A man claiming self-defense shot another man to death at a Walmart near my house...

[Gravitycollapse]

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_southeast_valley/chandler/police-identify-victim-in-shooting-at-walmart-in-chandler

CHANDLER, AZ - Authorities said one man is claiming self-defense as his reason for shooting another man inside a Chandler Walmart.

Joseph Favazzo, spokesman for the Chandler Police Department, said the fight occurred Saturday at 4:08 p.m. at the service counter inside the Walmart near Alma School and Warner roads.

Authorities said 25-year-old Kyle Wayne Quadlin and 36-year-old Kriston Charles Belinte Chee, got into a verbal argument that quickly turned physical, said police.

Quadlin was losing the fight and pulled out his gun because he "was in fear for his life," he reportedly told police.

Oddly enough I was out at a bar last night with friends and witnessed some piece of shit bully pull a knife on the doorman and threaten to cut his throat (fortunately he was immediately arrested). These kind of people go into the world looking for a fight. They're looking for an excuse to kill someone.

[pipoman]

1. This will likely come down to

Who started the fight, i suspect that is why he hasn't been arrested. Walmart undoubtedly has the entire thing on camera.

Update the post when story comes out please.

[Gravitycollapse]

2. You cannot use deadly force because you're in a fist fight.

Regardless of who started it.

[reusrename]

4. Stand your ground you definitely can.

You just have to get scared, which isn't too difficult for a coward with a gun.

[Gravitycollapse]

6. Stand your ground laws require a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm or death.

Not just a fear that you're going to get a black eye.

[reusrename]

11. First, no one was trying to kill anyone before the gunshot.

But the law is very clear. The chickenshit "is presumed" to have a reasonable fear.


The law requires proof that the fear was not reasonable. In this particular case, I'm pretty sure that this guy he picked a fight with could have crushed him if he had wanted to.

[X_Digger]

41. Really? Please show me the section of law that says that.

There are no changed 'presumptions' re reasonable fear with SYG. Perhaps you're thinking of Castle Doctrine, where when someone breaks into your house at O'dark-thirty, you don't have to make sure of an intruder's intentions before using deadly force.

[reusrename]

43. Sure, this is from FL:

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

[X_Digger]

44. Quote the whole thing, please..

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
...
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

Now, looking at the actual SYG statute:

Same page, lower down..

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Notice the lack of 'presumptions'? It would not say 'if he or she reasonably believes' if there was a presumption of such.

The presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear only applies in one's home, in case of unlawful entry.


But since we're talking about Arizona:

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/00411.htm

A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.

B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.

Again, nothing about presumptions here.

[reusrename]

46. Why hasn't anyone been charged yet then?

It used to be if you shot someone dead in a mall you'd be arrested. It used to be illegal. It used to be self-defense had to be asserted after a charge was made.

Can you really not see the difference here? I mean it's a pretty substantial change from before SYG.

[X_Digger]

48. No, it didn't "used to be" that way at all.

Variations per case, per jurisdiction, heck per income bracket- all lead to different outcomes in cases.

Foggy recollections of the past don't make good policy.

Yes, SYG was a change- it removed the duty to retreat that some states had imposed.

That's it- no presumptions changed.

[reusrename]

52. You're just not seeing the truth.

It also makes it legal to hide a gun, pick out the most athletic man in the bar, and start a physical altercation with him with no fear of losing the fight not any fear of legal ramifications. The Treyvon case was not some fluke. There are a lot, it turns out, of sick bastards that dream of shooting someone.

Have you seen this interview with Dunn's neighbor?

Don't tell me these chickenshit cowards have always been encouraged to shoot people who are bigger and stronger than they are. Why should any law permit it?

[X_Digger]

87. Those goal posts must be heavy, why not set them down for a bit.

The law isn't what you say it is? Move the goalposts. Things aren't 'as they used to be'? Move 'em again.

Now it's telepsychology?

Did the hat come with the kit?

[NickB79]

80. No reasonable fear of serious bodily harm or death?

I invite you to google "man beaten to death in store", or any variation of said search term.

The news is full of articles of people beaten to death or seriously injured every day.

[pipoman]

5. You most certainly can

fist fighting is extremely dangerous. Iirc, more people die from other people's hands and feet than from long guns. Street fighting ends in death or great bodily harm often, thus fear for one's life.

