Florida man who invoked 'stand your ground' is charged with manslaughter

[MAD6Gun]

 A couple of weeks ago in Fort Wayne a 60 year old man cut off another man in traffic. The second man chased the first down cut him off and stopped him. Got out of his car and punched the 60 yo through his open window. The 60 yo then passed out and had a heart attack and died. Now this moron is on the run. He faced manslaughter charges. What I understand is this idiot has a history of starting fights and carries brass knuckles.

 I get pissed when someone cuts me off or drives like a idiot and will occasionally flip them off but violent confrontation is never on my mind. But know this. Like Serk. I carry most everywhere I go so if a confrontation turns violent I will defend myself....

[baldo]

I haven't read all the responses, so this might have been mentioned already.

Apparently the store manager had called police in the past because the shooter liked to harass people that parked in that spot illegally. It was just a matter of time before this happened.

[Gavin_Sons]

I'm hoping one of our legal eagles will chime in.

Here's the question........  Who is legally right and who is legally wrong?

Man one is yelling up a storm but isn't committing any acts of violence and making no aggressive moves in the direction of committing an act of violence.  Man two comes out of store, sees man one yelling at his family, runs over and knocks man one to the ground.

From my Podiatric knowledge, if it ends here, Man two is the guilty party.

Unfortunately, it does not end there.  Man two is dead and his family now has to pay for his stupid choice to attack a stranger who happened to have a gun and Man one now faces charges for a bad shooting.  Lots of lives upended because Man two attacked a stranger who was armed and dangerous.

"But how would he know he was armed?" you may ask.  THAT is my point exactly, Trayvon.  He didn't. 

Man one is guilty because when you carry it is your duty to try to descalate the situation. He was not descalating but rather the escalator.

But this is after the initial contact made by Man two, right? 

No he should have never started anything with the woman in the car.

[Gavin_Sons]

I'll say it again just for those that have a hard time understanding. When you carry a firearm for personal protection you hold the duty of descalating situations that could easily escalate out of control. You never be the one to start anything with anyone for any reason.

[Serk]

I'll say it again just for those that have a hard time understanding. When you carry a firearm for personal protection you hold the duty of descalating situations that could easily escalate out of control. You never be the one to start anything with anyone for any reason.

I fully agree with you, however that is a logical and/or moral declarative, not a legally binding one. At least not in any laws I've seen.

[MarkT]

So just because someone is speaking loudly to another party whom they have perceived is breaking the law in their presence its ok to put your hands on them and shove them to the ground?

"But they were only breaking the law for a few minutes" so I suppose that's ok? While I don't know that I would have reacted the same regarding pulling out a firearm and pulling the trigger the guy that got shot was far from innocent and had he simply parked in a legal manner to begin with and not put hands on the guy the outcome may have been much different. Both parties contributed to the way this ultimately played out.

I definitely would not have pulled and fired but the miscreant who paid with his life was not innocent.  Neither would I have made a rucus about their illegal parking - I'm not a cop; not my job to enforce the law. I might have called it in if I was having a bad day but I think my call would have likely been ignored.  I might remind them that parking is for the handicapped and if they don't have the hang tag or sticker they are violating and depriving those who need it, close-in parking. Likely in a more friendly manner than in a challenge mode.

[Robert]

Proper assessment of the situation and the quality of the people that you are dealing with can go a long way to the reaction you have. If you look at both of these guys they dont look like quality citizens. So they may not have much to loose in an altercation or they may be on drugs.

While this is not the ultimate decider it could make a difference in how the situation is handled. Or if you even get involved more than getting your family away in the situation in the first place.  

If you live in a questionable area why would you provoke a conflict by being foolish or address the perp of a foolish act. If you do you had better know the situation can turn ugly fast. Does the perp even comprehend the problem he is to society and you want to change that, really?

If you address a situation in such an area or with such people you better know its critical to the point of worth the death of a person. If the situation is not then eat humble pie get your family out of danger and go about your business and your life and not to jail or the cost of a trial and defense lawyers.

