It's legally a good shoot, but

[gunsmith]

well, I thought it was a good shoot "but".

however the jury and lawyers don't much care for him.

I totally dislike people parking in handicapped spots and blocking wheelchair access ramps.
i have even called parking enforcement - they come way quicker than cops sometimes because its revenue.
however - getting into pointless arguments while packing results in incidents like this.
I only get into pointless arguments when I am not packing.....
pointless arguments are more fun online where they belong

[230RN]

I still think that from the shooter's viewpoint, the deceased's backing up and making "no-no" gestures could easily have been interpreted as preparation for a kicking attack.

That's what I still think, but I guess the issue is now closed and what I still think don't mean nuthin' nohow.

Terry, 230RN

[De Selby]

That assumes you realized they are backing away rather than everyone looking at video and acting as Monday morning quarterbacks.  I agree that you need to continually judge the threat after you draw to the best of your ability.  If it happens on video, your actions will be picked apart by everyone.

Juries aren’t required to assume you knew - they only need to find that you should have known for a conviction in a case like this. Monday morning quarterbacking is what’s going to happen (and generally does by law) in any SD shooting. You will generally face charges that apply an objective test, so whether you actually felt fear isn’t determinative - the fear has to be reasonable.

Being unable to testify because you have a history of threatening people with a gun (or whatever the reason was) doesn’t help. Jurors notice that you are not there to tell them what happened.

[dogmush]

You will generally face charges that apply an objective test, so whether you actually felt fear isn’t determinative - the fear has to be reasonable.

How, exactly, is the term "reasonable" an objective test?

[De Selby]

How, exactly, is the term "reasonable" an objective test?

Because it doesn’t require imagining what a specific person thought at the time - it requires imagining what a theoretical reasonable person would normally have seen. Hence it is objective - what you actually thought at the time is irrelevant; what an imaginary normal person would have thought is.

[230RN]

Because it doesn’t require imagining what a specific person thought at the time - it requires imagining what a theoretical reasonable person would normally have seen. Hence it is objective - what you actually thought at the time is irrelevant; what an imaginary normal person would have thought is.

And you think the average juror will go through that doublethink exercise?

Sorry, I think the shooter was an asshat about the parking space and I could be prejudiced against him on that account, but I can also put myself in his head after being aggressively physically shoved down to the ground, and "perceiving" the attacker as preparing to "kick a man while he's down" and "reasonably" fearing that outcome.

But, like I say, what I think don't matter nohow no more.

Terry, 230RN

[MechAg94]

One can say "don't shoot a man who is backing up" and I would agree with that.  However, that does you a whole lot of good if you don't realize he is backing up when you pull the trigger.  Your perception as the person who is defending himself may not be the same as the perception of a 3rd party watching a video.  We all hope it will be simple if we find ourselves in a self defense situation, but it is not always so.  Just one more thing to think about when imagining possible scenarios or looking at various self defense stories.   

[T.O.M.]

When I took my CCW class, the instructor said that the license is a permit, but should also be seen as a restriction. Meaning that when you load up, holster, and walk out the door, you are restricted from some things, like screaming at someone for cutting in line at the store, from flipping out when someone cuts you off in traffic, from yelling at someone for a bad parking job.  Basically, you are restricted from doing things that would get you labeled as being an ass.  I always thought that was good advice.  Our shooter here should have heeded that advice, IMHO.

[dogmush]

Because it doesn’t require imagining what a specific person thought at the time - it requires imagining what a theoretical reasonable person would normally have seen. Hence it is objective - what you actually thought at the time is irrelevant; what an imaginary normal person would have thought is.

Only a lawyer could claim with a straight face that asking 12 individuals to try to think like an imaginary person and then reconcile those 12 opinions is "objective".  That's not what that word means.

The "reasonable man" standard is useful, and could even be the best we could hope for in the real world, but it's patently subjective.

[Hawkmoon]

Only a lawyer could claim with a straight face that asking 12 individuals to try to think like an imaginary person and then reconcile those 12 opinions is "objective".  That's not what that word means.

The "reasonable man" standard is useful, and could even be the best we could hope for in the real world, but it's patently subjective.

