OtherGround Forums Florida Man Stands his Ground over Parking Dispute

8/14/18 9:46 PM
5/13/11
Posts: 43799
kindofawesome -

I’m for concealed carry and for stand your grown when you are being pursued or attacked. He could have drawn his weapon and told the guy to back up but he didn’t, he killed a guy over bull shit. He did it out of anger; not fear which makes him a pos.. 

Bingo. I feel the same way. The way stand your ground is written in FL is horseshit and allows for this same defense. 

Edited: 8/14/18 11:29 PM
12/2/05
Posts: 74142
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
kindofawesome -

I’m for concealed carry and for stand your grown when you are being pursued or attacked. He could have drawn his weapon and told the guy to back up but he didn’t, he killed a guy over bull shit. He did it out of anger; not fear which makes him a pos.. 

Bingo. I feel the same way. The way stand your ground is written in FL is horseshit and allows for this same defense. 

This isn't a SYG issue. It's either he reasonably felt in fear of great bodily harm or death or not. All SYG does is remove the duty to try and run away. 

8/15/18 9:54 AM
5/13/11
Posts: 43808
Fake Pie -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
kindofawesome -

I’m for concealed carry and for stand your grown when you are being pursued or attacked. He could have drawn his weapon and told the guy to back up but he didn’t, he killed a guy over bull shit. He did it out of anger; not fear which makes him a pos.. 

Bingo. I feel the same way. The way stand your ground is written in FL is horseshit and allows for this same defense. 

This isn't a SYG issue. It's either he reasonably felt in fear of great bodily harm or death or not. All SYG does is remove the duty to try and run away. 

Maybe I misread but Florida law requires the prosecution to prove that the shooter did not fear for his life. A burden on the prosecution not required in other states. 

8/15/18 10:13 AM
8/10/05
Posts: 38633
QueenCityLurker - 
Samoa -

Bitch made pussy ass mark. A CCW holder with his weapon provokes an issue over a parking spot and can’t get it from the shoulder so he shoots and kills a man. 

Don’t get into a confrontation with someone because they park in a handicapped spot. Especially don’t create a confrontation over a handicapped parking spot when you’re carrying your fuckin gun. 

Lol@you. Did you poor out a little Colt 45 for your fallen homie?

Seems the guy doing the shoving was the ultimate provocateur here. Don't put your hands on someone like that and you won't get shot. I can tell by your vernacular that you're the type to steer far clear of personal accountability. 

Now finish sucking off your thug boyfriend, faggot.


Such a subtle troll.
8/15/18 10:14 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 44417
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - 
Fake Pie -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
kindofawesome -

I’m for concealed carry and for stand your grown when you are being pursued or attacked. He could have drawn his weapon and told the guy to back up but he didn’t, he killed a guy over bull shit. He did it out of anger; not fear which makes him a pos.. 

Bingo. I feel the same way. The way stand your ground is written in FL is horseshit and allows for this same defense. 

This isn't a SYG issue. It's either he reasonably felt in fear of great bodily harm or death or not. All SYG does is remove the duty to try and run away. 

Maybe I misread but Florida law requires the prosecution to prove that the shooter did not fear for his life. A burden on the prosecution not required in other states. 


The burden of proof is always going be on the state.  They will have to prove that a reasonable person, given those same circumstances, wouldn't have feared for his life or felt the need to defend himself with deadly force.  

 

Edited: 8/15/18 11:38 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 41640
Samoa -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - 
Fake Pie -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
kindofawesome -

I’m for concealed carry and for stand your grown when you are being pursued or attacked. He could have drawn his weapon and told the guy to back up but he didn’t, he killed a guy over bull shit. He did it out of anger; not fear which makes him a pos.. 

Bingo. I feel the same way. The way stand your ground is written in FL is horseshit and allows for this same defense. 

This isn't a SYG issue. It's either he reasonably felt in fear of great bodily harm or death or not. All SYG does is remove the duty to try and run away. 

Maybe I misread but Florida law requires the prosecution to prove that the shooter did not fear for his life. A burden on the prosecution not required in other states. 