Much better to be upset and walk away and go on with your life than have to change it for one reason or another.

Some are to  
    dull
    dumb
    foolish
    futile
    ill-advised
    irrelevant
    laughable
    ludicrous
    naive
    senseless
    shortsighted
    simple
    trivial
    dummy
    loser
    rash
    thick
    unintelligent
    brainless
    dazed
    deficient
    dense
    dim
    doltish
    dopey
    gullible
    half-baked
    half-witted
    idiotic
    imbecilic
    inane
    indiscreet
    insensate
    meaningless
    mindless
    moronic
    nonsensical
    obtuse
    out to lunch
    pointless
    puerile
    simpleminded
    slow
    sluggish
    stolid
    stupefied
    thick-headed
    unthinking
    witless

to make that decision and we see the results every day, don't be, "refer to Synonyms", enough to get involved in a life and death situation with a person like that.  

[Willow]

...
Some are to stupid to make that decision and we see the results every day.   

One should never type "to stupid".  It tends to devalue everything else one has offered.

Monday morning quarterbacking is rampant (and regularly flawed).  From the video itself it appears the man with the gun was definitely guilty of murder and he was the one who instigated the confrontation.  That pretty well negates the intent of the stand your ground option.

We can't hear what was said.  I'll leave open the possibility of some mitigating conversation although I cannot imagine anything that could be said that would justify shooting an unarmed man who was backing away.

With all the wisdom that has been offered, and I recognize some of it as good advice, if someone were and the window of my car yelling and cussing at my wife when I walked up (emphasis on walked, not ran) I would likely push him away and have something harsh to say. 

The man with the gun needs to be removed from society.   

[Jess from VA]

While the pusher used force first, it could be viewed as a reasonable use of force to protect his family (he stays between the wife and kids and the pushee).  With no sound, you cannot get any sense of how threatening the guy complaining to the wife and kids of being in the handicap parking spot is.  If that language was threatening, he could be viewed as the initial provocateur of the incident, even without force (a battery touching). The push was pretty hard (and a clear battery), but if the guy thought the complainer was a threat to his wife and kids, it was reasonable (but clearly it was a sneak up sucker-push).

But once the push is over, the pusher offers no more violence to the pushee (but again with no sound, you do not know if the pusher was being verbally threatening to the pushee).  The pushee went down and stayed down in a submissive manner, then drew, and the pusher backed up, and was no further threat at that point.  The pushee would probably be within his rights to draw and point (esp from that submissive position)(and not be charged with brandishing), but once the pusher backed up and offered no more violence, the pushee should not have fired.

The requisite intent for first degree murder can be formed in an instant, but this scenario does not support a 1st degree charge, but I believe it does support a 2d degree or voluntary manslaughter charge.  In the absence of sound evidence to the contrary, the shooter is getting even, not protecting himself.  The shooting is not in self defense, and is not reasonable.  

It's certainly within your prerogative of free speech to remind someone of the handicap parking rules (or sign which may not have been seen or understood, though that seems unlikely).  But I don't/won't do it, and I wouldn't go after some wife and kids with no one sitting in the driver's seat either.  Handicap people managed to survive for 10 thousand years without special parking rules, and the offense of parking in such spot without authority is not a felony anywhere.

It's tantamount to rude behavior, and we shouldn't shoot people for that anymore.

[G-Man]

I would likely push him away and have something harsh to say. 
  

And you would have suffered the exact same fate as the other man who pushed him.

Would it be worth it?

I'd rather have my wife's feelings hurt than having to bury her husband.  The hurt feelings go away.

[Willow]

Additionally Drejka sounds like an eastern European name.  I think people with eastern European names should be closely scrutinized for the legality of their behavior.  The only European or near European names that are acceptable are British and German.   