[Gravitycollapse]

9. Approximately 12 times more people die annually from firearms than from fists or feet.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl09.xls

I assume you already know this and that is the reason why you oddly chose to only address long guns rather than pistols and revolvers.

[pipoman]

12. No I chose long guns because it is true. .

So at least you are acknowledging that hands and feet are deadly now.

[Gravitycollapse]

16. You chose long guns because it gives the false perception that fists are deadlier than guns.

As I'm sure you're fully aware. You probably don't even possess statistics on the number of fatalities relative to the number of fist fights.

The only reasonable guess is that there are many, many times more fist fights than gun fights (an uncontroversial statement). Since the number of deaths from fists and feet are only a fraction of the deaths from firearms, it's pretty safe to say that the percentage of fist fights that result in a fatality are extremely low.

[pipoman]

26. From your own link.

There were 745 people killed by hands and feet, a little over 2 per day, and that doesn't include the comas and Paralysis and brain injury, etc. The point is that a street fight can evoke fear for one's life. That is the only point.

[Gravitycollapse]

31. Fighting a man at a Walmart register in the middle of the afternoon is not a street fight.

[pipoman]

77. The result is exactly the same, it isn't a boxing match either. .

[Politicalboi]

30. Unless of course

It's the cops beating the shit out of ya. But this guy should go to jail. He was in a Walmart not some dark alley with no escape.

[pipoman]

78. Funny how people can jump to

Such conclusions with no more information than is available in this story.

[NickB79]

79. Getting beaten in Walmart is somehow less dangerous than a back alley?

Granted, at Walmart there's the theoretical chance someone would intervene and help break up the fight, but clearly here NO ONE DID.

Hell, google "man beaten to death in store" and you get TONS of news articles about people killed in similar situations.

[Logical]

23. You know good and well it is only because there are many more...

Fist fights. Not because they are more dangerous!

Try to be less biased.

[pipoman]

29. It's not whether they are more dangerous,

The question is, is it dangerous enough to bring reasonable fear for one's life or limb...the answer is yes.

[Logical]

32. If I was on the jury the guy better have not escalated it at all! nt

[cui bono]

76. Then let's solve both problems at once and amputate everyone's hands.

[oldhippie]

10. I think you need to read the actual laws .....

.... and not think they are what you want them to be. In most states you can most definitely use deadly force if you are in a fist fight.

[JVS]

13. Yes you can.

You can't use it as retaliation for a punch, but you can use it to stop an ongoing attack.

If you ever find yourself in a fist fight, remember that unless you disengage from the fight you can legally be shot.

[X_Digger]

25. Err, you definitely can, even before SYG.

'reasonable belief of imminent death or grave bodily harm' -- getting your face caved in counts.

What, you have some macho idea of 'fisticuffs'?

[Lizzie Poppet]

63. That's not the case everywhere.

Where I live (Oregon), the standard for use of deadly force in self-defense is:

(1)Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person.
(ORS § 161.219¹)

While I can't imagine a situation in which someone would want to fist fight me, if it were to take place I might well be in danger of my life. I'm quite small, so most any fully grown male (and a lot of women) could kill me with their bare hands. A fist fight between a couple of big guys isn't likely to be a lethal situation, but if there's a big mismatch is size and strength, it's a different story.

[Bandit]

85. Tell that to the Zimmerman jury

[reusrename]

3. The dead man was a champion brick layer.

Some chickenshit coward with a gun picked a fight with him and then shot him dead cause he was scared.

How does anyone support this cowardly bullshit?

[pipoman]

7. Where does it say that?

I am thinking that there wasn't an arrest because the deceased started the fight...I may be wrong. ..

[reusrename]

14. There's a short video.

The reporter says that witnesses, including the dead man's wife, say that the dead man stepped in to protect her from the gunman. The reporter also said the dead man had won competitions for brick laying. I know some masons, and nobody that I know would ever start anything with them.

[pipoman]

19. But would thy start anything with someone else?

I don't know, I will look at the video. I would think that the guy would be arrested by now if the evidence shows he started the fight...could be wrong.

[reusrename]

21. It sounds like he started some argument with the guy's wife.

When the guy stepped in to defend his wife he was shot dead.

Under stand your ground this is probably legal.

