Agreed. Ditto.
The way the sheriff used the word “slam” for the aggressor’s assault, which certainly isn’t the first word that comes to mind, makes me think that he’s legitimately defending the law.
He’s right that the shoot was legal but since he’s the avatar of law in his community, he’s got a personal stake in morally justifying what happened here as well. He wants to make sure everyone knows the shoot was not only legal, but also correct.
BTW, there is another lesson for all of us here.
MIND YOUR OWN ******* BUSINESS!!!
It might save your life.
It might save somebody else’s life.
3 Likes
I agree. But the sheriff is not the arbiter.
Yep. And keep your hands to yourself.
2 Likes
Who struck the first blow?
1 Like
I disagree. I don’t think he is defending the law. I think he chose to not make an arrest because he wants the law to be changed and knows that this situation will cause outrage against it.
That is correct. The man who was shot had already disengaged from the encounter and no longer posed a threat to the man with the gun.
1 Like
Technically, the shooter did. He assaulted the man’s wife. The husband … the victim … was simply coming to her aid.
You don’t think the guy deserved one warning before being shot?
Me, I don’t care how angry I am, if someone points a gun at me…I back off.
Another stunning, absolutely unpredictable outcome of Stand Your Ground laws.
Nothing wrong with the stand your ground law, I believe the Sheriff has wrongly interpreted it.
However, law enforcement is NEVER the final arbiter of these sorts of things.
This will go to the local State Attorney’s Office and likely before a Grand Jury. I believe a Grand Jury will indict and I believe after trial a regular jury will convict.
Stand your ground laws are fine. People who attempt to abuse them are the problem and will receive proper justice, sooner or later.
1 Like
I think we will find that the outcome is not yet in.
When that guy un-dies, let me know that the outcome changed.
That was more than a “shove”. He came up fast and shoved with all of his might, sending the shooter to the ground quite violently. IMO…the shooter then reacted emotionally and not in fear for his life but…that’s my opinion. It’d be hard to prove either way when considering the stand your ground law.
You heard what he said?
You ever been in a situation like that?
No.
But if I’ve got time to pull out a gun without the guy trying to jump me, then I’ve got time to say “back off.”
My first instinct would not be to pull a gun and fire when all the guy was doing was complaining about a stupid parking space.
Now if I’d been ganged up by two guys…then I’d probably shoot first because it’d be too difficult to keep track of both of 'em from a sitting position.
who looked psyschotic, may i add. 
I wouldn’t count on that. Probably get George Zimmerman’s lawyers to defend him.