[G-Man]

While the pusher used force first, it could be viewed as a reasonable use of force to protect his family (he stays between the wife and kids and the pushee).  With no sound, you cannot get any sense of how threatening the guy complaining to the wife and kids of being in the handicap parking spot is.  If that language was threatening, he could be viewed as the initial provocateur of the incident, even without force (a battery touching). The push was pretty hard (and a clear battery), but if the guy thought the complainer was a threat to his wife and kids, it was reasonable (but clearly it was a sneak up sucker-push).

Thanks for this eval.  I agree, without the sound we don't know what was really being said, at what volume, in what manner.  We don't if there were threats of violence or not.  My opinions on the case will be kept to myself as anything said is only a guess.

BUT, I still believe, with every fiber of my being, approaching, and especially touching a stranger is dangerous to your life. Unless there is actual violence, or the real threat of imminent danger, I strongly advise against it.  Don't be a Trayvon.  He's dead.  Nobody is a tough guy when they're in the ground.  It amazes me that people can be presented with story after story, and even video, and then STILL say that they would do the same thing.  Definition of insanity ring a bell?  Seriously, if you burned your finger on the stove ONCE, would you touch it again?  

[G-Man]

Additionally Drejka sounds like an eastern European name.  I think people with eastern European names should be closely scrutinized for the legality of their behavior.  The only European or near European names that are acceptable are British and German.  

Most people with the name live in the USA, then Poland, then GERMANY, then Denmark.

He could be your relative.  

[Gavin_Sons]

While the pusher used force first, it could be viewed as a reasonable use of force to protect his family (he stays between the wife and kids and the pushee).  With no sound, you cannot get any sense of how threatening the guy complaining to the wife and kids of being in the handicap parking spot is.  If that language was threatening, he could be viewed as the initial provocateur of the incident, even without force (a battery touching). The push was pretty hard (and a clear battery), but if the guy thought the complainer was a threat to his wife and kids, it was reasonable (but clearly it was a sneak up sucker-push).

I'm  amazed you think the shooting was justified even though you watched the same video as I. The shooter was very wrong. You can't  just shoot someone for shoving you. If he had jumped on top of him afterward then yes by all means shoot him. But he did not, he was backing away.

Thanks for this eval.  I agree, without the sound we don't know what was really being said, at what volume, in what manner.  We don't if there were threats of violence or not.  My opinions on the case will be kept to myself as anything said is only a guess.

BUT, I still believe, with every fiber of my being, approaching, and especially touching a stranger is dangerous to your life. Unless there is actual violence, or the real threat of imminent danger, I strongly advise against it.  Don't be a Trayvon.  He's dead.  Nobody is a tough guy when they're in the ground.  It amazes me that people can be presented with story after story, and even video, and then STILL say that they would do the same thing.  Definition of insanity ring a bell?  Seriously, if you burned your finger on the stove ONCE, would you touch it again?  

[Robert]

Monday morning quarterbacking is rampant (and regularly flawed).  From the video itself it appears the man with the gun was definitely guilty of murder and he was the one who instigated the confrontation.  That pretty well negates the intent of the stand your ground option.

Is this an example of Monday morning quarterbacking. 

Any opinion offered here is really irrelevant since it will be settled in court. That is the only opinion that matters really.

Like the saying goes it don't mean nothing till you sign on the bottom line.

I wonder if police still profile to save their lives? Its a shame when you don't know who your dealing with and threat assessment training means nothing also. 

[3fan4life]

While the pusher used force first, it could be viewed as a reasonable use of force to protect his family (he stays between the wife and kids and the pushee).  With no sound, you cannot get any sense of how threatening the guy complaining to the wife and kids of being in the handicap parking spot is.  If that language was threatening, he could be viewed as the initial provocateur of the incident, even without force (a battery touching). The push was pretty hard (and a clear battery), but if the guy thought the complainer was a threat to his wife and kids, it was reasonable (but clearly it was a sneak up sucker-push).

