• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida man ambushed rivals at barbecue killing 2

opendebate said:
Holy nutjobs batman!! WTF is wrong with people?! The SYG laws are so dangerous. The problem with them is that while they may work for reasonable people, it also gives the same power to the many that are not reasonable. To let a citizen decide for themselves when someone is enough of a threat to kill them...seriously!!
Click to expand...

This is what you post, then tell me I am in a rage? Or I twisted your words? My god man.
 
Goshin said:
Nothing wrong with most SYG laws. In most states they simply remove the duty to retreat before using lethal force and that is well... lotta times retreat isn't feasible.


Florida's law is more extreme than most, giving much more latitude... but even under Florida's SYG I cannot see this defense being successful. Basically the guy is a looney and a dick and he's trying to cover his murderous actions with whatever tattered ragged cloak of law he can... but it isn't going to work.
Click to expand...

If you are interested:
Florida 'stand your ground' law yields some shocking outcomes depending on how law is applied | Tampa Bay Times

and index
 
MaggieD said:
Lawyers will do anything for publicity. He'll be convicted just like all the rest who use SYG in ridiculous ways.
Click to expand...

I hope so Maggie, but like I said earlier I more concern of how many of these idiots are going to feel more comfortable shooting someone because they assume that they have SYG as a trump card to use.
 
tech30528 said:
Then this will be a great opportunity for the court to define exactly where that line is.
Click to expand...

100% agree with you. Don't get me wrong, I believe a individual have the right to defend themselves with lethal force if they have to. But this law can be extremely tricky because everyone has a different definition of what is threatening.
 
rcart76 said:
100% agree with you. Don't get me wrong, I believe a individual have the right to defend themselves with lethal force if they have to. But this law can be extremely tricky because everyone has a different definition of what is threatening.
Click to expand...

Its not real tricky. Its called common sense, use it.
 
This is a video of someone surveillance camera catching some of the shooting.

 
rcart76 said:
I hope so Maggie, but like I said earlier I more concern of how many of these idiots are going to feel more comfortable shooting someone because they assume that they have SYG as a trump card to use.
Click to expand...

There is no law ever made that results in more confusing and 100% wrong interpretations. Thank you, Media. Again.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Its not real tricky. Its called common sense, use it.
Click to expand...

Wait what ???

Common sense doesn't have anything to do with it. It called law misinterpretation to validate you shooting someone. And if you have a really good lawyer, you will get away with it
 
rcart76 said:
Wait what ???

Common sense doesn't have anything to do with it. It called law misinterpretation to validate you shooting someone. And if you have a really good lawyer, you will get away with it
Click to expand...

Ok, so make everyone turn in their guns because someone committed a murder and tried to make it self defense. That is what every gun grabber wants to do.
 
opendebate said:
The duty to retreat thing is definitely questionable. I know I would not do it if I felt someone was threatening me or my kids. But, it is my understanding, there have been several instances in Florida where the SYG law was successfully used when the shooter tracked down the victim. Anywhere the law can be twisted to successfully defend someone under these circumstances seems to be inviting more trouble that stopping it.
Click to expand...


If the bolded is accurate, that is cause for concern regarding FLA.


Most states, like my own, simply remove the duty to retreat. I've been concerned with Florida's version myself, however, as it appears to be a lot looser than most.

See, my state follows the same principle that most states do: If you START in the wrong, you STAY in the wrong. In other words, if you walk up to someone and attack them, you're unable to claim self-defense afterward in almost any case, or if you CREATE the situation by committing a crime first, you have no self-defense grounds. Even if you do something relatively minor (misdemeanor) like trespassing then refusing to leave, you lose your ability to claim SD.

The only possible exception is a narrow clause that if you disengage and attempt to retreat, and the person pursues and attacks you, you MAY be able to claim SD at that point (but it's iffy).


FLA law (not just SYG but their revamped SD statutes in general) may be loose enough to give benefit-of-the-doubt even in cases where the person clearly sought out and started the conflict and clearly committed the first act of assault... if that is the case, that needs fixed.


But still, I don't think this guys claim is going to fly. You can TRY to claim anything... doesn't mean it is going to happen.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Ok, so make everyone turn in their guns because someone committed a murder and tried to make it self defense. That is what every gun grabber wants to do.
Click to expand...

Huh. Who said anything about grabbing people's guns. I said that the law needs to be amended. Not taken away, but tweek a little.

You reading too much into my statements.
 
Goshin said:
If the bolded is accurate, that is cause for concern regarding FLA.


Most states, like my own, simply remove the duty to retreat. I've been concerned with Florida's version myself, however, as it appears to be a lot looser than most.

See, my state follows the same principle that most states do: If you START in the wrong, you STAY in the wrong. In other words, if you walk up to someone and attack them, you're unable to claim self-defense afterward in almost any case, or if you CREATE the situation by committing a crime first, you have no self-defense grounds. Even if you do something relatively minor (misdemeanor) like trespassing then refusing to leave, you lose your ability to claim SD.

The only possible exception is a narrow clause that if you disengage and attempt to retreat, and the person pursues and attacks you, you MAY be able to claim SD at that point (but it's iffy).


FLA law (not just SYG but their revamped SD statutes in general) may be loose enough to give benefit-of-the-doubt even in cases where the person clearly sought out and started the conflict and clearly committed the first act of assault... if that is the case, that needs fixed.


But still, I don't think this guys claim is going to fly. You can TRY to claim anything... doesn't mean it is going to happen.
Click to expand...

I think that should be the standard rule for SYG.
 
rcart76 said:
I think that should be the standard rule for SYG.
Click to expand...


Well, in the vast majority of states, it is the standard rule for self-defense period.
 
Goshin said:
If the bolded is accurate, that is cause for concern regarding FLA.


Most states, like my own, simply remove the duty to retreat. I've been concerned with Florida's version myself, however, as it appears to be a lot looser than most.

See, my state follows the same principle that most states do: If you START in the wrong, you STAY in the wrong. In other words, if you walk up to someone and attack them, you're unable to claim self-defense afterward in almost any case, or if you CREATE the situation by committing a crime first, you have no self-defense grounds. Even if you do something relatively minor (misdemeanor) like trespassing then refusing to leave, you lose your ability to claim SD.

The only possible exception is a narrow clause that if you disengage and attempt to retreat, and the person pursues and attacks you, you MAY be able to claim SD at that point (but it's iffy).


FLA law (not just SYG but their revamped SD statutes in general) may be loose enough to give benefit-of-the-doubt even in cases where the person clearly sought out and started the conflict and clearly committed the first act of assault... if that is the case, that needs fixed.


But still, I don't think this guys claim is going to fly. You can TRY to claim anything... doesn't mean it is going to happen.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you saw it yet but I emailed you a link with some info about how the law in FL.

I hope he doesn't get away with using it as a defense, seems like it could lead to a lot more trouble there if he is able to.
 
rcart76 said:
Not sure OD, but the survivor was hit 11 times !!!

That guy is bless to be alive.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine? That is life altering. It is very sad that he lost his friends.

I posted a link with some info regarding more info of how the law in FL is constructed and how it has been abused in a message to Goshin if you are interested.
 
cpgrad08 said:
Charge him with 1st Degree Murder, Convict him and give him the Needle, and move on.
Click to expand...

I don't see any legitimate self defense claim in the facts as they have been presented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom