to die over that incident.

 

As far as his experience or propensity for violence?  I can’t help but think that he answered that question before the shooting by carrying a weapon and initiating potentially volitial confrontations.

He certainly answered that question after, no?

 

 

 


He didn't shy away from it. This is one of those cases that's morally ambiguous so the best we can hope to do is debate it. As long as we're not shooting each other over the debate it's all good 

Absolutely.

I understand the ambiguity involved here but to have a discussion outside the realm of strict legal talk and to hear someone (you among others) condone this in any way is disturbing.

Its disturbing to me to hear anyone be able to defend this shoot.

7/26/18 7:33 PM
7/13/09
Posts: 20369

A good way to not get shot is to not assault a angry stranger in a parking lot. 

7/26/18 7:37 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 96200

If the old man had had his way with the woman after shooting her man... Well alpha level 100 unlocked

7/26/18 7:38 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 32561
sewich - 

A good way to not get shot is to not assault a angry stranger in a parking lot. 


And that's why both people need to be taken out of society.

The first guy for most likely being a scumbag. You park in a handicapped spot and then assault someone who doesn't like it. But he's dead now, so that takes care of that.

The second person for being the type that likes to throw his weight around b/c he knows he's packing ie. he's looking for a reason to use his gun.
7/26/18 7:46 PM
2/20/09
Posts: 12764
Liyon -
sewich - 

A good way to not get shot is to not assault a angry stranger in a parking lot. 


And that's why both people need to be taken out of society.

The first guy for most likely being a scumbag. You park in a handicapped spot and then assault someone who doesn't like it. But he's dead now, so that takes care of that.

The second person for being the type that likes to throw his weight around b/c he knows he's packing ie. he's looking for a reason to use his gun.

Are you really ok with someone killing another human being because he’s not a genius and made a questionable decision?

pretty low bar for extermination.

7/26/18 8:03 PM
1/10/11
Posts: 464
holly9000 -
supremexb -
holly9000 - "yep...soon as gun was pulled "thug" stepped back

one step forward i could see fear caused him to shoot...but that wasnt the case and the pussy shot him cold blooded"

It's not the Fucking Hokey Pokey-it's your life-still want to wait and see what his next "step" will be? Not me pal. Shove me like that and I'm not waiting to see what you have in mind next. That shove meant it was time to defend. Not wait around and HOPE that crazy big violent guy came to his senses. Some of you are crying because that guy was able and ready to defend himself. Bummer that he was so fucking prepared huh? Bad day to be a bully in that parking lot I guess!

Shocking the guy that lets people fuck his wife is a huge pussy

Yea I’m a cry baby, u think it’s ok to kill someone because they push u. You’re obviously a coward 

7/26/18 8:32 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 32570
donkypunch55 - 
Liyon -
sewich - 

A good way to not get shot is to not assault a angry stranger in a parking lot. 


And that's why both people need to be taken out of society.

The first guy for most likely being a scumbag. You park in a handicapped spot and then assault someone who doesn't like it. But he's dead now, so that takes care of that.

The second person for being the type that likes to throw his weight around b/c he knows he's packing ie. he's looking for a reason to use his gun.

Are you really ok with someone killing another human being because he’s not a genius and made a questionable decision?

pretty low bar for extermination.


Put in jail. Didn't say anything about exterminating the guy.
7/26/18 10:28 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 63660
Dude could have called a cop and filed charges for assault if he was that hurt. He shot the guy because he was angry and embarrassed, not fearful. This should be obvious to everyone.
7/26/18 10:39 PM
10/29/12
Posts: 1439

Murder. Aside from the clear fact the dude was backing away, the shooter is a known instigater who previously had the cops called on him by the store's owner for starting fights over parking, also threatened to shoot at least one other cutomer before this incident. Absolutely crazy if the state lets this slide.

7/27/18 12:43 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 41500
RATINGSKILLER -

The shooter had no choice.

LOL. 

7/27/18 12:45 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 41501
sewich -

A good way to not get shot is to not assault a angry stranger in a parking lot. 

That doesn’t absolve somebody from a bad shoot. 

7/27/18 2:38 AM
6/8/08
Posts: 10022
holly9000 - Just out of curiosity how far apart do you think our positions are here? I don't think that guy deserved to get killed for what he did. It was stupid, and violent and uncalled for. But did he deserve to die for it? Of course not.

Did the shooter have the right to kill him? Absolutely. Those are 2 different questions though. The law agrees with me on the shooter's rights.

Is the law morally correct? Therein lies the real question; I think it is.

When the pusher started the encounter with a violent act there was no way for anyone else to understand how threatened the shooter felt when he hit the ground. Unless you're under attack it's pretty hard to imagine how you'd react. It's a lot easier to watch a video and armchair quarterback the situation. If you have a propensity towards violence, it might seem like the shooter went overboard. If you're a meeker person with a less than confrontational disposition you might feel otherwise. The fact is there was no way to know what would happen next just as there was no way to go back and un-start the encounter. IMO the benefit of the doubt has to go to the person who got attacked.

I believe that there's no place in a civilized society for problem solving through violent methods. That's a big reason that our society is so fucked up to begin with. A "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude is outdated and needs to be replaced by honest, sober dialog. That's the only way we can change the world for the better.

The bottom line is if the pusher had come out and assessed, and de-escalated the situation instead of acting out violently he probably would be alive today.

I feel sorry for his family but I understand the essential need to have laws protecting society from that sort of behavior in general.

Your (and a fistful of others) basically keep repeating this point: 

 

1) the law enabled him to elect to end this man. So he's in the clear there. 

2) practical/moral view: The murdered man should have known better than to push a total stranger.

 

So some of you say, it was the victim's responsability to not push a man, in order not to open the possibility of being murdered. 

 

BUT: The murder was there in the parkinglot, had his weapon on him and HE chose to engange strangers on his own. If he would follow the rules you want to push on the victim, he would NOT have engaged anybody in that parking lot. He would have ignored it, or, if justice is important to him, he could have called the cop. There was NO NEED to engange them, just as you say there was no need for the murdered person to engange the old man. Old man had other things on his mind though. 

Again: It was NOT his first time, store owner said he was a trouble maker, had the police called on him previously and had threatened to shoot someone at least once before. So NO, he was not there to deescalate anything. In contrary. 

 

7/27/18 3:13 AM
5/2/02
Posts: 25534

It’s not even that the law allowed it.  It’s the sheriff thought it hazy enough that he allowed it.  Which I don’t get because for something to be considered self defense, it basically needs to meet the following criteria:

1) an unprovoked attack 

2) which threatens imminent injury or death

3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response 

4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.

No matter how you slice it, conditions 3 and 4 aren’t met when you escalate by pulling a gun against a push.  In fact the way a lot of self defense cases break down is when the “defender” escalated thereby creating a disparity of force.  

7/27/18 4:00 AM
2/20/09
Posts: 12766
Average -
holly9000 - Just out of curiosity how far apart do you think our positions are here? I don't think that guy deserved to get killed for what he did. It was stupid, and violent and uncalled for. But did he deserve to die for it? Of course not.

Did the shooter have the right to kill him? Absolutely. Those are 2 different questions though. The law agrees with me on the shooter's rights.

Is the law morally correct? Therein lies the real question; I think it is.

When the pusher started the encounter with a violent act there was no way for anyone else to understand how threatened the shooter felt when he hit the ground. Unless you're under attack it's pretty hard to imagine how you'd react. It's a lot easier to watch a video and armchair quarterback the situation. If you have a propensity towards violence, it might seem like the shooter went overboard. If you're a meeker person with a less than confrontational disposition you might feel otherwise. The fact is there was no way to know what would happen next just as there was no way to go back and un-start the encounter. IMO the benefit of the doubt has to go to the person who got attacked.

I believe that there's no place in a civilized society for problem solving through violent methods. That's a big reason that our society is so fucked up to begin with. A "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude is outdated and needs to be replaced by honest, sober dialog. That's the only way we can change the world for the better.

The bottom line is if the pusher had come out and assessed, and de-escalated the situation instead of acting out violently he probably would be alive today.

I feel sorry for his family but I understand the essential need to have laws protecting society from that sort of behavior in general.

Your (and a fistful of others) basically keep repeating this point: 

 

1) the law enabled him to elect to end this man. So he's in the clear there. 

2) practical/moral view: The murdered man should have known better than to push a total stranger.

 

So some of you say, it was the victim's responsability to not push a man, in order not to open the possibility of being murdered. 

 

BUT: The murder was there in the parkinglot, had his weapon on him and HE chose to engange strangers on his own. If he would follow the rules you want to push on the victim, he would NOT have engaged anybody in that parking lot. He would have ignored it, or, if justice is important to him, he could have called the cop. There was NO NEED to engange them, just as you say there was no need for the murdered person to engange the old man. Old man had other things on his mind though. 

Again: It was NOT his first time, store owner said he was a trouble maker, had the police called on him previously and had threatened to shoot someone at least once before. So NO, he was not there to deescalate anything. In contrary. 

 

Agree, yes, si, affirmative.

7/27/18 8:57 AM
2/2/15
Posts: 5527
Average -
holly9000 - Just out of curiosity how far apart do you think our positions are here? I don't think that guy deserved to get killed for what he did. It was stupid, and violent and uncalled for. But did he deserve to die for it? Of course not.