But once the push is over, the pusher offers no more violence to the pushee (but again with no sound, you do not know if the pusher was being verbally threatening to the pushee).  The pushee went down and stayed down in a submissive manner, then drew, and the pusher backed up, and was no further threat at that point.  The pushee would probably be within his rights to draw and point (esp from that submissive position)(and not be charged with brandishing), but once the pusher backed up and offered no more violence, the pushee should not have fired.

The requisite intent for first degree murder can be formed in an instant, but this scenario does not support a 1st degree charge, but I believe it does support a 2d degree or voluntary manslaughter charge.  In the absence of sound evidence to the contrary, the shooter is getting even, not protecting himself.  The shooting is not in self defense, and is not reasonable.  

It's certainly within your prerogative of free speech to remind someone of the handicap parking rules (or sign which may not have been seen or understood, though that seems unlikely).  But I don't/won't do it, and I wouldn't go after some wife and kids with no one sitting in the driver's seat either.  Handicap people managed to survive for 10 thousand years without special parking rules, and the offense of parking in such spot without authority is not a felony anywhere.

It's tantamount to rude behavior, and we shouldn't shoot people for that anymore.

Very well said, my Barrister friend. 

[G-Man]

While the pusher used force first, it could be viewed as a reasonable use of force to protect his family (he stays between the wife and kids and the pushee).  With no sound, you cannot get any sense of how threatening the guy complaining to the wife and kids of being in the handicap parking spot is.  If that language was threatening, he could be viewed as the initial provocateur of the incident, even without force (a battery touching). The push was pretty hard (and a clear battery), but if the guy thought the complainer was a threat to his wife and kids, it was reasonable (but clearly it was a sneak up sucker-push).

I'm  amazed you think the shooting was justified even though you watched the same video as I. The shooter was very wrong. You can't  just shoot someone for shoving you. If he had jumped on top of him afterward then yes by all means shoot him. But he did not, he was backing away.

Thanks for this eval.  I agree, without the sound we don't know what was really being said, at what volume, in what manner.  We don't if there were threats of violence or not.  My opinions on the case will be kept to myself as anything said is only a guess.

BUT, I still believe, with every fiber of my being, approaching, and especially touching a stranger is dangerous to your life. Unless there is actual violence, or the real threat of imminent danger, I strongly advise against it.  Don't be a Trayvon.  He's dead.  Nobody is a tough guy when they're in the ground.  It amazes me that people can be presented with story after story, and even video, and then STILL say that they would do the same thing.  Definition of insanity ring a bell?  Seriously, if you burned your finger on the stove ONCE, would you touch it again?  

I think this is your reply...... "I'm  amazed you think the shooting was justified even though you watched the same video as I. The shooter was very wrong. You can't  just shoot someone for shoving you. If he had jumped on top of him afterward then yes by all means shoot him. But he did not, he was backing away."

I never once said the shooting was justified.  Never even hinted at that.  I can clearly see there was no threat to the shooter at the time he pulled the trigger.  I even stated in a previous reply that he deserves some degree of murder, just not 1st degree (my own opinion as I can only go by a video tape with no sound).

I'm man enough, and I am a responsible husband, father, provider, and son to not jeopardize all I have, and my families well being by physically confronting a stranger.  I am no Trayvon.  I know better.  My last word on this topic.

[3fan4life]

While the pusher used force first, it could be viewed as a reasonable use of force to protect his family (he stays between the wife and kids and the pushee).  With no sound, you cannot get any sense of how threatening the guy complaining to the wife and kids of being in the handicap parking spot is.  If that language was threatening, he could be viewed as the initial provocateur of the incident, even without force (a battery touching). The push was pretty hard (and a clear battery), but if the guy thought the complainer was a threat to his wife and kids, it was reasonable (but clearly it was a sneak up sucker-push).

I'm  amazed you think the shooting was justified even though you watched the same video as I. The shooter was very wrong. You can't  just shoot someone for shoving you. If he had jumped on top of him afterward then yes by all means shoot him. But he did not, he was backing away.

