Florida parking lot shooting: Should stand your ground laws apply to cases like this.

[Carson]

Addressing the "Not my problem" culture would be one way.

Allowing the police to explain to the (potential) complainants that their complaints could lead to protection of others might be another. If already allowed, promote the idea.

The Parkland shooter was known to a number of people who were legally obligated (at least would be under PA law) to notify Law Enforcement, but neither they nor Law Enforcement took any steps that would have initiated actions that would have thrown legal roadblocks in front of the shooter.

OK. I didn’t know what direction you were going. I’ll address it later when I get off this phone.

I completely agree with you and was not on this guy's side from the start. I guess what it comes down to is point of view and hard evidence, for some people there isn't enough from the outlets they like to prove this guy was in fact a public menace with a carry permit.

Ironically, if this was Philadelphia, his LTCF would have most likely been revoked with the character clause (that everyone disagrees with) during one of the earlier incidents.

[mixednuts]

I agree.

I agree that you still don't know what rights are. it's hilarious how you claim the shooter had no right to question a strangers parking job, yet you threaten people online over a difference of opinion.

Watching the video I don't see what you see.

based on what, an edited video? that dramatic pause making it look like twice as much time passed between assaulting someone & getting shot?

[JenniferG]

I agree that you still don't know what rights are. it's hilarious how you claim the shooter had no right to question a strangers parking job, yet you threaten people online over a difference of opinion.



based on what, an edited video? that dramatic pause making it look like twice as much time passed between assaulting someone & getting shot?

I find it hilarious you haven't learned your lesson.

What right did the shooter have harassing a woman over a parking spot on property he doesn't own? What right did the shooter even have harassing a woman for that matter? If that was a man that had parked in the spot he wouldn't have said anything because he's a coward and only picks on people he thinks he can bully. When he was confronted by a man he had to shoot the man because he is a coward. The man who was shot was backing away when he was shot. I'm the one that feels threatened.

I think what everyone is forgetting here this was private property and the shooter had no business telling another patron of that business located on private property where to park, what to buy and what to say. If the shooter had a problem with parking his obligation was to talk with the owners or managers of the property and not take it upon himself to police private property he did not own or manage.

If I were the owner of that business I would be suing that asshole shooter and take everything he owns or is going to own.

[unclejumbo]

I agree that you still don't know what rights are. it's hilarious how you claim the shooter had no right to question a strangers parking job, yet you threaten people online over a difference of opinion.



based on what, an edited video? that dramatic pause making it look like twice as much time passed between assaulting someone & getting shot?

Your name is well chosen.

[Gun]

I agree that you still don't know what rights are. it's hilarious how you claim the shooter had no right to question a strangers parking job, yet you threaten people online over a difference of opinion.

Not only is it NOT a right, the shooter had NO authority in the matter that led up to the shooting.

This is NOT a 1 A issue.

The shooter would have been better off wearing a T shirt, stating, UNLESS HANDICAPPED, DON'T PARK IN HANDICAPPED SPOTS.

The shirt will be ignored, so what, at least everyone willing to read it will know how you feel.

[mixednuts]

I find it hilarious you haven't learned your lesson.

thank you for confirming that you still have no idea what rights are.

a conversation is not harassment, projecting your own lack of civility on the events has nothing to do with the reality of what happened.

[cdi]

Did you bump your head, sack of mixednuts?
The shooter should have minded his own business.

Haranguing someone could most certainly be harassment.
It looks like the guy went looking for a confrontation and found one.

[GunLawyer001]

. . .
The shooter should have minded his own business.

Haranguing someone could most certainly be harassment.
It looks like the guy went looking for a confrontation and found one.

The first person to do something illegal there was the woman who chose to park illegally.

The second person to do something illegal was the now-dead guy, who physically attacked a man for pointing out to his baby-mama that she was parked illegally.

The dead guy attacked a man for violating the dead guy's personal set of rules, whatever they were.

The shooter spoke to the woman because she violated clear statutory law, ignoring signs and painted handicapped icons. The shooter didn't point his gun at her for parking illegally. He used words. Not illegal to use words.

The blame for this incident is PRIMARILY on the driver and the boyfriend.

Maybe the shooter is an asshole. Maybe he hoped for a confrontation. Maybe he threatened others before and should have been prosecuted for those things. I don't know.

I don't much care. If he broke the laws before then he should have been prosecuted before. What he did this time was lawful (in the opinion of the police, before it became political); what the other two did was unlawful, and my default setting is to blame the law-breakers more than I blame those who work within the rules. There's a reason why courts don't allow random testimony of alleged unrelated bad acts, why the DA can't just go in and prove "he's a bad person and should go to jail for being an asshole".

It's not clear to me the sequence of when the attacker started backing away, whether it was before the shot or after. Maybe others have better copies of the surveillance video and can see the bullet flying. But that seems like a critical bit of data, something that the entire case hinges upon, so I wouldn't assume it either way. I am sure that the shot came after the attacker struck him with both hands and knocked him to the asphalt, and I'm sure that the attacker didn't immediately walk away after knocking him to the ground.

[Walleye Hunter]

The first person to do something illegal there was the woman who chose to park illegally.

The second person to do something illegal was the now-dead guy, who physically attacked a man for pointing out to his baby-mama that she was parked illegally.

The dead guy attacked a man for violating the dead guy's personal set of rules, whatever they were.

The shooter spoke to the woman because she violated clear statutory law, ignoring signs and painted handicapped icons. The shooter didn't point his gun at her for parking illegally. He used words. Not illegal to use words.

The blame for this incident is PRIMARILY on the driver and the boyfriend.

Maybe the shooter is an asshole. Maybe he hoped for a confrontation. Maybe he threatened others before and should have been prosecuted for those things. I don't know.

I don't much care. If he broke the laws before then he should have been prosecuted before. What he did this time was lawful (in the opinion of the police, before it became political); what the other two did was unlawful, and my default setting is to blame the law-breakers more than I blame those who work within the rules. There's a reason why courts don't allow random testimony of alleged unrelated bad acts, why the DA can't just go in and prove "he's a bad person and should go to jail for being an asshole".

It's not clear to me the sequence of when the attacker started backing away, whether it was before the shot or after. Maybe others have better copies of the surveillance video and can see the bullet flying. But that seems like a critical bit of data, something that the entire case hinges upon, so I wouldn't assume it either way. I am sure that the shot came after the attacker struck him with both hands and knocked him to the asphalt, and I'm sure that the attacker didn't immediately walk away after knocking him to the ground.

I concur.

[abner13]

I concur.

I also concur!

CASE DISMISSED!


Oops , now wait. Nobody makes any money off a decision that cut & dry.