 

The burden of proof is always going be on the state.  They will have to prove that a reasonable person, given those same circumstances, wouldn't have feared for his life or felt the need to defend himself with deadly force.  

 

The burden of proof is on the state to prove the underlying attack you made. In a non-SYG state, if you assert that you were defending yourself, that’s an affirmative defense and the burden is on you to show you were under threat and responded reasonably according to self defense laws.

I believe in SYG (at least in FL), there is a burden on the prosecutor to prove that you were *not* threatened, something that non-SYG prosecutors don’t have. Hence, all the dingbats saying that if you utter the magic phrase ‘I was in fear of my life’ you will be covered. But It’s not quite that simple. 

Edited: 8/15/18 12:22 PM
5/13/11
Posts: 43821
pfsjkd -
Samoa -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - 
Fake Pie -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
kindofawesome -

I’m for concealed carry and for stand your grown when you are being pursued or attacked. He could have drawn his weapon and told the guy to back up but he didn’t, he killed a guy over bull shit. He did it out of anger; not fear which makes him a pos.. 

Bingo. I feel the same way. The way stand your ground is written in FL is horseshit and allows for this same defense. 

This isn't a SYG issue. It's either he reasonably felt in fear of great bodily harm or death or not. All SYG does is remove the duty to try and run away. 

Maybe I misread but Florida law requires the prosecution to prove that the shooter did not fear for his life. A burden on the prosecution not required in other states. 

 

The burden of proof is always going be on the state.  They will have to prove that a reasonable person, given those same circumstances, wouldn't have feared for his life or felt the need to defend himself with deadly force.  

 

The burden of proof is on the state to prove the underlying attack you made. In a non-SYG state, if you assert that you were defending yourself, that’s an affirmative defense and the burden is on you to show you were under threat and responded reasonably according to self defense laws.

I believe in SYG (at least in FL), there is a burden on the prosecutor to prove that you were *not* threatened, something that non-SYG prosecutors don’t have. Hence, all the dingbats saying that if you utter the magic phrase ‘I was in fear of my life’ you will be covered. But It’s not quite that simple. 

Thank you. That's what I was trying to convey that was different in Florida. 

 

I believe they are also the only state that applied the Castle Doctine portion  of SYG to any place a person is legally allowed to be instead of only your "castle". 

8/15/18 12:44 PM
12/2/05
Posts: 74144
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Fake Pie -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
kindofawesome -

I’m for concealed carry and for stand your grown when you are being pursued or attacked. He could have drawn his weapon and told the guy to back up but he didn’t, he killed a guy over bull shit. He did it out of anger; not fear which makes him a pos.. 

Bingo. I feel the same way. The way stand your ground is written in FL is horseshit and allows for this same defense. 

This isn't a SYG issue. It's either he reasonably felt in fear of great bodily harm or death or not. All SYG does is remove the duty to try and run away. 

Maybe I misread but Florida law requires the prosecution to prove that the shooter did not fear for his life. A burden on the prosecution not required in other states. 

I'll explain it later but it doesn't change the burden at trial which is always on the state in every state. It's a preliminary hearing thing and isn't a big deal. 

8/15/18 12:45 PM
12/2/05
Posts: 74145
pfsjkd -
Samoa -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - 
Fake Pie -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
kindofawesome -

I’m for concealed carry and for stand your grown when you are being pursued or attacked. He could have drawn his weapon and told the guy to back up but he didn’t, he killed a guy over bull shit. He did it out of anger; not fear which makes him a pos.. 

Bingo. I feel the same way. The way stand your ground is written in FL is horseshit and allows for this same defense. 

This isn't a SYG issue. It's either he reasonably felt in fear of great bodily harm or death or not. All SYG does is remove the duty to try and run away. 

Maybe I misread but Florida law requires the prosecution to prove that the shooter did not fear for his life. A burden on the prosecution not required in other states. 

 

The burden of proof is always going be on the state.  They will have to prove that a reasonable person, given those same circumstances, wouldn't have feared for his life or felt the need to defend himself with deadly force.  