Thanks for this eval.  I agree, without the sound we don't know what was really being said, at what volume, in what manner.  We don't if there were threats of violence or not.  My opinions on the case will be kept to myself as anything said is only a guess.

BUT, I still believe, with every fiber of my being, approaching, and especially touching a stranger is dangerous to your life. Unless there is actual violence, or the real threat of imminent danger, I strongly advise against it.  Don't be a Trayvon.  He's dead.  Nobody is a tough guy when they're in the ground.  It amazes me that people can be presented with story after story, and even video, and then STILL say that they would do the same thing.  Definition of insanity ring a bell?  Seriously, if you burned your finger on the stove ONCE, would you touch it again?  

I think this is your reply...... "I'm  amazed you think the shooting was justified even though you watched the same video as I. The shooter was very wrong. You can't  just shoot someone for shoving you. If he had jumped on top of him afterward then yes by all means shoot him. But he did not, he was backing away."

I never once said the shooting was justified.  Never even hinted at that.  I can clearly see there was no threat to the shooter at the time he pulled the trigger.  I even stated in a previous reply that he deserves some degree of murder, just not 1st degree (my own opinion as I can only go by a video tape with no sound).

I'm man enough, and I am a responsible husband, father, provider, and son to not jeopardize all I have, and my families well being by physically confronting a stranger.  I am no Trayvon.  I know better.  My last word on this topic.

You are a wise man,

It is much harder to walk away from a fight than it is to engage in one.

The only fight that anyone truly wins is the one that they don't have.


Many of us "Rednecks" aren't always so wise. 
 

[Gavin_Sons]

While the pusher used force first, it could be viewed as a reasonable use of force to protect his family (he stays between the wife and kids and the pushee).  With no sound, you cannot get any sense of how threatening the guy complaining to the wife and kids of being in the handicap parking spot is.  If that language was threatening, he could be viewed as the initial provocateur of the incident, even without force (a battery touching). The push was pretty hard (and a clear battery), but if the guy thought the complainer was a threat to his wife and kids, it was reasonable (but clearly it was a sneak up sucker-push).

I'm  amazed you think the shooting was justified even though you watched the same video as I. The shooter was very wrong. You can't  just shoot someone for shoving you. If he had jumped on top of him afterward then yes by all means shoot him. But he did not, he was backing away.

Thanks for this eval.  I agree, without the sound we don't know what was really being said, at what volume, in what manner.  We don't if there were threats of violence or not.  My opinions on the case will be kept to myself as anything said is only a guess.

BUT, I still believe, with every fiber of my being, approaching, and especially touching a stranger is dangerous to your life. Unless there is actual violence, or the real threat of imminent danger, I strongly advise against it.  Don't be a Trayvon.  He's dead.  Nobody is a tough guy when they're in the ground.  It amazes me that people can be presented with story after story, and even video, and then STILL say that they would do the same thing.  Definition of insanity ring a bell?  Seriously, if you burned your finger on the stove ONCE, would you touch it again?  

I think this is your reply...... "I'm  amazed you think the shooting was justified even though you watched the same video as I. The shooter was very wrong. You can't  just shoot someone for shoving you. If he had jumped on top of him afterward then yes by all means shoot him. But he did not, he was backing away."

I never once said the shooting was justified.  Never even hinted at that.  I can clearly see there was no threat to the shooter at the time he pulled the trigger.  I even stated in a previous reply that he deserves some degree of murder, just not 1st degree (my own opinion as I can only go by a video tape with no sound).

I'm man enough, and I am a responsible husband, father, provider, and son to not jeopardize all I have, and my families well being by physically confronting a stranger.  I am no Trayvon.  I know better.  My last word on this topic.

  i guess i completely misunderstood you, I'm sorry. Yes i also don't think this is a first degree murder but second for sure.

[Moonshot_1]

Guy #1 with gun
Guy #2 victim

I do believe you can get to 1st degree murder.

Guy #1 drives up and begins the conflict over a handicap parking space. There is no cause for him to do this unless he is looking to start a conflict. He could just have taken down a plate # and/or called the police. The fact that he was armed puts the responsibility to avoid conflict on Guy #1.

