Sheriff Bob Gualtieri: Clearwater shooting fits 'Stand Your Ground'

[Firemedic2000]

[Youtube]9nFtxkJ7ywg[/Youtube]



Gotta say, if I was presented this evidence as a juror I would not hesitate to convict the guy of some form of murder. It did not have to escalate to actually shooting the guy, when the gun came out the party was obviously over. The now dead person could have reasonably assumed the person in the car was in danger from this apparently known loudmouth asshole troublemaker with a gun and pushed him in an attempt to deescalate.

Even if it fell within the guide lines. Then you'd would be no better than the liberals that are protesting everything we stand for. You can not let emotion guide you in a SITUATION like this.

Your just assuming on what. The video clearing shows who the victim was and the attacker was. The attacker did not know he was armed. You cannot assume anything or put words into other peoples mouth if you were not there.

It's no better than when a black person shoots a white person. Do you honestly think that if it had been a black person that shot a white person in the same exact situation that this would even have gotten 10 mins of NEWS coverage.

I seriously doubt it. This is simply being exploited by an anti gun Sheriff. Pinellas County SHERIFF is one of the most anti gun SHERIFF'S in Florida. He knows exactly what he's doing. He could have arrest the man.

But did not. This SHERIFF saw an opportunity to use this shooting to push his anti gun adgenda. The STAND YOU GROUND LAW works as well as putting the burden of proof on the crimnal justice system.

But none of these corrupt agencies like or want this. They believe that ALL AMERICAN ARE GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. Not INNOCIENT till proven guilty. Prosecutors are trash. They do not care about the truth.

They care only about numbers and getting convictions. How many innocient people have been put into jail because prosecutors with held evidence.

Then later this come to light. Just to get a conviction notch added to their grip.

This shooting is being used as nothing but a political ploy by the anti gun left to try and get good self defense laws abolished here in Florida.

Don't forget it was Pinellas County. That tried to pass a law several years ago banning so called ASSAULT Rifles. Until they were warned they could not do that under Florida law.

I've shot with deputies from Pinellas at Gun Craft. That Sheriff hires deputies with their own ideas about the civilian ownership of firearms and it's not in our best interest.

They believe that no CIVILIAN should have access to firearms. Because it makes their job easier and safer. We are not to be trusted with guns in their minds. Alot of these new deputies I've met are college educated also and NOT FROM FLORIDA.

But right or wrong if presented with the law and this shooting fell within this law. You must rule innocient. If you say guilty just because you did not like the law.

Then you are no better than the liberals attacking people in the streets just because they do not like everything else we do.

You want to change the law then get out and do something about. Go side with the DEMOCRATS and vote DEMOCRATS.

Because it was GOP conservations that pushed for these laws and got them passed to protect Floridians from corrupt anti gun prosecutors Law Enforcement Agencies that was ruining peoples lifes.

I don't condone what this man did or even like him. But also there were other people in the video to coming maybe to aid in the beat down. Watch and once he shot they turned butt and went the other direction.

But to just assume a person is automatically guilty because you don't like them. Well be careful there.

One day that person could be you and the NEWS MEDIA could paint you in the same light. All because they are the racist ones.

Not you just because you defended yourself against a black person.

Again the Sheriff could have and didn't arrest this man and let the courts decide if it was a SYG shooting. But decided to use this whole affair to push HIS ANTI GUN ADGENDA

So let ask all of you here. How many believe the SYG law should be repealed. Because it seems alot of people would prosecute this man EVEN IF IT FELL INTO THE SYG GUIDE LINES

[NorincoKid]

So let ask all of you here. How many believe the SYG law should be repealed. Because it seems alot of people would prosecute this man EVEN IF IT FELL INTO THE SYG GUIDE LINES[/b]

I don't think the law should be repealed. From a legal standpoint, if this does fall into SYG and whatnot, it is what it is. A "good shoot" in the eyes of the law. I think there is a certain degree of fuckery involved in this, legally. I see all this just being another way to attack SYG, they'll make a big media circus out of it. I just hope they don't fold to appease loud people.

But morally, I dunno. I think we (gun folk) have responsibilities, one of which being NOT instigating things that could easily escalate into a physical confrontation while packing heat. I think this guy, especially in light of previous incidents with him (The road rage police reports involving firearms, etc) makes the majority of legal, level-headed gun owning Americans look bad.

I think there's lessons to be learned from this...on both sides.

And I'm sure it sounds bad, but I do indeed think (and this isn't directly related to this incident) that some people need to be knocked on their ass or get roughed up sometimes to learn a lesson. I've been on both sides of an asskicking. Learning and teaching. Sometimes words don't work. If I shot everyone who knocked me on my ass (often rightfully so) I'd have a pretty decent body count.

