• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

FL man killed under ‘stand your ground’ provisions over handicapped parking space.

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,425
Location
Florida
4. Shooter is attacked by a third party without warnjng.
What if the person that came out the store and shoved him thought he was trying to harm the woman in the car? It's obvious from the video that they were shouting because everyone kept looking- even the dude walking in stood at the door for a few seconds watching. The deceased came out of the store and saw a grumpy man yelling at someone sitting in the car and pushed him away. Would you have done the same thing if your loved one was in the car and someone was yelling at them for some unknown reason?

Is parking in a handicapped spot a CRIME or is it just an infraction, punishable by a fine? (i sincerely don't know nor do i wish to look it up.)
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
What if the person that came out the store and shoved him thought he was trying to harm the woman in the car? It's obvious from the video that they were shouting because everyone kept looking- even the dude walking in stood at the door for a few seconds watching. The deceased came out of the store and saw a grumpy man yelling at someone sitting in the car and pushed him away. Would you have done the same thing if your loved one was in the car and someone was yelling at them for some unknown reason?

Is parking in a handicapped spot a CRIME or is it just an infraction, punishable by a fine? (i sincerely don't know nor do i wish to look it up.)
I've been in that exact spot. No I didn't blindside the guy with a violent attack.

Approaching and telling the guy to get the hell away from the car worked very well. Of course I wasn't trying to prove my street creds and I wasn't drugged like the guy who was shot.

Same approach would have worked for the deceased. At min he wouldn't have,been guilth of an unlawful violent attack.
 

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,967
Location
Waco, TX
Is parking in a handicapped spot a CRIME or is it just an infraction, punishable by a fine? (i sincerely don't know nor do i wish to look it up.)
Is it a crime? It depends on what side of the placard you're on. As someone who is handicapped to the point I have to use a scooter at the store, it is a crime. I often have a hard time finding a parking spot for all the able bodies I see pulling into a parking spot and then literally running into the store. They spend an hour or more walking around Wally World but they have to have a placard? So many people use other peoples placards. I see people with no placards parking in handicap spots. Happens all the time. I have called the police numerous times when I see this happen. IT MAKES ME ANGRY!

TBG
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,425
Location
Florida
I've been in that exact spot. No I didn't blindside the guy with a violent attack.

Approaching and telling the guy to get the hell away from the car worked very well. Of course I wasn't trying to prove my street creds and I wasn't drugged like the guy who was shot.

Same approach would have worked for the deceased. At min he wouldn't have,been guilth of an unlawful violent attack.
Not everyone is like you, though. He was clearly around the car, shouting, for a almost 2 minutes. It was loud enough or concerning enough for the white male who entered the store to say something inside the store like, "some dude is out there yelling at a lady parked in a handicap spot" and the deceased walked out and perceived the situation, and as the female exited the car and the convicted didn't let up, thought the best course of action was to push the dude away. He didn't stand over him and ball his fists- he backed away from him. In hindsight, it seems like (and a jury agrees) this was a true perception, seeing as how the agitator got so worked up (repeatedly according to witness statements) and was shouting, and had a weapon on hand ready to use it. Watch the video- he got out of his car, walked behind the lady's car to check the license plate for a handicapped plate, then walked to the front to look for a sticker. He was LOOKING for trouble. I get it- he doesn't appreciate someone parking in a handicap space if they aren't authorized. But the way this played out is not good for him.

I wasn't there, you weren't there, no one in this forum was there. We are in the same position as the jury, minus being at the trial. We saw the same video. The man was shoved, not beaten, and I don't think SYG applies here, nor was he in fear for his life. Then again, I wasn't there in his shoes, but I can only go by the evidence brought to my attention.

When one carries a weapon they take upon themselves an added burden of responsibility and discretion when it comes to their surroundings and their actions. This man was not "armed security", "a police officer", or "paid to be there". He was harassing someone for a parking infraction and when someone confronted him on this in order to protect the life of a loved one, he drew his weapon and killed someone.

I mean, come on- if you look at the still shot at the moment of gun draw and point, the deceased's body is turned the other direction, with his shoulders and head looking back at the man on the ground. Can you honestly say that if you were on that jury and saw that video you would say the shooting is justified?

Same approach would have worked for the deceased. At min he wouldn't have,been guilth of an unlawful violent attack.
You don't think his "shoving" would have been covered under any sort of self defense protection, or even SYG itself? He was protecting the woman from what he perceived to be a threat. He was right, unfortunately for him.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,425
Location
Florida
Is it a crime? It depends on what side of the placard you're on. As someone who is handicapped to the point I have to use a scooter at the store, it is a crime. I often have a hard time finding a parking spot for all the able bodies I see pulling into a parking spot and then literally running into the store. They spend an hour or more walking around Wally World but they have to have a placard? So many people use other peoples placards. I see people with no placards parking in handicap spots. Happens all the time. I have called the police numerous times when I see this happen. IT MAKES ME ANGRY!

