Shooter should be bent over a bunk by early next week
Florida Man (here we go...)
- Thread starter busykngt
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Not even lifers are that desperate.
The real question is does he still have his teeth?
Something I just realised, they only charged him with manslaughter.
Very interesting tactic by the prosecution. Much different than murder a murder charge and trial. I never thought it fair for some states to allow lesser included charges. But that's a whole different discussion.
Manslaughter may make the jury think they are compromising, another thing I have issues with. You did it or not...they proved it or not, but in Florida IIRC manslaughter with a gun is bumped up to class 1 felony with minimum sentences over 10 and up to 30 years.
Depending on the jury instructions they have to decide if his actions excusable or justified. That's the only part of the manslaughter statute that applies here.
Very interesting tactic by the prosecution. Much different than murder a murder charge and trial. I never thought it fair for some states to allow lesser included charges. But that's a whole different discussion.
Manslaughter may make the jury think they are compromising, another thing I have issues with. You did it or not...they proved it or not, but in Florida IIRC manslaughter with a gun is bumped up to class 1 felony with minimum sentences over 10 and up to 30 years.
Depending on the jury instructions they have to decide if his actions excusable or justified. That's the only part of the manslaughter statute that applies here.
Last edited:
Yes, he was charged with man slaughter (not murder). That means he faced a maximum of thirty years. Since it wasn’t a “capital case”, that was also the determining factor behind why there were six jurors and not twelve. Had it been a capital case, there would have been a jury of twelve (Florida rules).
On the ‘live stream’, they were very careful to never show the jury. But from news reports I gleaned the understanding, there were five men, all white (one, may be Asian) and one white woman. No blacks; but race couldn’t be the reason for being challenged or struck from the jury. Each side did have a limited number of ‘strikes’ they could make without having to justify anything. Otherwise, there had to be a compelling reason that would pass the judge’s scrutiny.
Here’s one last (but very important) nuance in the law as laid out by ‘the defense’, in their closing argument. And IF the shooter gets off, I’m pretty sure it will be this point that raises enough “reasonable doubt” in the jury’s mind.
Apparently the law effectively asks you (as a juror), to “get inside the mind” of the shooter at the critical moment and determine if HE felt a deadly threat at that time. IOW, not how YOU would have felt at that moment, but to base their verdict on how he felt at that critical moment. He obviously said he felt threatened, so to try and be a ‘mind reader’ and come to a different conclusion would be, I dare say, a really big challenge for most of us. That, alone, may raise enough ‘doubt’ in some juror’s minds to keep it from becoming a unanimous verdict. We should know soon...
On the ‘live stream’, they were very careful to never show the jury. But from news reports I gleaned the understanding, there were five men, all white (one, may be Asian) and one white woman. No blacks; but race couldn’t be the reason for being challenged or struck from the jury. Each side did have a limited number of ‘strikes’ they could make without having to justify anything. Otherwise, there had to be a compelling reason that would pass the judge’s scrutiny.
Here’s one last (but very important) nuance in the law as laid out by ‘the defense’, in their closing argument. And IF the shooter gets off, I’m pretty sure it will be this point that raises enough “reasonable doubt” in the jury’s mind.
Apparently the law effectively asks you (as a juror), to “get inside the mind” of the shooter at the critical moment and determine if HE felt a deadly threat at that time. IOW, not how YOU would have felt at that moment, but to base their verdict on how he felt at that critical moment. He obviously said he felt threatened, so to try and be a ‘mind reader’ and come to a different conclusion would be, I dare say, a really big challenge for most of us. That, alone, may raise enough ‘doubt’ in some juror’s minds to keep it from becoming a unanimous verdict. We should know soon...
Last edited:
With regard to the last paragraph {above}, I had always wondered why most “instructions” from places like CCW Safe, USCCA, Law Shield, etc., etc., encourage you (after a defensive shooting) to say words to the effect, “I was in fear for my life” AND THEN shut up until after you have an attorney present. (Invoke your Right to remain silent and make an immediate demand for your attorney). They [the lawyers] are trying to get it “on the record” that you shot because YOU were in fear of a deadly threat. Apparently that’s what the law wants a jury to consider - your state of mind at the time of the shooting - not their’s.
Last edited:
Well that's it for now. Guilty temporarily at least.
I want to look at issues his defense raised but from the time and effort put into it I think they could have done better. Ineffective counsel will be the appeal.
I wonder how much his mouth and attitude turned off available experts.
I also guess the prosecution charged manslaughter cause it cuts the potential hung jury chances in half. 6 versus 12, but was still a very long sentence with 10 plus minimum when you add the gun enhancement.