[JVS]

27. The real split between stand your ground and not would be illustrated when we get to the question...

of whether either party attempted to disengage.

If the shooter can demonstrate that he attempted to escape the fight at any point after it started, then even in a non-SYG state he has a plausible claim to self defense.

If the shooter can be shown to have returned to the fight several times of his own volition (i.e. wasn't dragged back or chased) then in a non-SYG state he has greatly impared his claim to self defense. He would need to claim that it was in the last moment that he realized that he was in danger. For example if the deceased held him and proceeded to repeatedly strike him then he could plausibly claim that

[X_Digger]

28. There seems to be a gap in your statement..

Argument with the man's wife, man steps in and one or the other started swinging, then he was shot dead.

What it'll likely come down to is who swung first. Arguing with a man's wife is not grounds for taking a beating.

[JVS]

34. I think there are a few more questions.

Who swung first is the biggie.

Then there are

1. Did anyone attempt to get out of the fight?

2. Did either party restrain the other in the process of the fight to hinder them from leaving the fight?

3. Did either party have an indication that the other was willing to stop fighting?

4. Was the shooter being subject to some kind of violence when he shot or had he returned to a fight that had broken off and retaliate by shooting the other man?

[X_Digger]

35. All good questions, yep. n/t

[reusrename]

49. So if he pretend to try and get away he gets to legally kill the guy.

These chickenshit cowards who do shit like this have the law on their side. They really do. If it were open carry and the victim knew the guy was strapped, that would change everything. But some chickenshit with a gun hidden on them starting shit just so they can end it with violence is bullshit. What purpose is served here?

[JVS]

50. Pretend to try to get away? How does one do that?

[reusrename]

54. You lay on the ground with the guy on top of you and yell "HELP!"

At least that's how Zimmerman did it. And don't try to tell me he was in fear for his life. Not once has he ever said that the Martin boy was trying to kill him. And there's a reason he never made that claim. Because it never happened and it sounds ridiculous.

[JVS]

55. If someone is on top of you, you've already fulfilled your obligation to retreat. So I don't see...

why you're complaining about SYG. It seems that your problem is with self defense in general.

[reusrename]

56. How is it self defense to hold someone so they can't get away and then shoot them?

He wanted to kill that kid. That's why he followed him. That's why he had a gun. The ONLY reason he had a gun.

[JVS]

58. You're talking about laying down and yelling for help as a way to fake trying to get away.

And we're not talking about Zimmerman, but rather this case in Walmart. If this guy in walmart faked getting away by laying and screaming as you say, that would constitute a situation where he has no duty to retreat because retreat is not possible when pinned down.

[reusrename]

61. No one says he pretended to try and get away.

But it isn't that difficult. Just back into a wall. Intentionally. These killers are monsters. They do shit like this. They dream about it.

[JVS]

62. If he's backing off, the other guy has no business following him to pursue a fight. That is the...

textbook example of "retreat to the wall" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_to_the_wall

We're discussing a hypothetical here because details are scarce in this case, but your idea that there is fake retreat and real retreat is BS. There is either retreat or continuation. If a person advances further on someone who has been backed to the wall or to the ground they are putting themselves at risk of being killed within the rules of self defense and not just in an SYG state, but anywhere in the country.

[reusrename]

66. I understand the law. I get it. And the law makes this particular type of murder legal.

That's my whole point. You're just either being intentionally obtuse or your not following the plot.

Pretend I'm a chickenshit coward and I dream of killing some big tough guy because I was bullied in high school or some such. I'm just a defective asshole like these guys making the news. I get me a permit, a Glock, start a fight with a big guy, back up to the wall, and when he continues coming at me shouting in the heat of the moment...

bang, bang, bang, three rounds to the heart.

And it's ALL PERFECTLY LEGAL.

There's guy who get off thinking about this kind of thing. I've known some. And I recognize it in that Dunne character and that Zimmerman asshole.

[JVS]

71. Or pretend you're just some guy getting severely pummeled by a guy who is strong from...

Last edited Tue Feb 18, 2014, 08:37 AM - Edit history (1)

laying bricks and has done time before. http://www.azcorrections.gov/inmate_datasearch/results_Minh.aspx?InmateNumber=202680&LastName=CHEE&FNMI=K&SearchType=SearchInet

If we're going to speculate on what happened, that is a possibility worth considering.

