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

[Gaff It]

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.

Exactly. I agree with everything you said.

[cdi]

I was commenting on mixednuts comment about conversation is not harassment.
I don't know what the shooter said to the lady- he could have threatened to shoot her if she didn't move her car; or he could have asked her for some Grey Poupon.

My point was, unless you're charged with enforcing traffic laws, it's best to mind your own business.
We don't know for sure she didn't have a handicapped tag, placard or id. I rolled up on numerous handicapped parkers and before writing the summons found the person had a hang tag sitting on the seat that they transferred from another car- shit happens.

Getting involved when some serious crime happens right in front of you is one thing. Risking a confrontation over a possible parking violation is a no-no for an armed individual.
My thought is, had the shooter simply gone about his business, no shooting would have occurred.

[GunLawyer001]

I was commenting on mixednuts comment about conversation is not harassment.
I don't know what the shooter said to the lady- he could have threatened to shoot her if she didn't move her car; or he could have asked her for some Grey Poupon.

My point was, unless you're charged with enforcing traffic laws, it's best to mind your own business.
We don't know for sure she didn't have a handicapped tag, placard or id. I rolled up on numerous handicapped parkers and before writing the summons found the person had a hang tag sitting on the seat that they transferred from another car- shit happens.

Getting involved when some serious crime happens right in front of you is one thing. Risking a confrontation over a possible parking violation is a no-no for an armed individual.
My thought is, had the shooter simply gone about his business, no shooting would have occurred.

It's nearly certain that the shooting would not have happened had the shooter not gotten involved (not 100%, the dead guy seems like he was a thug, so he might have taken offense at the shooter's White Privilege).

It's 100% certain that the shooting would not have happened had the dead guy not physically attacked the shooter.

I focus on "who did prohibited acts first". Because almost every accident or injury could have been avoided had everybody stayed home that day. I don't blame Abe Lincoln for deciding to go see "Our American Cousin" at Ford's theater, despite the fact that he would not have been killed there if he hadn't gone there. I blame Booth, for shooting him.

[unclejumbo]

It's nearly certain that the shooting would not have happened had the shooter not gotten involved (not 100%, the dead guy seems like he was a thug, so he might have taken offense at the shooter's White Privilege).

It's 100% certain that the shooting would not have happened had the dead guy not physically attacked the shooter.

I focus on "who did prohibited acts first". Because almost every accident or injury could have been avoided had everybody stayed home that day. I don't blame Abe Lincoln for deciding to go see "Our American Cousin" at Ford's theater, despite the fact that he would not have been killed there if he hadn't gone there. I blame Booth, for shooting him.

I believe you're overestimating the restraint of the shooter. I think it's possible he would have shot McGlockton if he told him to quit yapping at his girlfriend or he'd kick his ass. The shooter is an unstable goof.

[GunLawyer001]

I believe you're overestimating the restraint of the shooter. I think it's possible he would have shot McGlockton if he told him to quit yapping at his girlfriend or he'd kick his ass. The shooter is an unstable goof.

I'm going to assume (for this post only) that all the claims of previous encounters with the shooter are true; not one of those previous "victims" chose to physically assault the shooter, so he didn't shoot any of them.

So it's pure speculation to say that the shooter might shoot someone who didn't strike him; it's worse than my extrapolation that the dead guy might have hit someone who didn't call his baby-mama to account, because the dead guy had priors and the shooter did not.

[Carnes]

I'm going to assume (for this post only) that all the claims of previous encounters with the shooter are true; not one of those previous "victims" chose to physically assault the shooter, so he didn't shoot any of them.

So it's pure speculation to say that the shooter might shoot someone who didn't strike him; it's worse than my extrapolation that the dead guy might have hit someone who didn't call his baby-mama to account, because the dead guy had priors and the shooter did not.

Good point.

Out of all the alleged crazy things he did that make him look like he should not be trusted with a gun... as far as I can tell, the only time he actually used the gun was in immediate response to a violent assault.