Second point is that when Guy #2 came out of the store, Guy #1 was at Guy #2's car continuing to argue with Guy#2's girlfriend and kids. Guy#2 pushes Guy#1 and Guy #1 falls to the ground. Guy #2 stops his advance BEFORE Guy #1 draws his weapon. It is at this point I believe it becomes 1st degree murder as Guy #1 decides to shoot Guy #2. Guy#2 is backing away when the weapon is finally drawn and fired. I see a short conversation between Guy #1 and Guy #2 before the gun is drawn and Guy #2 backing away.

My view of the video makes me come to the conclusion that guy #1 was looking any excuse to use his gun to shoot somebody.

[Jess from VA]

I believe there's enough evidence to take 1st degree to court (for a jury to decide).  It's not a great case for 1st degree, but it's a case.

I believe the state may even do this, but also that the state will happily take a plea to a lesser degree of murder, and the accused will take the deal, and a jury will never have to decide.

FL has and uses the death penalty, and the pressure to take the deal is much greater in such states.  

This is the way it works.    

[3fan4life]

I believe there's enough evidence to take 1st degree to court (for a jury to decide).  It's not a great case for 1st degree, but it's a case.

I believe the state may even do this, but also that the state will happily take a plea to a lesser degree of murder, and the accused will take the deal, and a jury will never have to decide.

FL has and uses the death penalty, and the pressure to take the deal is much greater is such states.  

This is the way it works.    

If I remember correctly FL is a state where a jury cannot vote guilty on a lesser charge.

I believe that's why Casey Anthony walked away scott free.

The jurors would've been glad to convict her of manslaughter but the case didn't support the 1st Degree murder charge.


Of course if this prosecutor has the political agenda of getting the "Stand Your Ground" law repealed he may be hoping to lose the case.  

[Jess from VA]

In the vast majority of states and criminal procedure, a case of first degree murder will also require the judge to instruct the jury on all lesser included offenses (2d degree, vol manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, etc), so long as there is some evidence (however slight) supporting each of these lesser offenses. 

This is a benefit to both prosecution and defense (and the people).   

[The emperor has no clothes]

I believe there's enough evidence to take 1st degree to court (for a jury to decide).  It's not a great case for 1st degree, but it's a case.

I believe the state may even do this, but also that the state will happily take a plea to a lesser degree of murder, and the accused will take the deal, and a jury will never have to decide.

FL has and uses the death penalty, and the pressure to take the deal is much greater is such states.  

This is the way it works.    

If I remember correctly FL is a state where a jury cannot vote guilty on a lesser charge.

If so, that is a messed up law. 

[Dave Ritsema]

So f___ing stupid.  Yell back at the guy if you must then get the car and leave.  Touch a stranger, you have absolutely no idea what's gonna happen next.  


There are no innocent parties in this, poor choices on both sides of the issue that lead to a deadly conclusion. Stupid and preventable and no good will come from the ultimate outcome.

[The emperor has no clothes]

So f___ing stupid.  Yell back at the guy if you must then get the car and leave.  Touch a stranger, you have absolutely no idea what's gonna happen next.  


There are no innocent parties in this, poor choices on both sides of the issue that lead to a deadly conclusion. Stupid and preventable and no good will come from the ultimate outcome.

It is stupid on both sides. Many mistakes were made all around. Many of them deliberate. But I’m curious at what point some of you would intervene ?
If a man was hovering over your 5 year old child yelling at her, would you push him ? If a man was yelling at your wife saying he had a gun and was going to kill her, would you physically intervene ? Neither scenario involves the man getting physical. Yes, I agree pushing someone is probably an assault of some degree in the law. I’m willing to suffer the consequences of that .

[¿spoom]

Is, "words do not constitute a battery" generally the law, or just something that sounds reasonable, but doesn't mean squat?