So far the police say it looks like a legitimate case of self defense and the county da is looking it over. What is wrong with a person to protect themselves? Do people have a right to beat the hell out of those who are weaker than them without fearing for their own safety?

There is a very simple way to avoid getting shot in these circumstances: don't brawl with people.

[reusrename]

72. Sounds like bullshit to me.

If he were "severely pummeled by a guy who is strong from laying bricks" he'd be in intensive care with tubes in every orifice. Clearly no one was trying to kill this armed coward.

The only real solution to avoid getting shot in public by these mad dogs is don't go out in public.

Do you really believe that the Martin boy was "brawling" and that's why he's dead?

[pipoman]

82. Could it be that his self defense is why he isn't

"in intensive care with tubes in every orifce."? I don't know what happened exactly, nor do you. I can see a scenario where at the Walmart a woman cuts in line or some other such, a guy says something about it, and her husband who believes he is a tough guy steps in and takes the argument physical.

Apparently you agree that a fist fight can result in great bodily injury, you just believe the strongest man should win, the other man should take a beating like a man, regardless the circumstances.

[bluestate10]

17. With SYG laws it doesn't matter WHO started the fight. The person with the gun that kills

wins. Even if other people were witnessing the shooter start the fight, the issue is the fight itself. Once the shooter decides to fire the gun, the fear for life defense comes in to play in states that have SYG laws. Witnesses can't attest to the state on mind of the shooter. I am ok with the castle doctrine where people can protect their home and property, but extending that concept to public spaces is acts of complete fucking insanity.

I promise you, it won't be long before the son, daughter, sister, brother, parent, relative of lawmakers that pass SYG lows get murdered by a person that recognized they could get away with murder because of the SYG law. A woman or man may have a romantic rival, as long as that rival plans the killing well, he or she can find a reason to kill the rival and walk free.

[reusrename]

36. One small but important correction.

From the Zimmerman case, experts can now attest to the state of mind of the shooter:

O'MARA: So, Mr. Root, based upon your training and experience, and knowing what you knew about the facts surrounding the event that night, particularly at the moment of the gunshot, did Mr. Zimmerman have any other options?

ROOT: Based on my knowledge and understanding of him, the environment, the situation, the totality of everything, I don't believe he did.

This is what the jury was looking for. An expert to tell them what was going on in Zimmerman's mind when he chose to shoot the Martin boy. Nobody really wants to judge someone else, but they can easily hang their hat on this bullshit.

[cvoogt]

38. SYG = Stroke Your Gun

The refuge of cowards.

[JVS]

15. "Picked a fight" is that like the assault equivalent to rape's "asking for it"?

[reusrename]

20. From what I can tell he started some altercation with the dead man's wife.

That's a pretty sure-fire way to pick a fight, at least it is anywhere I've ever been.

[JVS]

24. Was it a violent altercation or not?

You can't assault someone for arguing with your wife.

[reusrename]

42. Yeah, you're right.

The chickenshit coward with the gun had every right fuck with the guys wife, and when the guy tried to get him to stop, he had every right to continue, and as soon as it got physical he had every right to shoot the poor bastard.

I'm not arguing with you. I agree. It's the new reality of the law. Fuck that poor bastard and his family, too. This is exactly what happened to the law as a prelude to fascism.

And that chickenshit coward dreamed about this day every moment that he carried his concealed weapon around, he's finally got his satisfaction. I just don't see it as something to cheer about.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

51. I'll wait for more details.

You say "fucked with his wife" - we have no idea what the altercation was or what it was about.

Maybe the wife cut in front him and he called her on it. Maybe the husband played macho asshole and attacked the guy for speaking up..

I'll wait for the video.

[reusrename]

53. Yeah, that's right. Maybe the wife or the dead guy were being assholes.

So he shot him. And why not? It's perfectly legal and all.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

59. The cops say he was losing the fight.

Whatever that means.

But if it means there is video of the guy getting his head smashed in during a fight he didn't start then I'm ok with him shooting.


I don't carry a gun. I have been in a handful of fights in my life - mostly schoolyard BS.

But there were two times when I was in fights with strangers and I'll tell you, it's a frightening experience knowing if you get put down on the ground you would be at their mercy and could get killed.

My parents had a friend killed outside a bar in a fistfight.

