Florida Man Convicted After Using “Stand Your Ground” Law Defense

Florida gun owner who claimed self-defense convicted


From the very start I seemed to be one of the few 2A supporters that thought this was a bad shoot:

Like many situations that go sideways, this one starts out with two idiots.

Idiot “A” parks in a handicap spot (apparently without proper tags)

Idiot “B” confronts idiot “A” to tell her she’s an idiot.

What does idiot “B” think the best outcome of this confrontation will be?  We already know the worst outcome.


Why do that?

Yes, idiot “B” was assaulted by the victim,  but the assault stopped.

“Stand Your Ground” laws encourage shootings in situation that did not have to have a shot fired.

Taking a human life when the outcome without shooting would be two people going home alive?

Parents don’t have a child, children won’t have their father.

The shooter??

He’s fucked.

Rest of his life he’s a convicted felon.  Good luck with the civil suit.

4 comments on “Florida Man Convicted After Using “Stand Your Ground” Law Defense

  1. […] THE TRANSOM Bacon Time: Florida Man Convicted After Using Stand Your Ground Defense 357 Magnum: Given Enough Bad Press, Even The Clueless Will Come To Their Senses EBL: He Said, Xi […]

  2. corsair red says:

    The guy on the ground should have stopped running his mouth long before this happened. When he was on the ground he was no longer threatened by the man who pushed him.

    Stand your ground means that when you have no possibility of avoiding an attack you may defend yourself. It does not you mean you can engage in a wild west shootout. The man on the ground could have, and should have, gotten up and walked away.

    He committed a murder, pure and simple. He should never see daylight again.

  3. Sailorcurt says:

    Agreed; the guy on the ground pulled the gun, the attacker immediately started backing away, only AFTER that did the guy on the ground shoot.

    The Jury made the right call.

    With that said, this case, as with most of them the media harps on, had nothing to do with stand your ground. I know the idiot Sheriff at the outset said “stand your ground” is why he didn’t charge the guy immediately, but just because the Sheriff doesn’t understand the law doesn’t make this case about what the Sheriff said it was about.

    For Stand your ground to apply, self defense has to be established first. The first question is “did the shooter have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm?” That question justifies shooting the attacker. If the answer is “yes”, then they could move to the question of potential escape routes. Stand your ground just removes the entire discussion about escape routes because it removes the duty to retreat. It DOES NOT CHANGE the standard for legitimate self defense. If you shouldn’t have shot the guy at all, it doesn’t matter whether you had a duty to retreat or not.

    The whole question here is “does this shooting meet the elements of self defense?” The answer is no because as soon as he presented the gun, the attacker backed off. There was no imminent threat at the time the trigger was pulled so there was no need to use deadly force in self defense.


    Duty to retreat had no role.

  4. bkhuna says:

    You have the whole stand your ground defense wrong. A shooter can
    claim stand your ground tntil they’re blue in the face but the state determines whether the claim is valid.

    Florida officials found no basis i.p.o for application of the statute.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s