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

[Sgt.K]

It's legal to say things to people who are doing things they shouldn't do, as long as you don't make threats of imminent physical harm.

Without audio, do we know that he didn't? If he did, boyfriend's response seems more reasonable. And, as the instigator of the encounter, does the shooter not then lose the protection of Stand Your Ground?

[GunLawyer001]

Without audio, do we know that he didn't? If he did, boyfriend's response seems more reasonable. And, as the instigator of the encounter, does the shooter not then lose the protection of Stand Your Ground?

Guesses upon guesses.

It looks to me like baby-daddy came out of the store intending to hurt the man who had the audacity to diss his baby-mama. Doesn't look like the shooter had time to say much of anything to him.

Here in PA, "provocation" will strip you of your ability to stand your ground and shoot in self-defense, but that doesn't include "anything I don't like". It's pretty narrowly defined:

§ 505. Use of force in self-protection.

(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

(b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.--

(1) The use of force is not justifiable under this section:

(i) to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is unlawful; or

(ii) to resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if:

(A) the actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest;

(B) the actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is making a reentry or recaption justified by section 507 of this title (relating to use of force for the protection of property); or

(C) the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury.

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:

(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter;

[Sgt.K]

(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter;

So, our shooter was just an asshole legally hiding behind his CCW.

[GunLawyer001]

So, our shooter was just an asshole legally hiding behind his CCW.

If you mean "hiding behind his right to defend himself from unjustified extreme physical danger", then yes, I agree.

[Sgt.K]

If you mean "hiding behind his right to defend himself from unjustified extreme physical danger", then yes, I agree.

I mean "antagonizing people while safe in the knowledge he could shoot his way out of the trouble he started"

I'm not excusing the boyfriend's actions, but if the shooter was repeatedly, aggressively trying to enforce the law*, he was bound to run into trouble eventually - he did. Those of us who carry usually try to avoid trouble. This one didn't. He comes across like that guy from a year or so ago who claimed he had a *right* to "limb" someone because he had a CCW.

*Not his job, by the way

[Walleye Hunter]

So, our shooter was just an asshole legally hiding behind his CCW.

I mean "antagonizing people while safe in the knowledge he could shoot his way out of the trouble he started"

I'm not excusing the boyfriend's actions, but if the shooter was repeatedly, aggressively trying to enforce the law*, he was bound to run into trouble eventually - he did. Those of us who carry usually try to avoid trouble. This one didn't. He comes across like that guy from a year or so ago who claimed he had a *right* to "limb" someone because he had a CCW.

*Not his job, by the way

Isn't that sense of security the whole reasoning behind carrying?

[Stickler]

I didn't believe that this happened in PA, so is arguing justified shooting with PA law relevant?

[Sgt.K]

Isn't that sense of security the whole reasoning behind carrying?

I carry so I have recourse if trouble finds me. I don't go looking for trouble with the expectation that I can shoot my way out of it if I find it.

I don't ever want to shoot someone*. Why would I intentionally put myself in situations where trouble is likely?

* Please note, I won't hesitate to do so if the situation warrants it.

[GunLawyer001]

I didn't believe that this happened in PA, so is arguing justified shooting with PA law relevant?

Nothing stops you from posting and analyzing the laws of any state in which you're licensed to practice law, so have at it.

In this instance, this is a PA forum, so the participants and bystanders are mostly interested in how this would play out in PA. And the way our laws often work is that there are "model laws" that various states adopt, with or without modifications, so when you get to justification defenses, they tend to be similar.

[internet troll]

Nothing stops you from posting and analyzing the laws of any state in which you're licensed to practice law, so have at it.

In this instance, this is a PA forum, so the participants and bystanders are mostly interested in how this would play out in PA. And the way our laws often work is that there are "model laws" that various states adopt, with or without modifications, so when you get to justification defenses, they tend to be similar.

This is why I post articles like this. To analyze the original situation..... and to hopefully think about and learn more about Pa laws in the process.