[Leathel]

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when you have to question giving someone a push that is harassing your family in case they might shoot you..... Sad that people feel the need to carry just in case, so different to here


I see that video appears to be cut at the time he (the shooter) was at the car....I wonder how long he was there?

  The shooter was not in direct danger when he shot

[Jess from VA]

Is, "words do not constitute a battery" generally the law, or just something that sounds reasonable, but doesn't mean squat?

Yes, it is generally the law.

Without consulting Blacks Law Dictionary or anything..... generally, a battery is any offensive touching, and an assault is putting one in fear of an immediate battery.  No touching is technically necessary for assault.  Words (including threats) do not constitute a battery, as touching is required.

But like many legal terms, they come to have common meanings of their own.

And there are exceptions like necessity and consent (though the law will not allow a consent to an assault and battery).

The age old issue of the chicken and the egg surrounds many typical assault and battery situations.  Who started it?  Was there an assault that was justifiably (and reasonably) defended, or was there an assault that stopped, followed by another assault by the other guy?  Use of lethal force complicates things, but the basic rules still apply.  Were you in reasonable fear of your (or others') life or great bodily injury?  

Speech alone (with no touching) can arise to assault, but the reasonable man standard applies, not the individual peculiarities of the actual victim.  Putting in reasonable fear of an immediate battery (not promised tomorrow), is an assault.  You can defend an assault, but it must also be reasonable in like level of force offered.

This is why I said we cannot know what the shooter is saying to the wife and kids, and in what tone and level of anger.  IF it arises to an assault, then the shootee may be using reasonable force to defend his family by pushing the shooter.  Even though it's the first physical contact, it may be excused as reasonable (non lethal) force to defend family (others, not self defense).

And next, when the shooter is on the ground seemingly staying submissive, we cannot hear what the shootee is saying, or if it might arise to the level of assault putting the shooter in reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death sufficient to warrant lethal self defense.  

In the absence of sound, the video to me does not show the shooter to be verbally assaulting the wife and kids to the point of justifying the shootee pushing him to the ground (but it might have warranted him physically shouldering his way between the man and his family but without any offensive striking, that would be a justifiable offensive touching).  If not, the shooter was battered (but maybe not assaulted because maybe he didn't even see it coming).

In the absence of sound, the video to me does not show the shootee (after pushing him to the ground) putting the shooter in reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death (or even a continued non lethal physical battery).  So use of lethal force by the shooter is an unlawful and unjustified killing.

In the absence of sound, both parties are at criminal fault.  The shootee of battering the shooter.  And the shooter of unlawfully killing the shootee.  However, we humans have not prosecuted dead people for many hundreds of years (but it happened).  

You asked.  

[¿spoom]

Is, "words do not constitute a battery" generally the law, or just something that sounds reasonable, but doesn't mean squat?

Yes, it is generally the law.

Without consulting Blacks Law Dictionary or anything..... generally, a battery is any offensive touching, and an assault is putting one in fear of an immediate battery.  No touching is technically necessary for assault.  Words (including threats) do not constitute a battery, as touching is required.

But like many legal terms, they come to have common meanings of their own.

And there are exceptions like necessity and consent (though the law will not allow a consent to an assault and battery).

The age old issue of the chicken and the egg surrounds many typical assault and battery situations.  Who started it?  Was there an assault that was justifiably (and reasonably) defended, or was there an assault that stopped, followed by another assault by the other guy?  Use of lethal force complicates things, but the basic rules still apply.  Were you in reasonable fear of your (or others') life or great bodily injury?  

Speech alone (with no touching) can arise to assault, but the reasonable man standard applies, not the individual peculiarities of the actual victim.  Putting in reasonable fear of an immediate battery (not promised tomorrow), is an assault.  You can defend an assault, but it must also be reasonable in like level of force offered.

This is why I said we cannot know what the shooter is saying to the wife and kids, and in what tone and level of anger.  IF it arises to an assault, then the shootee may be using reasonable force to defend his family by pushing the shooter.  Even though it's the first physical contact, it may be excused as reasonable (non lethal) force to defend family (others, not self defense).

