Stand Your Ground / Murder / Other

[HeirofSalvation]

Okay. One more time. I will type this r e a l s l o w so you can keep up.

The traffic citations were NOT the dead man's. For the 3rd time, the traffic citations were the SHOOTER's record.

Got it now? The SHOOTER. Not the DEAD GUY. The SHOOTER.

OK....I stand corrected, those who [Personal attack edited] think inexplicably that the traffic citations of a murderer were relevant, I stand corrected.
I could not imagine anyone bothering to look that up, so you're right.

Are you still [falsehood edited] who thinks the shooter looked up this victims two arrests before he gunned him down???

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I really don't care

Obviously, and a man is unnecessarily dead because of that attitude.

 

[TCassidy]

Is that your argument?

No. And you know it isn't. The shooter knew the dead man was violent because he had just committed a violent battery.

The shooter knew this no doubt?

Yes, after being violently slammed to the ground he had a very good understanding the man was violent.

The dead man already committed an illegal and criminal act of violence at the confrontation...

Exactly. That is how he knew the man was violent.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

No. And you know it isn't.

No, I don't know that. I absolutely deny that.
You are trying to cover for an unjustified shooting by citing an alleged criminal history.
That's not relevant, but you are ABSOLUTELY USING IT...
Here,
I'll show T. Cassidy citing the dead man's history as though it's relevant to the case right here:
https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/stand-your-ground-murder-other.109537/page-2#post-2436225
That is YOU....researching and citing the victim's history as though it had any bearing on the case, so, no, I don't know that that is not your argument, because I have just cited you making that argument.
Granted, it was a bad argument, but it's not my fault you made it.

The shooter knew the dead man was violent because he had just committed a violent battery.

Which is where the debate it appropriately taken.
The shooter obviously is violent as well, because he just unnecessarily shot a man.
That's the debate here.

Yes, after being violently slammed to the ground he had a very good understanding the man was violent.

As are all men.
It appears you don't believe in man's Total Depravity, but I do, and the killer obviously was violent as well.
That's the violence which is the crux of this debate.
No one is arguing that the victim wasn't violent, that's obvious, it's the unnecessary killing of a man which is the crime up for debate.

 

[TCassidy]

That's not relevant, but you are ABSOLUTELY USING IT...
Here,
I'll show T. Cassidy citing the dead man's history as though it's relevant to the case right here:

Duh! I cited the dead man's record to show you the minor traffic offenses were NOT the shooter's record. Two very different records. You continually mistook one for the other. So I posted the one that actually belonged to the deceased to show you the minor traffic cites were not his.

Got it now?

 

[Benjamin]

The only person afraid for their life was the victim of this senseless murder.

That right there is based on some truth.

What is being ignored here is the empty claim that shooter was justified in the statutes in the law as written with the key elements of “reasonable belief” that deadly force was “necessary” to stop an “to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself”. Quite a stretch by any reasonable person watching the backing up, not a bit of truth to support the actual law, just rhetoric about how bad it was to push the poor poor righteous fella motivated by efforts to support one's favorite gun rights laws at all costs, even a life. Seems some here like vigilante justice...

 

[Benjamin]

No one is arguing that the victim wasn't violent, that's obvious, it's the unnecessary killing of a man which is the crime up for debate.

Yup, appears some are trying to justify killing the guy by basing it on his past on these false premises. what part of irrelevant based on his past don't they understand? Likewise, as if it is justifiable to abuse Florida's gun rights law and pretend your life was in danger like a coward and somehow all of this "support" for that gun-happy wannabe cowboy is going to help them make a political case for the right bear arms in the public arena. Pure foolishness...

[Personal attack edited]

 

[Benjamin]

Another factor, the store owner said the now dead man was a regular and has had confrontations before over parking in that spot. On this occasion he committed assault & battery with malicious intentions, the action he took against a much weaker person was insanely dangerous. You can’t go around being a bully like that!

Apparently, I mistook that the dead man was a regular and has had confrontations before over parking in that spot, rather it was shooter that that lived n the neighborhood and was regularly harassing people for parking there [with a gun in his pocket, I might add]. Also I saw a closer side view of the shooter walking around waving his arms with no apparent weaknesses and heard he was NOT handicapped but claiming a family member was.

Lawyer said at the point the shooter had his gun out and the pusher backed away the shooter was no longer standing his ground and the SYG law no longer applied.

I'm going to predict charges are coming his way...

 

[Benjamin]

The sheriff says the law is supposedly based on a subjective determination of whether the person standing his ground feels fear and this case is after a violent push and fall, as if the claim of fear for his life must and can only be according to his own subjective opinion. How convenient for someone looking for this very scenario. It is painfully noticeable that when telling the story the sheriff completely leaves out the part where the pusher backs away as per the supposed end-all subjective perception of the shooter that his life was in danger. In fact he says “while McGlockton is still standing just a couple feet away” totally void of acknowledging the increased distance of McGlockton immediately stepping back. The sheriff only refers to McGlockton standing over him, repeatedly. He says he doesn’t make that call but he sure is making the excuse by totally ignoring that McGlockton had backed up. With all the detail in the video not once did he mention the backing up.


Moral of the story, don’t slam people to the ground because they may not only be an absolute jerk hard at work looking for a confrontation while hiding a gun but having no courage once that confrontation begins to escalate they will immediately become fearful and unconscionably resort to deadly force as long as they know they can get away with it as they planned. How exciting to surprise someone you’ve managed to sucker into a starting a fight to turn cowboy on them and shoot them.