I've had friends gay-bashed coming home from the bars.

[reusrename]

60. I still think if you have concealed gun, you should have more responsibility.

It's just common sense, especially when we know that these guy who are murdering people are initiating the confrontation.

It's simple, really. Either open carry or avoid starting arguments or lose the gun.

And no, I'm not for open carry, I've seen that first hand. But it's better than SYG. A lot better.

[Lizzie Poppet]

64. I strongly agree.

I carry...and I take particular care to be polite to people because of it. Because chances are I'd be unable to effectively defend myself with my tiny little fists and feet (I'm a shrimp...) if a verbal altercation turned physical, I'd have little choice but to use a weapon if couldn't run away. That creates a responsibility to avoid those verbal altercations if I can.

[reusrename]

65. Thank you, that's all I'm saying.

Only decent people like you should have guns in the first place.

[bluestate10]

8. I have gotten to the point that if I bump in to someone, I immediately apologized, not

that I didn't do that during the past, but today, in some state, people are walking around with gun, waiting for someone to piss them off.

[reusrename]

18. Your post reminds me of when I lived in Los Angeles.

Everyone, including myself, drove offensively until they started shooting folks dead over road-rage. For a while it became "after you" no, no, "after you."

[LAGC]

45. "An armed society makes for a polite society."

[Cali_Democrat]

22. Why do people need to carry a gun inside Walmart?....

...proving once again gun nuts are some of the most cowardly pieces of shit to ever walk the Earth.

No doubt the coward with the gun felt emboldened that he had a gun..he likely started the altercation and started firing away when he was getting his ass kicked.

Cowardly piece of filth.

[LittleBlue]

33. He's justified if he was defending himself from death or

"grievous bodily harm".

If that's the case, I've no problem with it.

[Chief D]

37. Wait! Doesn't this mean???

Doesn't this mean that the laws supporting this type of behavior is for cowards. "I'm getting my ass kicked, so I better pull out a gun and kill you". Not just shoot you because if I only wound you, you might come back and kick my ass again. So, the way I see it is the law is for the cowardly wimp bully that goes out looking for a fight, and as we say in the South, "writes a check that his ass can't cash!"

[pipoman]

83. Or it equalizes a situation

Where a tough guy who likes beating weaker people "writes a check his ass can't cash".

[Jenoch]

39. Do you have more details than those in the link?

Right now, I don't see enough details to make any assumptions about this altercation.

[TorchTheWitch]

40. who are you referring to when you say "these kinds of people"

We don't even know yet what happened... who started the fight or what was happening at the point that the man pulled the trigger. It very well might have been legitimate self-defense. You're just assuming that it was the shooter who started the fight and couldn't have been in actual fear of his life or severe bodily harm. A fist fight certainly can be deadly. Happens quite a bit. Personally, I'd not want to be beaten up to the point that I end up dying or severely maimed in order to find that out.

Several years ago there was a case in my area where a guy that was thrown out a strip club tried to get back in and the bouncers (or one bouncer) got into a fight with him. One bouncer punched him one time, and the guy fell and cracked his head on the concrete. Two or three weeks later he died in the hospital. One punch.

Wasn't there another case several years ago discussed here that a police officer tasered a woman, she fell and hit her head and died?

Yes, someone can be involved in a fistfight and have a legitimate fear of death or severe bodily harm. I'm not sure why anyone would try to argue that. I'm also not sure why anyone with no facts yet other than the fact that there was a physical fight automatically believes that the shooter started it or that he had no legitimate right to shoot. How about we wait for some actual facts to come out first before assigning blame? Geez, even the police don't know what happened yet.

[earthside]

47. This is insane.

Pulling out and firing a gun inside a store full of innocent people.

Reckless endangerment and probably 2nd degree murder is what the shooter should be convicted of.

This notion that a person can get in a fight and be scared and kill someone is just plain insane.

There just isn't any justification for the direction this culture is heading with this extreme "stand your ground" concept.

This is becoming worse than the caricature of the 'Wild West' where cowboys had to check their six shooters in with the marshall of with he saloon keeper.

Clearly this is all meant to increase fear, increase gun sales, increase killing, increase the power of the NRA and Koch brothers, increase the fanaticism of the gun radicals, etc.

If ever there was a sign of the decline of American culture, it is the rising-up of 21st century gun nuttiness.

