Sheriff called parking spot shooting legal under ‘stand your ground’ laws. Prosecutors disagreed.

He already made the assault. Just because he realized he brought fists to a gun fight doesn't give him a pass for the already completed attack.

I'd say having been already attacked is indication that a threat still exists.

 

And?

 

You forgot the "serious injury" part, which often happens in falls.

And no, there is no sport where you can hit people from the side and knock them onto concrete without helmets.

Hits from the side aren't allowed with helmets onto grass, because of the possibility of serious injuries.

 

...comprehend that people at work probably aren't over 65.

 

Yes, he did. And it was 1) arguably justified and 2) stopped upon production of threat of deadly force by the defendant.

Without some redoubling of the attack, a move forward, a spoken threat etc, escalation is not warranted and thus illegal.
As I told you the other day, its not a game of tag. You don't get to get him back one just because he got you one, that's not how it works.

 

Yes, serious injury can happen, but it is not expect to be the anticipated outcome. As I said, no court would see shoving someone to the ground as being the use of deadly force.

Ever play rugby. There might not be concrete, but the hits are much more violent that what the shooter received.

 

I do which is why that message is broken into 2 separate sections. One asking about/commenting upon your "slip and fall at home" stats as quoted, one asking for what further information you have with the at work stats.
Just because you cure one objection doesn't mean you won't be creating others vman. I'm afraid that's not how it works.

 

Oh and by the way, they can and do.

https://chriswagoner.us/2018/08/03/...reat-to-your-life-what-is-disparity-of-force/

We teach this in the police academy and teach law enforcement officers all over the nation about it because it can be what they come across on the job, but it applies as much to the everyday citizen as it does law enforcement. What is “serious bodily injury”? It is recognized in court cases and case law as that force which is likely to cause severe pain and injury that will require protracted recovery or permanent scarring is considered serious bodily harm. When it comes to the law of self-defense, you have to look at potential injury from the victim’s point of view, not the attackers or their intent. A blow to the throat, eyes or other soft areas of the body. Hitting someone with a closed fist to the side of the head, or base of the skull can be seriously crippling or even deadly. Throwing or pushing someone down hard onto concrete or asphalt, all can cause serious bodily injury or even death.


That is not even adding in the “disparity of force” factors. If the victim is old or physically disabled in any way, their ability to defend themselves may require the use of a weapon or firearm. A large attacker, even if unarmed, attacking a smaller weaker victim causes the danger of serious bodily harm or death to rise. And in the victims mind (remember that the fear spoken of in law is that of the victim, not the witness or the attackers), a small framed, weaker victim being attacked by a larger more powerful attacker may form in their mind a well-founded fear that they are going to be seriously injured or killed.

 

Bottom line, falls seriously injure people who are not 65 and over quite often.

You can waffle on that all you like, but those are the facts.

 

So, now you are saying that he has to be in the act and the belief does not matter? The law does not support you, and nether did the jury in this case. There only need to be a belief that danger was imminent. You are not require to wait until your family is dead before taking action. Verbal threats are not necessary. The law specifically states verbal or non-verbal (I would provide a link, but I have already done this about 3 times in this thread).

 

See that word "can". That is exactly as I said. It CAN cause death or injury. However, it is NOT an act that is considered as being the use of deadly force from a legal standpoint. However, there CAN be other factors involved. Pushing a 80 year old person to the ground CAN be considered as deadly force as the outcome would most certain result in death or serious injury. Pushing a 47 year old to the ground.....not so much.

 

I find it ironic that you think a guy arguing with a woman, and belief she was in danger, justified the initial attack....but being shoved onto concrete makes you feel the shooting was unlawful.

 

And "can" is all that is required.

 

I'm sure they do, but its hard to get a feel for the ratio that is relevant to our case when you have eggshell plaintiffs tainting the data.

I'm not waffling. You provided the stats: I'm asking you for clarification on your own link and statistics which YOU offered as proving your point.
If you find yourself unable to cogently answer the objections, rather than accusing me of imitating a beloved Krasnovian breakfast staple, perhaps you might simply admit that you are without cogent response?

 

Please explain the danger represented to the woman inside the vehicle when he was attacked.

Did he try to get into the car?

 

Because drawing the gun was sufficient to get the imminent assault discontinued as the tape, and witness testimony available, shows.
Coincidentally, the shove was sufficient to get the guy to stop harassing his wife as well.

 

Make no mistake - Dyad is being very precise and targeted with the use of the word "thug." It's right out of the NRA/Stormfront handbook.

 

Read the post quoted, and try to keep up.

 

The only point necessary is that serious injury from falls is quite common, even in those under 65.

You know as well as I do that hands and feet kill far more people every year than all rifles used by a factor of two or three.

Any sudden hit from the side is capable of seriously injuring you, as is falling onto concrete.

 

Never said that. The attack certainly made the shooting possibly justified. The fact that the the McGlockton was retreating after he saw the gun made the shooting unjustified. You may see it differently, but the jury and most of the people in this thread do not.

 

Or rolling the car window up.

But sure, he was a threat to a woman inside a vehicle.

 

You don't have to wait for him to try to haul the bitch out of the car, or produce a weapon and attack through the vehicle or bust out a window and attack her etc. What part of the eyewitness testimony that Drejka was pretty far out of line in his initial conduct was unclear? Do we need to walk you through it again?
What part of Drejka shot him after he'd stopped his imminent attack upon the production by Drejka of a pistol was unclear?

This is why you shouldn't harass and intimidate people on purpose because you want to be the ****ing handicap spot citizen's patrol and your city doesn't have one or won't take you..

Its also why you personally (as opposed to the generalized you above not tied to any specific person but Drejka) should perhaps take a few classes on use of force locally, and perhaps even consider consulting a criminal defense attorney who handles such cases for advice. Given your responses here you'd be in the same position as Drejka IE we'd be mailing you some soap on a rope and telling you to keep your butthole tight.

 

What would have happened if he didn't have a gun.

 

*sign* No it isn't. Not by law.

Vman, you have completely worn me out. You have beat me upon the head and shoulders so much with you opinion that I am going to "tapout".

 

Yeah actually you do, because someone inside a vehicle is in no immediate danger unless a weapon is produced.

Was the weapon produced while "the bitch" was in the car?