 

The burden of proof is on the state to prove the underlying attack you made. In a non-SYG state, if you assert that you were defending yourself, that’s an affirmative defense and the burden is on you to show you were under threat and responded reasonably according to self defense laws.

I believe in SYG (at least in FL), there is a burden on the prosecutor to prove that you were *not* threatened, something that non-SYG prosecutors don’t have. Hence, all the dingbats saying that if you utter the magic phrase ‘I was in fear of my life’ you will be covered. But It’s not quite that simple. 

The supreme Court overruled states that shifted burdens to criminal defendants. In every state the burden stays with the state to prove it wasn't self defense. 

8/15/18 12:47 PM
12/2/05
Posts: 74146

I can copy the text from the Florida statutes later but basically the state has to make an initial showing (I think clear and convincing) to even proceed to trial.  That's the only difference. It changed nothing about the actual burden once in front of a jury. 

8/15/18 12:49 PM
12/2/05
Posts: 74147

Its to keep the state from fucking with people when it's obviously going to get ruled justified by a jury. Gives the judge the power to toss it earlier and say this is bullshit you have zero ability to win in a clear cut self defense case. I think it's great and have never heard of it being used in any high profile case, they always go to a jury because the burden isn't that high of it's a real questionable case and not prosecutorial misconduct. 

8/15/18 1:06 PM
12/2/05
Posts: 74148

Here's the statute and I'll explain what it means in practice:

a person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s.776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
(4) In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection (1).
8/15/18 1:09 PM
12/2/05
Posts: 74149
So 1 says you are immune, but not really because 2 says they can still arrest you if they have probable cause... well that was already the fucking standard so it changes nothing about the burden to arrest.

4 is what you are talking about with burdens. As I noted, if you assert self defense, now the state has to show by clear and convincing evidence it wasn't self defense to proceed to a criminal jury trial. That is a higher burden than before to go to trial, but at trial they will have to show beyond a reasonable doubt it wasn't self defense anyhow which is an even higher standard than clear and convincing. So if they can't make the C&C showing, they shouldn't get to drain a person's life savings on a murder trial they aren't going to win anyhow IMO.

And it is a showing to a judge in a pre-trial hearing, it isn't a huge deal. They were able to do it in the Zimmerman case and any other high profile one.
8/15/18 1:10 PM
12/2/05
Posts: 74150
Basically the state is just going to have to show the video and say a reasonable jury can decide he wasn't in fear of his life etc. It won't be hard at all.
8/15/18 1:15 PM
12/2/05
Posts: 74151
I appear to be wrong about the Supreme Court case, I was misremembering the dissent from Dixon as the majority I think.

That said, Florida always had the jury burden on self defense the way it is now, before and after SYG. It didn't change.

I know of no state that shifts the burden of proof to a defendant on self defense. The worst I know of state wise is where a defendant has to make a preponderance showing of self defense to raise it (more likely than not showing) but then the state still has to disprove that self defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.

Will try and see if there are any more restrictive states. But again, still not a SYG issue in the least.

Really grating how misunderstood the FL SYG law has been.
8/15/18 1:18 PM
5/13/11
Posts: 43829

And this kind sir, is why you're the OGs most beloved poster of semi-trolling thread titles with videos of police interactions. 

 

Always a great break down of legal jargon for us common folk. VU and cheers to you

8/15/18 2:08 PM
12/2/05
Posts: 74152
Np, always take it with a grain though and challenge me. I don't practice criminal law and I mis-remember things (or just am wrong sometimes/often times). I did post the actual statute here though and so I believe I've confirmed I had it right.
8/15/18 2:12 PM
12/2/05
Posts: 74153
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - 
pfsjkd -
Samoa -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - 
Fake Pie -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
kindofawesome -

I’m for concealed carry and for stand your grown when you are being pursued or attacked. He could have drawn his weapon and told the guy to back up but he didn’t, he killed a guy over bull shit. He did it out of anger; not fear which makes him a pos.. 

Bingo. I feel the same way. The way stand your ground is written in FL is horseshit and allows for this same defense. 