[Straw Man]

57. Depends on what you mean by "this"...

This notion that a person can get in a fight and be scared and kill someone is just plain insane.

Yes, but that's not the way the law is written. The person must have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. Who defines "reasonable"? A jury, after hearing the totality of the evidence. Many factors will come into play, including who started the fight, the physical condition of both combatants, and what was physically happening in the altercation at the moment that deadly force was employed.

[reusrename]

68. It's exactly how the law is written.

If the person they pick the fight with is big and strong enough, of course they are going to get hurt. This particular guy was a champion brick layer. I have little doubt that he could have hurt this guy real bad had he wanted to.

What do you think actually is different about stand your ground?

[Straw Man]

69. No. It isn't.

This is the law:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

If the person they pick the fight with is big and strong enough, of course they are going to get hurt. This particular guy was a champion brick layer. I have little doubt that he could have hurt this guy real bad had he wanted to.

"He was a big tough-looking dude" doesn't meet the standard. There's a difference between being scared and reasonably believing you are about to be maimed or killed. It's for the jury to determine. There are many factors to be considered.

"Stand your ground" merely removes the "duty to retreat." That's all. Any self-defense case is going to be plagued by the uncertainty about whether deadly force was necessary, SYG or not.

[reusrename]

70. This may never see a jury.

You do see the main difference but you completely miss the significance.

Before stand your ground they had a duty not to escalate a confrontation.

Now, under the new stand your ground, they can initiate, escalate, and terminate a confrontation.

And it's all perfectly legal.

It is not "merely" a duty to retreat, it's a duty to be a human being instead of a premeditated monster.

[Straw Man]

84. I think it will. In any case, you're still misinterpreting the law.

Before stand your ground they had a duty not to escalate a confrontation.

Please show me where that duty was defined in the statute. It never existed: only duty to retreat at such time as deadly force would have been warranted had an avenue of retreat not been available, in other words, at such time as death or serious bodily harm was imminent.

Self-defense with deadly force is only justified when one has a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. Some people may think SYG gives them the immunity that you describe, the "I was scared" defense. They are wrong and you are wrong. They belong in jail.

Death or serious injury has to be imminent for SYG to be successfully claimed as a defense. Very few sane people would place their own lives in jeopardy in order to justify the killing of another human being.

Please stop promoting this misinterpretation of the law. It helps create the climate of confusion that leads to more such incidents.

[xfundy]

67. The last lard-laden bucket of fried chicken wings and legs is worth dying over.

Yes, I did scan the messages below. I believe I've found the real motive.

I find it hard to sympathize with those who want to keep&carry when they clash with their own kind. They wanted to set the rules, and played by them. Greasy fingers among both would have been worse case scenario if they'd just learned to share.

This shit is so common it's hard to feel more than "I saw this coming."

[Cha]

73. Damn fucking wild west circa

19th Century. Shoot 'em cowboys.. the nra thanks you for your donation.

[FormerOstrich]

74. Hiya Neighbor!

I live about two miles from this Walmart. I typically avoid shopping at Walmart but occasionally I do stop in (usually at night when everything else is closed).

I don't know how long you have lived here but this doesn't really shock me but I wish it did.

Where was Wal-Mart security? Are they so incompetent they would let a man beat another man to death? It seems more likely one would be fearful for their life in a dark alley with no one around, but in the middle of the day at Wal-Mart. That store is always jam-packed during the day. Did the self defense shooting warrant putting so many other lives at risk?

[gwheezie]

75. If only the wife had a gun

she could claim she feared for her life and shot the guy who killed her husband. Then maybe the guy standing in the next line could be scared because of this woman shooting someone and if only he had a gun, he could kill her. I could see how there could be one really scared person left alive. It seems in these situations the only person scared is the one who did the shooting.

[blueamy66]

81. We lived across the street for 15 years

My niece went there with her 3 little guys yesterday, only to find it closed.

Thank God she wasn't inside when it happened.

I hate guns.

[Javaman]

86. one day soon...

someone is going to go postal and take out a bunch of people then claim it was a "stand your ground" situation.

if that person walks, then it will be open season.

what we are seeing now are the previews to the main attraction.

[blueamy66]

88. Per all of my friends and family in Chandler and the news....no charges will be filed

I call BS.