Not necessarily. The instructions given to the jury can have a huge impact. If it was coached in terms that this law was broken, it doesn't matter if you think he was justified if he broke X law, you must convict.
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
THIS IS SOME BULL ****
- Thread starter WMSproject
- Start date
Not necessarily. The instructions given to the jury can have a huge impact. If it was coached in terms that this law was broken, it doesn't matter if you think he was justified if he broke X law, you must convict.
You can guess all you'd like, but you'll never find where I said anything like that. My point is pretty simple: if you walk into a fighting chaos of dozens of people, you just might become involved in a fight.
If your only recourse in this crowd of chaos that you could have avoided is deadly force, you probably should have stayed not involved. Say he had missed and hit and killed someone else, is he still justified then? Poor judgement is not illegal, but sometimes it puts us in positions where we do things that are.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2013
- Messages
- 65,944
- Reaction score
- 74,051
WTH? So what? Do you carry a gun when you are otherwise "safe"? Would you use it if you suddenly weren't safe? Who gets to decide where you go and what is 'smart' and not 'smart?. At what point should you just get your *** kicked and take it and forget about your right to self defense? The guy did absolutely nothing illegal and is now rotting in jail for 25 years. Sure, there "could" be more to the story, but multiple reports suggest nothing nefarious at all.
I've made it my entire life without ever being charged with a crime. God help me if I am and it goes to a jury of 'reasonable people'. For crying out loud.... and on a GUN site....
Last edited:
Absolutely.
No. The law provides very strict guidelines: A person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Being "not safe" does not allow for deadly force; it is reserved for only the threat of death and great bodily injury and to prevent forcible felonies. None of this was present. The other person committed misdemeanor battery (yes, I'm using Georgia law as we should all mostly live in Georgia and I can't quote Florida law) and last I checked, a misdemeanor is not punishable by death. A "punch" does not reasonably translate into shooting.
Here's another quote from another source:
He tried to move but his unknown attacker struck him from behind, at which point he fell to the ground. With so many people fighting around him and his attacker close by, Michael fired his weapon to get away from the fighting.
He feared that the angry mob would turn on him and he would be killed or seriously injured. He fired a warning shot to get away from his attackers, and is now serving a 25 year sentence in Florida.
http://www.thecoli.com/threads/us-m...efense-in-florida-sentenced-to-25-yrs.148546/
Reckless disregard . . . shot a "warning shot" into an angry mob.
No, you'll never convince me that he was justified. I think 25 years is very excessive but he was not justified to shoot. Maybe I'm "old school" (but I'm only 30!) but if you knowingly walk back into a fight, then fight! If you're too scared to fight, then get into that unlocked car you just got the gun out of and LOCK THE DOORS. Use your handy dandy cell phone to call your friends and tell them lets get the hell out of here! Now, if someone shatters your window and starts dragging you out of the car to beat your a$$, . . . well, now it's "stand your ground" time.
Some things have to be looked at more then just face value. Not everything is as it seems (or is spun). Ultimately none of us were there and we're reading and interpreting things from the internet that are all written from a point of view that may or may not be biased. Just because I am an LEO does not mean that I agree with, condone, or justify all actions done by LEOs and just because I am a member of a "gun site" does not mean I condone, agree, or justify every "self defense". It must be objectively reasonable.For crying out loud.... and on a GUN site....
Last edited:
You should've quoted the rest of the page which, if true, shows he was clearly justified.
"Michael tried his best to avoid the crowd and the groups of men fighting when all of a sudden he was rushed by a crowd of people from the front. He tried to move but his unknown attacker struck him from behind, at which point he fell to the ground. With so many people fighting around him and his attacker close by, Michael fired his weapon to get away from the fighting.
Later during trial his attacker admitted to not knowing Michael. Several witnesses stated that Michael was just standing to the side not provoking anyone, or causing a commotion. They testified that his attacker had been acting erratically the entire night and was responsible for several of the fights that had broken out previously. A close friend of Michael's attacker even stated that she was worried he would seriously injure or kill someone if he did not stop. His attacker admitted in open court "I wanted to badly hurt the next person I saw". He admitted that Michael did nothing provoke him."
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2013
- Messages
- 65,944
- Reaction score
- 74,051
That's the thing. YOU are the one that appears to be reading all sorts of things into his motivation that are NOT 'face value'. I'm reading what is there and nothing more. All the reports state he was not "looking for trouble" and quite the contrary. Now he's in jail for 25 years.
This is what I'll agree too. I've read a bunch of articles (I wouldn't call them "reports") written to try to convince people he did nothing wrong. I've read a very weak story about him getting a gun so "he could go look for his friends". (Opinion: It sounds like a made up after the fact story to me.) I've read another story about how he "tried his best to avoid the crowd" but then it states that he was just standing to the side somewhere (which doesn't fit with him "trying to find his friends"). I've read how he "wasn't looking for trouble" but then again he really wasn't looking for how to get away from it either.
But, ultimately it comes down to this. You can't respond to misdemeanor battery with felony aggravated battery. The law says so and a jury confirmed that the law says so. Does the punishment fit the crime . . . probably not. Other then that, I hate it for the guy. He made poor choices and ultimately put himself in a bad but preventable situation. He then responded in one of the most extreme manners humanly possible . . . with an instrument designed to kill and destroy . . . in a crowd of people. He's lucky he actually hit the guy who admitted to punching him and didn't injure or kill anyone else.
But, ultimately it comes down to this. You can't respond to misdemeanor battery with felony aggravated battery. The law says so and a jury confirmed that the law says so. Does the punishment fit the crime . . . probably not. Other then that, I hate it for the guy. He made poor choices and ultimately put himself in a bad but preventable situation. He then responded in one of the most extreme manners humanly possible . . . with an instrument designed to kill and destroy . . . in a crowd of people. He's lucky he actually hit the guy who admitted to punching him and didn't injure or kill anyone else.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2013
- Messages
- 65,944
- Reaction score
- 74,051
So you've read NOTHING at all that corroborates your theory but plenty that hasn't but you discount all you've read on the premise that your 'gut' is right. All righty then, I guess.
So the ONLY way I'm ever justified in using my weapon is if someone else has a weapon? GLWS. I and only I will decide if I'm in fear for my life or if lethal force is justified as I will be the only one in the situation at the time. The jury and the state can second guess me all they want. I'd least I'll be there. And no, I've NEVER had to pull a weapon on anyone because I AVOID situations that have a higher chance of me needing to. But as presented in every recount I can find, the guy did nothing wrong.
"His attacker admitted in open court "I wanted to badly hurt the next person I saw". He admitted that Michael did nothing provoke him."
Sounds like a little more than a "misdemeanor battery" and more like a justification of self defense.
Actually I've read that he was charged, tried, and convicted. All these "articles" are after the fact and are not what he was charged, tried, and convicted on or with. Of course they are going to try to explain away his actions and spin the story in the best possible way for him to be justifiable. Problem is, none of us know the real story. But what I do know, is that these "versions" don't add up to firing a weapon in a crowd of people at an "unknown attacker." That's my final say in this discussion and I believe I'll spectate from here on out. There's not much left to say . . . you like his story and I don't. We can still be members of a gun site together and like guns.