You are absolutely correct, but I have read diatribes by attorneys on "gun" forums defending the so-called "reasonable man test" as being an objective standard. On any rational level it should be obvious that it cannot possibly be objective, but they are taught in law school that it is, and it seems most of them believe it.

[cordex]

When I took my CCW class, the instructor said that the license is a permit, but should also be seen as a restriction. Meaning that when you load up, holster, and walk out the door, you are restricted from some things, like screaming at someone for cutting in line at the store, from flipping out when someone cuts you off in traffic, from yelling at someone for a bad parking job.  Basically, you are restricted from doing things that would get you labeled as being an ass.  I always thought that was good advice.  Our shooter here should have heeded that advice, IMHO.

My parents put those restrictions on me long before I got a pistol permit.

[230RN]

When I took my CCW class, the instructor said that the license is a permit, but should also be seen as a restriction. Meaning that when you load up, holster, and walk out the door, you are restricted from some things, like screaming at someone for cutting in line at the store, from flipping out when someone cuts you off in traffic, from yelling at someone for a bad parking job.  Basically, you are restricted from doing things that would get you labeled as being an ass.  I always thought that was good advice.  Our shooter here should have heeded that advice, IMHO.

Good counsel, Counselor !

"Do not draw me without reason, do not holster me without honor." --My Gun

[gunsmith]

When I took my CCW class, the instructor said that the license is a permit, but should also be seen as a restriction. Meaning that when you load up, holster, and walk out the door, you are restricted from some things, like screaming at someone for cutting in line at the store, from flipping out when someone cuts you off in traffic, from yelling at someone for a bad parking job.  Basically, you are restricted from doing things that would get you labeled as being an ass.  I always thought that was good advice.  Our shooter here should have heeded that advice, IMHO.

this so much!
eleventy plus 11.

so many "non gun" people think the ccw/pack a gun thing means you have carte blanche to be the assertive talk chit dude to strangers guy- for me its always been the opposite ....
I only feel free to be the aggressive jerk to the other aggressive jerk if I am not packing.
when I'm armed I am mister meek personified .

I had a stupid GF tell an aggressive panhandler i was armed.
next place I live I am keeping my views and EDC better hidden

[MillCreek]

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/10/769089719/florida-man-who-shot-and-killed-a-black-man-in-parking-dispute-gets-20-years?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&fbclid=IwAR0ZG3sxVFOfIF4MaNHLmz3h75NqzJ2gZolo3hfqlvJRrGw4R95aNQB0F2Y

20 years in prison for Mr. Drejka.

[MechAg94]

Does Florida specify when prisoners are eligible for parole?  Usually that is part of the sentence in some states, but the article didn't say.

There are a lot of lessons for concealed carriers in this that we have already debated to death.  Something to remember. 

[Ben]

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/10/769089719/florida-man-who-shot-and-killed-a-black-man-in-parking-dispute-gets-20-years?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&fbclid=IwAR0ZG3sxVFOfIF4MaNHLmz3h75NqzJ2gZolo3hfqlvJRrGw4R95aNQB0F2Y

20 years in prison for Mr. Drejka.

I wonder when he's eligible for parole?

This is something I wasn't aware of:

the judge found it ironic that Drejka illegally parked next to McGlockton's girlfriend's car and then confronted her about parking illegally in a handicapped space.

Edit: Mech beat me to the punch on parole.

[brimic]

When I took my CCW class, the instructor said that the license is a permit, but should also be seen as a restriction. Meaning that when you load up, holster, and walk out the door, you are restricted from some things, like screaming at someone for cutting in line at the store, from flipping out when someone cuts you off in traffic, from yelling at someone for a bad parking job.  Basically, you are restricted from doing things that would get you labeled as being an ass.  I always thought that was good advice.  Our shooter here should have heeded that advice, IMHO.

Exactly.
Also, a must read, its full of hard truths and legal opinions that aren't going to be popular with a lot of people who haven't thought the responsibility that comes with CCW through (1):  https://www.amazon.com/Law-Self-Defense-Indispensable-Citizen/dp/0988867702

(1) useful book, but just as a warning, the author online personality is pompous ass dialed to 11, I had to block him on FB.