TBG
No, it depends on what is written in the statute.
 

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,967
Location
Waco, TX
No, it depends on what is written in the statute.
And the world is full of entitled idiots, and they breed, and that's the biggest crime

According to what I read, In FL it is an infraction to park in a handicap space without a placard. A person can be fined, and their car towed.

Further: Anyone who obtains or uses a permit that does not belong to them can be charged with a second degree misdemeanor - $500 fine or up to 6 months in jail.

TBG
 
Last edited:

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
Not everyone is like you, though. He was clearly around the car, shouting, for a almost 2 minutes. It was loud enough or concerning enough for the white male who entered the store to say something inside the store like, "some dude is out there yelling at a lady parked in a handicap spot" and the deceased walked out and perceived the situation, and as the female exited the car and the convicted didn't let up, thought the best course of action was to push the dude away. He didn't stand over him and ball his fists- he backed away from him. In hindsight, it seems like (and a jury agrees) this was a true perception, seeing as how the agitator got so worked up (repeatedly according to witness statements) and was shouting, and had a weapon on hand ready to use it. Watch the video- he got out of his car, walked behind the lady's car to check the license plate for a handicapped plate, then walked to the front to look for a sticker. He was LOOKING for trouble. I get it- he doesn't appreciate someone parking in a handicap space if they aren't authorized. But the way this played out is not good for him.

I wasn't there, you weren't there, no one in this forum was there. We are in the same position as the jury, minus being at the trial. We saw the same video. The man was shoved, not beaten, and I don't think SYG applies here, nor was he in fear for his life. Then again, I wasn't there in his shoes, but I can only go by the evidence brought to my attention.

When one carries a weapon they take upon themselves an added burden of responsibility and discretion when it comes to their surroundings and their actions. This man was not "armed security", "a police officer", or "paid to be there". He was harassing someone for a parking infraction and when someone confronted him on this in order to protect the life of a loved one, he drew his weapon and killed someone.

I mean, come on- if you look at the still shot at the moment of gun draw and point, the deceased's body is turned the other direction, with his shoulders and head looking back at the man on the ground. Can you honestly say that if you were on that jury and saw that video you would say the shooting is justified?



You don't think his "shoving" would have been covered under any sort of self defense protection, or even SYG itself? He was protecting the woman from what he perceived to be a threat. He was right, unfortunately for him.
Nope.

The woman was in her car. Arguing , yelling, without some action to accompany it ,even by Fla statute isn't assault , or attack , or anything other than verbal. It's not like she was not giving as good as she,got.

The jury didn't even understand the case they were judging and TOLD the judge as much . So much for the jury's take.

A off duty LEO recently shot THREE people for being shoved down by a non verbal disabled man as his parents begged him not too.
He also shot the father and the mother. The mother in the back.

Any LEO off duty would have shot the boyfriend over his hand movements during his one step back.

Now . I'll pose a,question.
There were open spots,all over the place closer to the door than where she was.

Has anyone even considered that when it was pointed out by the defender she,was in a handicap spot, if she had simply moved to one of the other spots, that would have been the end of it as,well?




Oh and we must be looking at a different still shot. The bf isn't turned away when he is shot though he had plenty of time to be .

He only turns after he is shot.
Yes it was a justified shoot.

The shooter was violently thrown to the ground. He does not have to wait until he is stomped , beaten, etc.

Opportinity, ability intent. Those three nessacary things had all already been displayed with no retreat in the face of a drawn weapon.


The drugged up BF turned what would have been an idiotic argument over a parking space into a justifiable SD shooting by illegally attacking the guy. And remaining a step away issuing threats in the face of a , granted slowly drawn and fired weapon .
 
Last edited:

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,425
Location
Florida
And the world is full of entitled idiots, and they breed, and that's the biggest crime

According to what I read, In FL it is an infraction to park in a handicap space without a placard. A person can be fined, and their car towed.

Further: Anyone who obtains or uses a permit that does not belong to them can be charged with a second degree misdemeanor - $500 fine or up to 6 months in jail.

TBG
You're talking about two different things. First, it's a traffic infraction, not a crime worthy of an argument or threat of violence.

Second, if someone obtains or uses a permit that doesn't belong to them, it's not your business: there's already law against it, let law enforcement, enforce it.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,425
Location
Florida
Nope.

The woman was in her car. Arguing , yelling, without some action to accompany it ,even by Fla statute isn't assault , or attack , or anything other than verbal. It's not like she was not giving as good as she,got.
"the woman was in her car, minding her own business, and was approached by a hero with a gun trying to enforce a parking infraction"

There, I fixed it for you.


The jury didn't even understand the case they were judging and TOLD the judge as much . So much for the jury's take.
And?

A off duty LEO recently shot THREE people for being shoved down by a non verbal disabled man as his parents begged him not too.
He also shot the father and the mother. The mother in the back.

