Not everyone is like you, though. He was clearly around the car, shouting, for a almost 2 minutes. It was loud enough or concerning enough for the white male who entered the store to say something inside the store like, "some dude is out there yelling at a lady parked in a handicap spot" and the deceased walked out and perceived the situation, and as the female exited the car and the convicted didn't let up, thought the best course of action was to push the dude away. He didn't stand over him and ball his fists- he backed away from him. In hindsight, it seems like (and a jury agrees) this was a true perception, seeing as how the agitator got so worked up (repeatedly according to witness statements) and was shouting, and had a weapon on hand ready to use it. Watch the video- he got out of his car, walked behind the lady's car to check the license plate for a handicapped plate, then walked to the front to look for a sticker. He was LOOKING for trouble. I get it- he doesn't appreciate someone parking in a handicap space if they aren't authorized. But the way this played out is not good for him.
I wasn't there, you weren't there, no one in this forum was there. We are in the same position as the jury, minus being at the trial. We saw the same video. The man was shoved, not beaten, and I don't think SYG applies here, nor was he in fear for his life. Then again, I wasn't there in his shoes, but I can only go by the evidence brought to my attention.
When one carries a weapon they take upon themselves an added burden of responsibility and discretion when it comes to their surroundings and their actions. This man was not "armed security", "a police officer", or "paid to be there". He was harassing someone for a parking infraction and when someone confronted him on this in order to protect the life of a loved one, he drew his weapon and killed someone.
I mean, come on- if you look at the still shot at the moment of gun draw and point, the deceased's body is turned the other direction, with his shoulders and head looking back at the man on the ground. Can you honestly say that if you were on that jury and saw that video you would say the shooting is justified?
You don't think his "shoving" would have been covered under any sort of self defense protection, or even SYG itself? He was protecting the woman from what he perceived to be a threat. He was right, unfortunately for him.
Nope.
The woman was in her car. Arguing , yelling, without some action to accompany it ,even by Fla statute isn't assault , or attack , or anything other than verbal. It's not like she was not giving as good as she,got.
The jury didn't even understand the case they were judging and TOLD the judge as much . So much for the jury's take.
A off duty LEO recently shot THREE people for being shoved down by a non verbal disabled man as his parents begged him not too.
He also shot the father and the mother. The mother in the back.
Any LEO off duty would have shot the boyfriend over his hand movements during his one step back.
Now . I'll pose a,question.
There were open spots,all over the place closer to the door than where she was.
Has anyone even considered that when it was pointed out by the defender she,was in a handicap spot, if she had simply moved to one of the other spots, that would have been the end of it as,well?
Oh and we must be looking at a different still shot. The bf isn't turned away when he is shot though he had plenty of time to be .
He only turns after he is shot.
Yes it was a justified shoot.
The shooter was violently thrown to the ground. He does not have to wait until he is stomped , beaten, etc.
Opportinity, ability intent. Those three nessacary things had all already been displayed with no retreat in the face of a drawn weapon.
The drugged up BF turned what would have been an idiotic argument over a parking space into a justifiable SD shooting by illegally attacking the guy. And remaining a step away issuing threats in the face of a , granted slowly drawn and fired weapon .