 

[Benjamin]

Here’s what I learned:

Everyone knows that a violent push requires a carefully aimed shot to the chest.

Everyone knows that backing up is taking an offensive kickboxing stance.

Everyone knows that 4 seconds is “within the bookends” of the law to justify using deadly force after someone violently pushes you.

Everyone knows that if you claim you were in fear for your life that should settle it.

Everyone knows that the gun yielding white man couldn’t have meant no harm when forcing the black woman to stand her ground but the black man definitely meant to do life-threatening harm since he pushed the white man.

Everyone knows the aggressive man turned shooter wasn’t looking for trouble but the defending man turned pusher was.

Everyone knows that anyone who hassles someone for parking in a handicap space must be severely disabled himself.

Everyone knows the shooter having a gun in his pocket had nothing to do with his courage to be confrontational.

Everyone knows the victim could only be the one forced into sitting on the ground regardless of the gun in his hand.

Everyone knows once you put your hands on somebody all civility is rightfully null and voided.

Everyone knows that once a victim, always a victim, and that no time does the role change into become the aggressor.

Everyone knows if you can shoot you should.

 

[agedman]

Everyone knows that once a victim, always a victim, and that no time does the role change into become the aggressor.

I am not certain that a "victim" always remains the victim. Children who are victimized and not satisfied with the resolution to the conflict(s) will tend to "get back" and at that point are not longer the victim. Although they are generally taught to seek out authority to pass on their grievances, if they have not perceived satisfactory resolution by authorities will more often resort to other means.

Is it correct that inappropriate parking in this area was already a pattern of behavior by some in the neighborhood?

Was there a history of the enforcement authorities, car towing agencies, tickets... administered to prevent or lessen the problem?

Was the gun carrier was too poor for a cell phone to report a car or inappropriately parked in the handicap spot?

Was there no history of him reporting other violations prior to him being a "victim?"

Perhaps the gun carrier had already moved from "victim" into vigilante by confronting the driver of the car rather than reporting the problem to authorities?

In this film clip, could it be that the "victim" was actually the first aggressor that was put down and then retaliated as a typical bully.

Stand Your Ground is a good law. However, if I were the chief, I would have called for a grand jury to review all the facts and then make a decision.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So what

Apparently, I mistook that the dead man was a regular and has had confrontations before over parking in that spot, rather it was shooter that that lived n the neighborhood and was regularly harassing people for parking there [with a gun in his pocket, I might add]. Also I saw a closer side view of the shooter walking around waving his arms with no apparent weaknesses and heard he was NOT handicapped but claiming a family member was.

Lawyer said at the point the shooter had his gun out and the pusher backed away the shooter was no longer standing his ground and the SYG law no longer applied.

I'm going to predict charges are coming his way...

Where was God in all this mess?

 

[agedman]

Where was God in all this mess?

It pleased God....

 

[Reynolds]

Here’s what I learned:

Everyone knows that a violent push requires a carefully aimed shot to the chest.

Everyone knows that backing up is taking an offensive kickboxing stance.

Everyone knows that 4 seconds is “within the bookends” of the law to justify using deadly force after someone violently pushes you.

Everyone knows that if you claim you were in fear for your life that should settle it.

Everyone knows that the gun yielding white man couldn’t have meant no harm when forcing the black woman to stand her ground but the black man definitely meant to do life-threatening harm since he pushed the white man.

Everyone knows the aggressive man turned shooter wasn’t looking for trouble but the defending man turned pusher was.

Everyone knows that anyone who hassles someone for parking in a handicap space must be severely disabled himself.

Everyone knows the shooter having a gun in his pocket had nothing to do with his courage to be confrontational.

Everyone knows the victim could only be the one forced into sitting on the ground regardless of the gun in his hand.

Everyone knows once you put your hands on somebody all civility is rightfully null and voided.

Everyone knows that once a victim, always a victim, and that no time does the role change into become the aggressor.

Everyone knows if you can shoot you should.

What you seem to not know is that the courts have consistently held that concrete is classified as an "impact weapon" on the use of force continuum. Concrete to the head is consistently classified as "lethal force" on the force continuum. Battery against a disabled person is a felony in most states.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It pleased God....

How so?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What you seem to not know is that the courts have consistently held that concrete is classified as an "impact weapon" on the use of force continuum. Concrete to the head is consistently classified as "lethal force" on the force continuum. Battery against a disabled person is a felony in most states.

How bout other road surfaces like tarmac?

 

[agedman]

How so?

Because all things consist and exist in Him, and He is aware of all matters - even the thoughts and intents of each heart - then certainly it must follow that nothing occurs that does not please Him.

Here is a shorter part of Proverbs 16 which helps to understand God's authority in all matters.

1The plans of the heart belong to man,
But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.

2All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight,
But the LORD weighs the motives.

3Commit your works to the LORD
And your plans will be established.

4The LORD has made everything for its own purpose,
Even the wicked for the day of evil.​

...

9The mind of man plans his way,​

But the LORD directs his steps.​

...

33The lot is cast into the lap,
But its every decision is from the LORD

​

These statements are hard to the ears of one who considers humankind have a free will in which they of their own ability and strength can accept or reject righteousness.

Either God is in direct control over all aspects of His creation, or He is subject to the whims of whatever forces His hand.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

There will be no charges.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/817755002

 

[Reynolds]

How bout other road surfaces like tarmac?

Same, just as is gravel, rocks, hard pack clay etc.

 

[Reynolds]

There will be no charges.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/817755002

Well good. The justice system worked.