Any LEO off duty would have shot the boyfriend over his hand movements during his one step back.
QI

Now . I'll pose a,question.
There were open spots,all over the place closer to the door than where she was.

Has anyone even considered that when it was pointed out by the defender she,was in a handicap spot, if she had simply moved to one of the other spots, that would have been the end of it as,well?
I'll pose a question:
Was the defendant law enforcement? Did the female have any legal obligation to do what the defendant was telling her? No? Ok then.

I'll pose another question:
Has anyone considered this dude has been there numerous times, harassing people that park in handicap spots without a placard?

I'll pose another question:
Have you seen the parking space where the woman parked? Do you know for a fact that the handicap markings were in fact there? Do you know for a fact that they were displayed and painted properly?

Oh and we must be looking at a different still shot. The bf isn't turned away when he is shot though he had plenty of time to be .

He only turns after he is shot.
Yes it was a justified shoot.

The shooter was violently thrown to the ground. He does not have to wait until he is stomped , beaten, etc.

Opportinity, ability intent. Those three nessacary things had all already been displayed with no retreat in the face of a drawn weapon.
Click the link in the OP comment.
After shoving him down, he stood there for a split second. When the gun is "about to be pulled", he steps back, and then continues moving away: retreating, not advanced toward the man on the ground.

Isn't it routinely said on this forum that even the mere presence of a gun is enough most times to quell a situation? ie: open carry? He pulled his gun and the guy backed up. The gun was effective PRIOR to pulling the trigger. If the deceased continued to approach after that, then I don't think this thread is going in the direction it has been going.

The drugged up BF turned what would have been an idiotic argument over a parking space into a justifiable SD shooting by illegally attacking the guy. And remaining a step away issuing threats in the face of a , granted slowly drawn and fired weapon .
Did you know that it's within florida law to use a firearm in self defense under the influence of drugs or alcohol?

The deceased did not initiate the "idiotic argument". You are just upset that the black lady in the car didn't oblige the old white man and move her car, and you're mad that the "drugged up black man" came out to defend the lady from an angry white man putting his nose in someone else's business, shouting, and who knows what he was saying.

So, if he was "two steps away", the shooting would not have been justified then? You must take big steps, because he was more than a "step away". And after the "slow gun draw", the deceased backed up and was almost touching the car.

What threats? Do you have audio?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,682
Location
here nc
Nope.

The woman was in her car. Arguing , yelling, without some action to accompany it ,even by Fla statute isn't assault , or attack , or anything other than verbal. It's not like she was not giving as good as she,got.

The jury didn't even understand the case they were judging and TOLD the judge as much . So much for the jury's take.

A off duty LEO recently shot THREE people for being shoved down by a non verbal disabled man as his parents begged him not too.
He also shot the father and the mother. The mother in the back.

Any LEO off duty would have shot the boyfriend over his hand movements during his one step back.

Now . I'll pose a,question.
There were open spots,all over the place closer to the door than where she was.

Snipppp..

The drugged up BF turned what would have been an idiotic argument over a parking space into a justifiable SD shooting by illegally attacking the guy. And remaining a step away issuing threats in the face of a , granted slowly drawn and fired weapon .
Uh, er LEs the privileged ones, whether on or off duty...only concept applicable is QI

As for drugged up decedent do you have a cite for that conjecture since there is no past history of arrest of the decedent?

Here’s blow by blow from trial

 

Doug_Nightmare

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
530
Not sure a off-duty cop could enjoy QI...
Protects during discretionary acts in official capacity. Cops are always telling us that they are always on-duty.

63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247 summarized

“As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer.

[1]Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people,

[2]and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts…

[3] and owes a fiduciary duty to the public

[4] It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual.

[5] Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official who tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy. Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit-and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears [483 U. S. 372] in the statute.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
Uh, er LEs the privileged ones, whether on or off duty...only concept applicable is QI

As for drugged up decedent do you have a cite for that conjecture since there is no past history of arrest of the decedent?

Here’s blow by blow from trial


This is a quote from the trial.

"Buffington moves on to the autopsy summary. He reiterates that the toxicology report found MDMA and MDA in McGlockton’s system."

There is much more. https://www.tampabay.com/news/pinel...r-parking-lot-shooting-day-4-making-the-case/
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,312
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Not sure a off-duty cop could enjoy QI...
As of 3/28/2019 Ohio law R.C. 9.69 declares:
(B) For purposes of the Revised Code, both of the following apply regarding a law enforcement officer who, by virtue of the officer's employment, commissioning, disposition, appointment, or election as that law enforcement officer, has a responsibility to enforce all or certain laws:
(1) The officer holds public office on a continuing basis and has a continuing duty to enforce those laws.
(2) The officer is always on duty, regardless of whether the officer is, or is not, officially within work hours or officially on the clock.


So the question is since they are on duty 24/7/365 they must be armed. And if armed they are not allowed to be under the influence.

As to your question, in Ohio it would seem so.
 
Top