Quote:
|
They weren't wrong because they didn't retreat, they were wrong because they grossly esclated the situation. Had the kid fought toe to toe and killed the guy he probably would've gotten manslughter,
|
If you think that manslaughter would have been appropriate, then you should be opposing this bill. That's because the only reason he would have been charged is that he could have removed all danger by retreating. The bill eliminates the requirement for retreat, thereby removing the grounds for even a manslaughter charge.
Quote:
|
The other guy thought it was legit to start shooting with 12 feet of distance between them, that is not really a defensable position either especially since the guy was only barking at him.
|
I agree. Yet the killer was acquitted.
Remember, according to the killer himself, the only threat he perceived was the verbal "I'm going to fuck you up!" and the possibility of a shiny object in the the homeless man's hand. He killed the guy (whether he tried to retreat or not is debatable since the only witness is dead) and was acquitted.
Quote:
|
Also you are showing me you have no knowledge of what constitutes a felony,
|
Regardless of whether you or I know best what a felony is, Florida juries are interpreting "reasonable threat of forcible felony" quite broadly, and as a result are acquitting people for killing for very minimal reasons.
Cases where killers get off scott free like in the motel shooting case happen here often, and it's not really news anymore.