Did the shooter have the right to kill him? Absolutely. Those are 2 different questions though. The law agrees with me on the shooter's rights.

Is the law morally correct? Therein lies the real question; I think it is.

When the pusher started the encounter with a violent act there was no way for anyone else to understand how threatened the shooter felt when he hit the ground. Unless you're under attack it's pretty hard to imagine how you'd react. It's a lot easier to watch a video and armchair quarterback the situation. If you have a propensity towards violence, it might seem like the shooter went overboard. If you're a meeker person with a less than confrontational disposition you might feel otherwise. The fact is there was no way to know what would happen next just as there was no way to go back and un-start the encounter. IMO the benefit of the doubt has to go to the person who got attacked.

I believe that there's no place in a civilized society for problem solving through violent methods. That's a big reason that our society is so fucked up to begin with. A "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude is outdated and needs to be replaced by honest, sober dialog. That's the only way we can change the world for the better.

The bottom line is if the pusher had come out and assessed, and de-escalated the situation instead of acting out violently he probably would be alive today.

I feel sorry for his family but I understand the essential need to have laws protecting society from that sort of behavior in general.

Your (and a fistful of others) basically keep repeating this point: 

 

1) the law enabled him to elect to end this man. So he's in the clear there. 

2) practical/moral view: The murdered man should have known better than to push a total stranger.

 

So some of you say, it was the victim's responsability to not push a man, in order not to open the possibility of being murdered. 

 

BUT: The murder was there in the parkinglot, had his weapon on him and HE chose to engange strangers on his own. If he would follow the rules you want to push on the victim, he would NOT have engaged anybody in that parking lot. He would have ignored it, or, if justice is important to him, he could have called the cop. There was NO NEED to engange them, just as you say there was no need for the murdered person to engange the old man. Old man had other things on his mind though. 

Again: It was NOT his first time, store owner said he was a trouble maker, had the police called on him previously and had threatened to shoot someone at least once before. So NO, he was not there to deescalate anything. In contrary. 

 

Great post.

7/27/18 1:25 PM
7/13/09
Posts: 20370
pfsjkd -
sewich -

A good way to not get shot is to not assault a angry stranger in a parking lot. 

That doesn’t absolve somebody from a bad shoot. 

No, buts it's good advice.   Stupid to engage physically with some stranger in a parking lot.  

7/27/18 2:09 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 41505
Never_rolled -
nottheface -

It’s not even that the law allowed it.  It’s the sheriff thought it hazy enough that he allowed it.  Which I don’t get because for something to be considered self defense, it basically needs to meet the following criteria:

1) an unprovoked attack 

2) which threatens imminent injury or death

3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response 

4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.

No matter how you slice it, conditions 3 and 4 aren’t met when you escalate by pulling a gun against a push.  In fact the way a lot of self defense cases break down is when the “defender” escalated thereby creating a disparity of force.  

Sheriff stated shooter met 4. He told him he was in fear for his life. Only the shooter can answer that. 

“Only the shooter can answer that.”

Absolutely not true. Your *conclusion* that you’re in imminent danger must be backed up by *facts*. You’re right to assert SYG is not absolute. It is subject to review and can be denied. For the umpteenth time, you can’t just say the magic phrase and expect to get off. 

And Average’s post was great. 

7/27/18 2:10 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 41506
sewich -
pfsjkd -
sewich -

A good way to not get shot is to not assault a angry stranger in a parking lot. 

That doesn’t absolve somebody from a bad shoot. 

No, buts it's good advice.   Stupid to engage physically with some stranger in a parking lot.  

That’s not the point being debated. 

7/27/18 2:12 PM
6/8/08
Posts: 10039
sewich -
pfsjkd -
sewich -

A good way to not get shot is to not assault a angry stranger in a parking lot. 

That doesn’t absolve somebody from a bad shoot. 

No, buts it's good advice.   Stupid to engage physically with some stranger in a parking lot.  

You mean like the murderer, who enganged strangers in the parking lot to enforce the law? 

7/27/18 2:18 PM
6/30/03
Posts: 10089
sewich -
pfsjkd -
sewich -

A good way to not get shot is to not assault a angry stranger in a parking lot. 

That doesn’t absolve somebody from a bad shoot. 

No, buts it's good advice.   Stupid to engage physically with some stranger in a parking lot.  

Yes, and it's also good advice to exercise daily. But it's also irrelevant to whether this shoot was good or not. 

7/27/18 2:25 PM
5/25/08
Posts: 126

Why do idiots on this thread keep acting like the guy talking to the person about their illegal parking is the same as an unprovoked physical attack? Dude was defending his family from words, he should have used words as well. The moment you go tough guy and attack it can mean the end of your life. Don't go all tough guy mr badass unless you are ready for that.