The media iz going to do everything they can to sensationalize this case and make the shooter look like the bad guy.

They say it over and over, "man kills father in front of his family." They say it so many times that it skews the perception of the most pro 2A folks I can think of.

What if the headlines read, "man with criminal history gets shot after assaulting a CCW holder in convenience store parking lot."

[GunLawyer001]

Good point.

Out of all the alleged crazy things he did that make him look like he should not be trusted with a gun... as far as I can tell, the only time he actually used the gun was in immediate response to a violent assault.

The media iz going to do everything they can to sensationalize this case and make the shooter look like the bad guy.

They say it over and over, "man kills father in front of his family." They say it so many times that it skews the perception of the most pro 2A folks I can think of.

What if the headlines read, "man with criminal history gets shot after assaulting a CCW holder in convenience store parking lot."

Yes.

I'll also add that even an asshole is entitled to defend himself, so it doesn't matter if it's Bernie Madoff shiving some predator in prison, the fact that he previously screwed hundreds of people out of their fortunes is irrelevant to whether his self-defense is permissible.

Few words justify a strong young man throwing a pudgy older guy to the asphalt, and "you're not supposed to park there" is not in that list.

Honestly, I'd prefer to live in a world where serial violent thugs are a little more afraid of being killed the next time they impulsively attack a stranger. Maybe this shooter just did some pro bono work for other Floridians.

[Walleye Hunter]

Yes.

I'll also add that even an asshole is entitled to defend himself, so it doesn't matter if it's Bernie Madoff shiving some predator in prison, the fact that he previously screwed hundreds of people out of their fortunes is irrelevant to whether his self-defense is permissible.

Few words justify a strong young man throwing a pudgy older guy to the asphalt, and "you're not supposed to park there" is not in that list.

Honestly, I'd prefer to live in a world where serial violent thugs are a little more afraid of being killed the next time they impulsively attack a stranger. Maybe this shooter just did some pro bono work for other Floridians.

I'll bet my left nut that he saved them a whole lot of money.

[farmplinker]

Yes.

Honestly, I'd prefer to live in a world where serial violent thugs are a little more afraid of being killed the next time they impulsively attack a stranger. Maybe this shooter just did some pro bono work for other Floridians.

I don't really disagree with this thought. The younger guy was entirely wrong to attack the older man.

But I would add that it wouldn't bother me one bit if the busybody parking lot douche loses his right to carry and has to defend himself in civil court, to boot. This is a case where two wrongs don't make a right. Make that three wrongs, because the woman was part of the fiasco, too.

[GunLawyer001]

I don't really disagree with this thought. The younger guy was entirely wrong to attack the older man.

But I would add that it wouldn't bother me one bit if the busybody parking lot douche loses his right to carry and has to defend himself in civil court, to boot. This is a case where two wrongs don't make a right. Make that three wrongs, because the woman was part of the fiasco, too.

I am not accusing anyone here of racism, that word is vastly over-used. But I think there's an unspoken racist assumption that permeates the MSM's take on this, and that assumption has worked its way into the thinking of some here; the assumption that "you shouldn't agitate those folks because you know how THEY are, they may get violent."

People who park illegally, people who toss trash in the street, people with noisy kids, people who smoke urinal cigars in elevators, black folks in general . . . I'm not going to routinely assume that they are like rabid wolverines who will go full-retard and bite me if I say anything they don't want to hear. Unless they're Democrats, of course, in which case they will feel "triggered" and throw a fit and kick at the air and scream, which is actually kind of fun to watch, like the Wicked Witch after Dorothy threw the water on her.

Most of us here are "smaller govt" types. That's a bit inconsistent with demanding that we defer on all comments when we see bad acts, and "let the police handle it". I'm not saying that you and your neighbor should form a posse and lynch the kid who drives too fast in front of your house, I'm saying that in a free society where the Left feels entitled to block traffic and smash statues and burn cars as their form of "speech", that maybe, just maybe, we're within our rights to say "hey, you're in a handicapped spot" now and then.