Where a Hispanic Catholic, and a Computer Geek write about Gun Rights, Self Defense and whatever else we can think about.
The Pinellas County State Attorney Bernie McCabe should remember that the last prosecutor that pulled a political move in a self-defense case, lost her bid for re-election badly. But probably the idea is to make noise against Stand Your Ground (which does not apply here) and bankrupt the defendant.
Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.
Comments are closed.
As I said from the start, and as I said after participating in Andrew Branca’s Wednesday broadcast on this case…..it’s a greater than zero risk game in the Use of Force world.
If you can save your life from grave bodily harm and or death WITHOUT firing a shot—even if you have all the evidence in the world backing your claim of a legal self-defense shooting if you did shoot—you are ALWAYS going to be better off.
I have been in this same exact self-defense scenario before–but with much worse injury–and drawing the sidearm stopped the attack completely. I was praised on all sides for showing restraint and yes…I did get called by complete idiots in society, a coward for not shooting, and weak-hearted for not killing a guy who did intended to kill me.
But I can still remember the sleep I got that night, It was one of the best nights of rest I ever experienced in—then at that time–40 plus years of life. I won the battle on all sides—the idiots of life don’t have a side and thus don’t count.
This guy should have used his gun to end the attack and should have only fired the gun when and IF the attacker resumed…there was more than enough space to fire a shot without being interfered with by the attacker once the victim had the attacker in his line of sight.
He had won the battle at that exact time, but gave away this victory….probably due to the attacker heckling him to “Go ahead and shoot or I’ll kill you….” type thing.
It does raise on question however. What if the attacker upon seeing he was beaten due to the drawn gun, did in fact verbally threaten to kill him if he did not fire the gun? Under most situations it is true that a verbal lethal threat is not evidence of ‘imminence’ but might it be though, due to already being brutally attacked and injured on the pavement? States and jurisdictions are all different in this regard I would think.
Perhaps Andrew Branca might have enough time to weigh-in on this question.
In my fifth paragraph there is a typo– should be, “This guy SHOULDN’T have used his gun to end the attack…..”
What then; soothing words to calm The Killer Ape…and K.A. #2 that was right behind K.A. #1…that would have surely enjoyed a Killer Ape co-beatdown frenzy on the guy that was righteously beratiing the illegally parked K. A. Ho and immediately violently pushed to the ground ?
My statement is unclear, I should have said it better. The point is, to not shoot the gun once the victim has the attacker in his line of sight….since the attacker paused. However, IF the attacker even moves a muscle toward the victim while having the gun pointed directly at the attacker, the victim should shoot to ‘end the threat.’
If you read and ‘comprehend’ my ENTIRE statement this thinking is obvious.
I’m not a bit surprised. And while I’ve read Branca’s analysis, based SOLELY on the video, I would have charged. There may well be other facts in play, and I won’t try to second-guess what they are. However, based SOLELY on the video, I’d have charged. The initial attack had ended, the attacker was at least hesitating and had not resumed any attack at the time the firearm was discharged, the victim had his means of defense up and ready should the attack resume.
I’d have charged.
I won’t try to guess the outcome, and I won’t second-guess that verdict. I’ll leave that the the jury the tries the case, if it gets that far.
And any prosecutor who considers public opinion in making a charging or plea decision, in either direction, is not fit to be a prosecutor. And yes, I’ve been there.
Greater-than-zero-risk, you lose a lot of money, go to jail, and ruin your life, your family’s lives, and more. He should have just kept him in line of sight and waited for forward movement, while saying…….NOTHING.
With all the back-n-forth about good shoot or bad shoot, I’ve been wondering just what was SAID by the attacker to the shooter before the shot. If I was on the jury, and the shooter claimed he was being verbally threatened with additional injury after just being viciously, physically attacked, it would be a slam dunk for acquittal and a recommendation to the judge to censure the prosecutor for malicious political grandstanding.
That’s the question isn’t it. IF there was a verbal lethal threat after he had the attacker in his line of sight, does it constitute as proof of an Imminent Lethal Threat in that jurisdiction? And would it be consistently upheld in other Florida counties and even other states?
Not necessarily. The closest witness to the confrontation is the dead man’s girlfriend. How do you think the courtroom “he said, she said” is going to go? If there’s no audio evidence, I don’t think this will be a cut and dried trial.
David, aggravated assault in FL:
784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
784.021 Aggravated assault.—
(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Assault and Aggravated Assault would not apply to the action of using a gun by the victim sitting on the pavement. The gun was used inside of one second of being attacked–time it out, it’s under one second. There is nothing unlawful about defending one’s self from a second attack or perhaps depending on what the attackers was saying as the gun was brought into play, an extension of the first attack.
Once the gun comes into play, the element of ‘reasonableness’ comes into play in that the victim believes Imminence of lethal threat or grave bodily harm, still exists.
Never the less, If I was in the victim’s shoes, I would have brought the gun up to line of sight, and withheld firing the gun ….unless the attacker resumes the initial attack and or starts a second attack.
This case could reasonably go either way depending on personal testimony. There was the attacker’s girlfriend, and the customer-guy who did flee line of fire when the gun was brought into view. The attacker sure didn’t seem to fazed by the use of a gun to stop him…no surrender, no dodging from line of sight, no fleeing or backing up with hands up.
Instead the attacker seemed to loom over him, still within reach to continue the attack. Remember….it’s less than one second of time, from the guy sitting up after striking the pavement until the shot is fired.
The mere fact that attorneys with experience in self defense cases are arguing back and forth about the legality of this shoot tells me, as a non-attorney, that there is some reasonable doubt there.
This is why I have USCCA insurance. If you carry a gun you owe it to.yourself and your family to have legal insurance.
Maybe we should start a go fund me page. A stand your ground matters page. It was clearly an assault and self defense. Of course it was made into a race issue and Al Sharpton and company rode into town to pressure another gutless State’s Attorney into ignoring the law for political gain.
Dejavu, George Zimmerman all over again. A victim of an assault prosecuted for self defense.