On the bright side he can relax and stop worrying about handicapped parking cause every trip will be door to door service.
Play stupid games... still I think with the right experts and investigators he could have got off.
On to the next one. Hopefully the racist white privilege bastards we are will get a reprieve from being the root of all unholy cause an all white jury convicted a white guy of killing a black guy who didnt look like Obama's son.
That shit gets old.
The worst part is a guy was killed in front of his kid and none of it had to happen.
I want to look at issues his defense raised but from the time and effort put into it I think they could have done better. Ineffective counsel will be the appeal.
I wonder how much his mouth and attitude turned off available experts.
I also guess the prosecution charged manslaughter cause it cuts the potential hung jury chances in half. 6 versus 12, but was still a very long sentence with 10 plus minimum when you add the gun enhancement.
On the bright side he can relax and stop worrying about handicapped parking cause every trip will be door to door service.
Play stupid games... still I think with the right experts and investigators he could have got off.
On to the next one. Hopefully the racist white privilege bastards we are will get a reprieve from being the root of all unholy cause an all white jury convicted a white guy of killing a black guy who didnt look like Obama's son.
That shit gets old.
The worst part is a guy was killed in front of his kid and none of it had to happen.
I just find it all interesting AND uncalled for.
One of the articles described the shooter guy as being indigent. Some court had to approve his itemized legal expenses (according to the article). Whatever... they were pretty lenient it seems to me. Apparently his “legal team” consisted of four lawyers and paid for at least three or four “expert” testimonies. I never did understand if he was covered (or partially covered) under some other kind of insurance plan. Otherwise, it was at tax payers’ expense. I’m sure he’ll try to appeal, but that seems a very uphill battle for someone who has no money.
Judge immediately revoked his bail and he went to jail (pending his formal sentencing). The judge said and did a few minor things which indicated to me, he’s probably going to hand down a very stiff sentence to this fellow. Won’t surprise me if it’s the thirty years maximum.
One of the articles described the shooter guy as being indigent. Some court had to approve his itemized legal expenses (according to the article). Whatever... they were pretty lenient it seems to me. Apparently his “legal team” consisted of four lawyers and paid for at least three or four “expert” testimonies. I never did understand if he was covered (or partially covered) under some other kind of insurance plan. Otherwise, it was at tax payers’ expense. I’m sure he’ll try to appeal, but that seems a very uphill battle for someone who has no money.
Judge immediately revoked his bail and he went to jail (pending his formal sentencing). The judge said and did a few minor things which indicated to me, he’s probably going to hand down a very stiff sentence to this fellow. Won’t surprise me if it’s the thirty years maximum.
I am surprised this type of situation doesn't get more media attention by the anti gunners: It seems to me to be pretty clear that IF the shooter really felt there was an on-going threat of bodily harm after he was on the ground that it almost completely disappeared when he drew his gun and the pusher backed off. Of course, we can't tell from the shitty video if the shooter was super-woozy or disoriented at that point. If he was, he may have interpreted ANY movement by the pusher as aggressive and threatening, perhaps unable to tell if he was backing off vs closing the distance.
I think we might be surprised at how many people would have done exactly what the shooter did in that situation.
I think regardless of their past history of stupid mistakes, aggressive behavior and instigation, literally anyone who isn't disqualified from owning a firearm should own and carry, anywhere, but I also think that this exact situation would be far more common, for a while, if that were the case.
I think we might be surprised at how many people would have done exactly what the shooter did in that situation.
I think regardless of their past history of stupid mistakes, aggressive behavior and instigation, literally anyone who isn't disqualified from owning a firearm should own and carry, anywhere, but I also think that this exact situation would be far more common, for a while, if that were the case.
Staff online
-
robertc1024Moderator
Members online
- Dennys101
- crystalphoto
- dapakattack
- Curt Gunner
- dartsinsa
- TexasFlash
- Rarias1135
- 1911'S 4 Me
- Otto_Mation
- jjkukla
- Texasgordo
- brashears9567
- Big Dipper
- A1Oni
- ZX9RCAM
- toddnjoyce
- Gorp2007
- DoubleDuty
- ronr68
- skfullgun
- G O B
- glenbo
- TipBledsoe
- zackmars
- Cooper
- Member2
- overlookh
- pkool1187
- ggiovanni
- eddiewiggles
- jrbfishn
- KC Huntin
- Darqhelmet
- Super Dave
- Shady
- Txhighlander
- Neat57
- CodyK
- kbaxter60
- Coonan357
- no2gates
- Standeford
- JapieB
- robertc1024
- BuzzinSATX
- billtool
- CosmicArkie
- TicToc26
- ETH77
- Steve In Texas