This isn't a SYG issue. It's either he reasonably felt in fear of great bodily harm or death or not. All SYG does is remove the duty to try and run away. 

Maybe I misread but Florida law requires the prosecution to prove that the shooter did not fear for his life. A burden on the prosecution not required in other states. 

 

The burden of proof is always going be on the state.  They will have to prove that a reasonable person, given those same circumstances, wouldn't have feared for his life or felt the need to defend himself with deadly force.  

 

The burden of proof is on the state to prove the underlying attack you made. In a non-SYG state, if you assert that you were defending yourself, that’s an affirmative defense and the burden is on you to show you were under threat and responded reasonably according to self defense laws.

I believe in SYG (at least in FL), there is a burden on the prosecutor to prove that you were *not* threatened, something that non-SYG prosecutors don’t have. Hence, all the dingbats saying that if you utter the magic phrase ‘I was in fear of my life’ you will be covered. But It’s not quite that simple. 

Thank you. That's what I was trying to convey that was different in Florida. 

 

I believe they are also the only state that applied the Castle Doctine portion  of SYG to any place a person is legally allowed to be instead of only your "castle". 


Sort of. The "castle doctrine" is generally used to refer to two things:

1. The presumption that when someone illegal enters a home, the homeowner is in great fear of bodily harm or death. Basically it presumes it was self defense, but the presumption can be overcome by the state. Florida SYG did NOT apply this presumption to anywhere outside the home.

2. You have no duty to retreat in your home IF you are in fear of great bodily harm or death. You can stand your ground in your home and use deadly force (e.g., you aren't required to try and go out the window even if you might have been able to). SYG in FL DID apply this to anywhere you are lawfully allowed to be, and I think that is right.

Here is what #1 looks like the Florida statutes:

(2)?A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a)?The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b)?The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
8/15/18 2:13 PM
12/2/05
Posts: 74154
Here is what #2 looks like (the second provision is deadly force):

776.012?Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.--
(1)?A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2)?A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.


The bolded part is literally the only thing SYG changes about the self defense standard in Florida. The other stuff I posted above is procedural.
Edited: 8/15/18 2:23 PM
12/2/05
Posts: 74155
An example of why the procedural part of the SYG law is good are cases like in WA or PA that I can post about where a young man was criminally prosecuted for using a gun (PA) or knife (WA) to defend against larger attackers. In PA he was being run down by a group of 5 dudes, in WA a dude was bashing his head into a car. Neither should have been prosecuted. I think the jury verdicts were under an hour in each case. I don't think either would have gotten past a judge on clear and convincing evidence in FL (but maybe).

PA was Gerald Hung.

WA was Jared HA.
8/17/18 1:08 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 41650

Good info FP. I thought I read a while ago that Massachusetts was a duty to retreat state. I could be wrong and I’m too tired to look it up tonight. 

8/21/18 9:30 AM
12/13/04
Posts: 5805
Stronghold - 

I saw the video but missed the part where the old guy's life was threatened or in danger. May be he was allergic to asphalt


I've seen enough videos of people being put on the ground and kicked in the head repeatedly to support the old guy's fear of bad shit happening.

Good shooting - I wish it happened more often.
8/21/18 9:37 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 44468
RATINGSKILLER -

Update- charges dropped

Bond hearing is on Thursday

8/21/18 9:53 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 96706
tourist -
Stronghold - 

I saw the video but missed the part where the old guy's life was threatened or in danger. May be he was allergic to asphalt


I've seen enough videos of people being put on the ground and kicked in the head repeatedly to support the old guy's fear of bad shit happening.

Good shooting - I wish it happened more often.

We can agree to disagree.  Once the young asshole backed up with his hands up, it should have been over.  The old asshole needs to be disarmed forever at the least

Edited: 8/21/18 10:37 AM
12/2/05
Posts: 74458
pfsjkd - 

Good info FP. I thought I read a while ago that Massachusetts was a duty to retreat state. I could be wrong and I'm too tired to look it up tonight. 


It is (outside the home). Nearly every state is. That is the entire point of SYG.