And next, when the shooter is on the ground seemingly staying submissive, we cannot hear what the shootee is saying, or if it might arise to the level of assault putting the shooter in reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death sufficient to warrant lethal self defense.  

In the absence of sound, the video to me does not show the shooter to be verbally assaulting the wife and kids to the point of justifying the shootee pushing him to the ground (but it might have warranted him physically shouldering his way between the man and his family but without any offensive striking, that would be a justifiable offensive touching).  If not, the shooter was battered (but maybe not assaulted because maybe he didn't even see it coming).

In the absence of sound, the video to me does not show the shootee (after pushing him to the ground) putting the shooter in reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death (or even a continued non lethal physical battery).  So use of lethal force by the shooter is an unlawful and unjustified killing.

In the absence of sound, both parties are at criminal fault.  The shootee of battering the shooter.  And the shooter of unlawfully killing the shootee.  However, we humans have not prosecuted dead people for many hundreds of years (but it happened).  

You asked.  

And I appreciate the answer! As it was once explained to a friend of mine by his lawyer, screaming, "I'm gonna kill you!" shouldn't (legally) get your nose stuck through the back of your skull, but screaming, "I'm gonna kill you!" while making a grab into a pocket would probably OK the guy who shot you before they could see your hand again. I was lucky once when someone got in my face with the, "c'mon, mofo, hit me, beotch!!" and I accidently set him on his butt with a right that perhaps is what still makes my wrist start to hurt after 50 miles on the Fat Bob. I only avoided arrest because he was on paper and his buds couldn't get him drug to his car fast enough.

This story (the shooting) is too close to me to be unbiased. Before we were married, my now ex lost a leg below the knee in a bike accident. Helping someone on crutches navigating ice, or just the prosthesis, while able folks clogged the handicapped spaces with fake/expired/non-existent plates or tags make me a little touchy on this, to where I had a time out in the back of a squad car at KMart once.
This Spring in Milwaukee a pro NBC player for the Milw. Bucks parked his "I'm more important than you" car across TWO handicapped spots at a Walgreens and eventually got tased when he copped an attitude and wouldn't set his things down and take a hand out of his pants. Cops probably overacted, and the City is getting sued, but I keep looking back to the root cause.

[Jess from VA]

Relevant to this discussion is the following:

Citizen's Arrest is still legal almost everywhere.

In a (I think large) majority of States, police may not arrest for a misdemeanor not commuted in their presence.  So a citizen's arrest for a misdemeanor committed in his pretense may be the only way it can ever go to court.  (some State's cops may write the misdemeanor ticket, for what they didn't see, if you promise to be the moving party in court)

Most States have now decriminalized their traffic codes, so most moving violations are now civil infractions and not misdemeanors (leaving DWI, reckless, fleeing and eluding, drag racing and a maybe few others as criminal misdemeanors).  This was not done to make things easier on the public, it was done to make things easier on the State to prove guilt in traffic court only by a preponderance of the evidence (civil), not the higher standard of beyond a reasonable doubt(criminal).

As far as I know, parking in a handicap spot is not a misdemeanor, but only a civil parking ticket (with a higher fine than normal, and maybe higher fines for 2d and 3d offenses).  

Even though it is said that bad things happen when good men do nothing, I do not recommend a citizen's arrest anywhere today (at least for a misdemeanor).  You run the risk of being charged with an assault, battery, unlawful detention, and even kidnap (if you move them).  And I sure wouldn't do it for a parking violation.

Go and call the cops on handicap parking abusers.  Or get some bumper stickers printed up that say .... This asshole parks in handicap parking and is not handicapped.  But don't get caught (like on camera), it's a misdemeanor destruction of property charge.  And on tape, a cop doesn't have to see it live.  

  

[J.Mencalice]

A press release from today.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/08/23/us/ap-us-parking-dispute-shooting.html

May justice prevail.