You might not have much control over other people's feelings, but I can tell you that any person alive is going to read being blindsided and forcefully thrown to the ground as THREAT. If that same someone that threw them to the ground then advances on them, THREAT. Someone getting out of their car to get in your face, THREAT.
I fail to see where race plays into this at all. Are you trying to argue that if the attacker was white the guy wouldn't have shot?
Someone could just is easily argue it the other way. You don't get a do-over if your assailant kills you. People can and do die every day from head trauma. All it takes it one blow to the head. The "knockout game" comes to mind. Being indecisive is not a risk I'm willing to take.
If we're going to stick to the facts of the case, here are the questions that need to be asked:
1) Would a reasonable person assume that if they called another person out for committing a parking violation, it would lead to a physical confrontation? I would say no - people yell at each other in parking lots all the time. Healthy adults let it go.
2) Would a reasonable person assume that if someone exited a vehicle to confront them on foot, that they are looking to escalate the situation? Pretty easy yes from me - most people feel some level of safety inside their vehicle (and courts have agreed), and leaving the safety of your vehicle to confront someone is an aggressive act. Shooter in this case was not blocking the vehicle in any way, advancing on the vehicle, throwing something at the vehicle, etc., so no reason for her to exit the vehicle.
3) Would a reasonable person interpret being forcefully pushed to the ground as a threat? No shit.
4) Would a reasonable person interpret an attacker, who has already forced you to the ground, further advancing on you in a compromised position as a threat? Fair to say that anybody would.
I already said shooter is a fucking idiot. But shoot looks justified to me. Dead guy and his GF both escalated the situation - he by resorting to violence, her by exiting the car - effectively simultaneously. Shooter put himself in a dumb situation, but there wasn't much of an opportunity to de-escalate. A gun is not a good way to de-escalate a threatening situation, but it's a damn good way to end it.
Your #2. Why would a reasonable person under some circumstances exit the vehicle under similar circumstances?
To ftf negotiate the de-escalation of the event (because ftf you can see and read de-escalation body language),
to move the potential escalation away from the vehicle where children were, ie, protect the children from the event (sure, driving away would do the same thing... but.... under FL SYG, she had no obligation to drive away.),
or perhaps legitimately in the parking place, to remove the discussion away from the children, because its obvious she was dealing with an asshole and she didnt want the children subjected to it....
Each person's view will be different based on their beliefs, opinions, and previous experiences, ftf is always normally "the preferred negotiation method" in most real life situations. It is DNA ingrained.
Normal people respond the same way as young adults as they did on the school playground.
As people age and experience difficulties, they change their approach to reduce conflict if they learn from their previous experiences.
Ymmv,
I worked LE 38 years, dealt with this junk more than I care to think about, and I have worked with defense lawyers since from the other side.
This case, in todays world was a slam dunk prosecution conviction. White man (armed) (not handicapped) with absolutely ZERO authority who has repeatedly tried to enforce a parking lot VIOLATION (not misdemeanor or felony)(something LE issues a "citation" for, not arrestable.) , hostile-ly approaches a woman and children to illegally try to enforce a parking lot violation, escalates the confrontation when she does not acquiesce to his illegal approach, and causes witnesses concern, enough to make them go inside and say something that causes the man to go outside and push the rough looking irrationally arguing white man away from his family member.
And THEN be STUPID enough to tell the world, "It was all about my 'pet peeve'".... put the rope around your neck fool....
Pick the right jury, some women, minorities, and liberal people and a conviction is TOO EASY, especially in todays society.
Pick a well groomed attractive liberal discipled believer of a prosecutor who can sell himself and see the defendant go to jail.
Be a rough looking middle aged white man with a burly surly looking defense attorney and reduce your chances on appearances alone. An attractive Latino female lawyer would have had a much better chance of getting a better result.
The posted news pictures show much of what I describe...
Ymmv, feel free to disagree and believe what you want in this case, but in any case, be very aware that appearances are critical, the appearance of aggression, the appearance of continued aggression (this case in spades on both sides), and the appearance to 12 people who have no clue to real world court shenanigans and the lengths a prosecutor will go depending on their zealous belief in a particular law and their career path.
Our world is changing, and this case should be a warning to every ccw carrier out there. You will see more convictions of people like US who think reasonably like PolarisBreach does.
Even if he had been the defense lawyer, his reasoned arguments above (that make sense to most of us), would have carried ZERO weight with that jury. That jury....
Which gave the defendant the benefit of the doubt and convicted him of manslaughter rather than murder.
All of you use this case on what NOT to do, from either side, you approach someone, or they approach you...
Please....
