You are correct sir, my apologies. I mis read it as he was inside the bar when the shots were fired
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
THIS IS SOME BULL ****
- Thread starter WMSproject
- Start date
It does in the eyes of the law. That's just the way it is.
Whether the law is just is debatable. What the law is now is not.
Last edited:
No it does not. Please show me the law that says you can use force only if you feel your life is in danger by more than 1 person.
Signed
I never claimed that. Look back through this thread for a definition of "disparity of force". Apparent disparity of force is what creates "reasonable belief". Look, I'm not making this stuff up. All I'm telling you is what I have learned from reading and listening to the recognized experts in this area and from discussions I've had about this with prosecutors I know personally.
You can rant against it all you want, but if you ever find yourself in court defending your actions and you voice your opinions of what you think the law is or should be...THEY....WON'T....CARE.
All that matters is what the law actually is.
Last edited:
There is no ranting. I'm simply telling you that you are wrong because you are. It's reasonable fear for your life - that is the issue. Based on what I know from this case, I believe he had it. And based on the bolded part of your quote below, if you read the details of this case as posted, you should too.
- He was beaten and knocked down from behind in a mob of fighting people so it's reasonable to believe he had no idea how many people were beating him.
- The guy that beat him down admitted in open court that he was looking to seriously injure someone so it's reasonable to believe that he was beating the guy with an overwhelming amount of force which would lead him in fear for his life.
- He fired until the threat was stopped - no more.
The problem here is that the guy had a sheet lawyer.
If you are knocked to the ground and attacked by a mob are you in danger of being killed. Yes, 100%. What is the obvious attack when you are on the ground? Kicks. A kick in the ribs that breaks a rib can kill you. The sharp edges cut the internals at every breath you take. Dont take my word for it, look it up. This is what we were taught in street survival training for LEOs.
The problem is proving the attack was continued after you hit the ground. In this case there were witnesses so I dont think he was knocked down and then the mob ran away.
The law in Florida was recently changed to allow warning shots. They apparently realized it is not always black and white situations. The way the law read, 20 years mandatory for firing a warning shot.
I think he needs a new trial and with a good lawyer and some expert witnesses pertaining to death by kicking.
The other problem I see here is the plea bargaining system. If the guy was a criminal and could give them good info he would have probably walked. Since he was a good guy, he doesnt have anything to bargain with.
Here is an incident that happened to a friend of mine. He was walking out of Walmart at night carrying some bags. He was rushed by a gang, then hit from behind. He heard the guy coming and was turning when hit so managed to deflect the blow some. The guy grabbed him and my friend grabbed the front of his shirt and introduced him to Mr. 1911. That stopped the action. The guy froze for a second and then ran off with his gang. Scattered like the roaches they are. This was a gang of about 20. They were in their mid 20s to maybe 30 years old. My friend is 67 years old with a bad back. Sometimes has to use a cane. The incident was immediately reported to the police.
My friend has a lot of "what ifs" on his mind. What if Illinois had not passed CCW? What if he did not have his 1911? What if he had fired and then the gang ran away, leaving him with a possibly unarmed dead guy? What if he hard fired a warning shot to scare them off? Would that have been better than having to shoot a number of them? What if he fired and the bullet went through and hit someone else?
In this case he was not knocked down but he could have been.
I am considering getting one of those 22 blank guns that look like a little automatic pistol. You might be able to scare them off by firing a blank or two with the gun out of sight. I wouldnt use it where they could see it. It would probably be better than prison time. This would only be used for a mob type situation. I would still be carrying my EDC.
Concerning Zimmerman, I thought he was screwed. The only thing that saved him was that the shot was shown to have bee fired from 2 to 4 inches away. He was lucky.
If you are knocked to the ground and attacked by a mob are you in danger of being killed. Yes, 100%. What is the obvious attack when you are on the ground? Kicks. A kick in the ribs that breaks a rib can kill you. The sharp edges cut the internals at every breath you take. Dont take my word for it, look it up. This is what we were taught in street survival training for LEOs.
The problem is proving the attack was continued after you hit the ground. In this case there were witnesses so I dont think he was knocked down and then the mob ran away.
The law in Florida was recently changed to allow warning shots. They apparently realized it is not always black and white situations. The way the law read, 20 years mandatory for firing a warning shot.
I think he needs a new trial and with a good lawyer and some expert witnesses pertaining to death by kicking.
The other problem I see here is the plea bargaining system. If the guy was a criminal and could give them good info he would have probably walked. Since he was a good guy, he doesnt have anything to bargain with.
Here is an incident that happened to a friend of mine. He was walking out of Walmart at night carrying some bags. He was rushed by a gang, then hit from behind. He heard the guy coming and was turning when hit so managed to deflect the blow some. The guy grabbed him and my friend grabbed the front of his shirt and introduced him to Mr. 1911. That stopped the action. The guy froze for a second and then ran off with his gang. Scattered like the roaches they are. This was a gang of about 20. They were in their mid 20s to maybe 30 years old. My friend is 67 years old with a bad back. Sometimes has to use a cane. The incident was immediately reported to the police.
My friend has a lot of "what ifs" on his mind. What if Illinois had not passed CCW? What if he did not have his 1911? What if he had fired and then the gang ran away, leaving him with a possibly unarmed dead guy? What if he hard fired a warning shot to scare them off? Would that have been better than having to shoot a number of them? What if he fired and the bullet went through and hit someone else?
In this case he was not knocked down but he could have been.
I am considering getting one of those 22 blank guns that look like a little automatic pistol. You might be able to scare them off by firing a blank or two with the gun out of sight. I wouldnt use it where they could see it. It would probably be better than prison time. This would only be used for a mob type situation. I would still be carrying my EDC.
Concerning Zimmerman, I thought he was screwed. The only thing that saved him was that the shot was shown to have bee fired from 2 to 4 inches away. He was lucky.
Last edited:
Or you could pull out your cap gun on somebody, they pull out a real gun, and you could be really dead because this took away the precious milliseconds you needed to draw your real gun. You don't draw a gun unless you intend to use it, you don't intend to use it unless it is absolutely necessary. While I'm sure this guy doesn't like being imprisoned improperly (though I myself still need more facts to base an opinion one way or another, there has to be more to the story) I'm sure he rather be imprisoned than dead
Also, you can still be charged with a crime by pulling out a blank gun.. hell people go to jail over pointing squirt guns in the wrong direction now
I was not aware of the warning shot in FL. I don't agree with it, but it seems to help this guy's case even more. Plus the change in language of the law also helps his case. In fact it now seems to be open and shut because it's very reasonable to believe he felt he was in "imminent danger" based on what I have read about the case.
"While the law previously stated that the a person invoking "Stand Your Ground" had to "reasonably believe it is necessary" to use force to prevent bodily harm, it now reads that to use force or threaten to use force a person must also believe they are in imminent danger."