[zeebaron]

Every situation is unique, and there's an obvious logical reason this case is being treated as it is. From what I read, prosecutors are going to try to introduce into evidence and have people testify how much of a bully this guy is.

From the Times this morning, the guy got a team of 3 pro-bono lawyers yesterday. He was going to be stuck with the public defender otherwise.

[FfNJGTFO]

Again the Sheriff could have and didn't arrest this man and let the courts decide if it was a SYG shooting. But decided to use this whole affair to push HIS ANTI GUN ADGENDA

Precisely... a "back door" attempt to push said agenda.

So let ask all of you here. How many believe the SYG law should be repealed. Because it seems alot of people would prosecute this man EVEN IF IT FELL INTO THE SYG GUIDE LINES

First, not to nitpick, but I would stop calling it the "SYG" law. That's what the MSM and the anti's want everybody to call it because it's the term that invokes rage among the sheeples and gets them pushing to repeal it. And none of these cases have anything to do with the SYG portion of the overall law. Although it's a mouthful to say, I really think we need to call it what it is.... the "justifiable use of Deadly force" laws. And, that said, I do not think any of it should be repealed, as I believe all elements of it (including the SYG element) are necessary to ensure that law abiding citizens can defend themselves any place where they might be "at risk." Wherever and whenever I can explain this to anyone willing to listen, I always tell them that SYG is only the part that covers where and when one has a "duty to retreat," given that they have already met the "justifiable use" portion of the law. And that's what's really at issue, here. Was this person justified in his use of deadly force? TBH, I really don't know. I don't know how the victim's movements (furtive or otherwise) will be interpreted in court. And I also don't know what words were/weren't exchanged between the two. I think those things will be what determines if AOJ was met and if the shooter had a "reasonable and well founded fear." But in this case, from what I've seen, so far, I think there may be PC for a trial.

Going forward, I would like to see only one change in the "justifiable deadly force" laws... Instead of the "clear and convincing evidence" standard in order to bring charges against a defendant, I want it to go with the "Beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. It should be difficult to prove that a shooter was not reasonable in their thought processing, unless it's blatantly obvious. Either that, or if a defendant is charged with this and is then, subsequentially, acquitted of those charges, that defendant should be allowed to sue the prosecutor that charged them (Yeah, I know.. fat chance of that). But my point being, there has to be some kind of incentive for the prosecutors to "get it right" and not just charge people on a whim, or because they hate the law. If someone truly is not reasonable in their actions per this law, then they should face charges. But it should be "beyond a reasonable doubt" that brings them to court, and by which a verdict is rendered.

[zeebaron]

I can only think of 3 incidences that the State decided to prosecute people who used the SYG defense: Zimmerman, ex-cop movie theater shooting, and this guy. All, IMHO, were douchebag bullies looking for a fight. Let's not pretend they're just picking who to charge at random, these are all obvious cases where it wasn't clear cut.

[tcpip95]

SYG is not going to be overturned or changed because of this case.

The prosecution will not get a guilty verdict - all it takes is 1 juror.

This guy will go the way of George Zimmerman. He's going to be looking over his shoulder the rest of his life.

[Skoll]

I can only think of 3 incidences that the State decided to prosecute people who used the SYG defense: Zimmerman, ex-cop movie theater shooting, and this guy. All, IMHO, were douchebag bullies looking for a fight. Let's not pretend they're just picking who to charge at random, these are all obvious cases where it wasn't clear cut.

Zimmerman didn't use SYG, I don't know why people keep perpetuating this lie.

[flcracker]

I can only think of 3 incidences that the State decided to prosecute people who used the SYG defense: Zimmerman, ex-cop movie theater shooting, and this guy. All, IMHO, were douchebag bullies looking for a fight. Let's not pretend they're just picking who to charge at random, these are all obvious cases where it wasn't clear cut.

Here's another current case, in which the SYG defense has been denied by a judge:

https://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/cr ... _170882884

TAMPA — George Zachary Chronister may have feared embarrassment when he used a knife to slash and stab another man during a 2017 brawl.

But he wasn’t in fear for his life and well-being, a judge ruled Tuesday.

Hillsborough Circuit Judge Christopher Nash denied a claim from Chronister that he should be immune from prosecution under Florida’s stand your ground law. Chronister, 24, is the son of Hillsborough County Sheriff Chad Chronister.

"The defendant’s use of force was not justified," Nash said.

Chronister, 24, who goes by "Zack," had argued that he feared death or great bodily harm when he used a knife to attack Phillip Manzi.

The pair were on opposite sides of a confrontation between two other men, a beef that grew out of online trash talk over rap music.

Chronister, an amateur rapper known as Zchronik, recorded songs with another musical group, but was said to have released them without sharing credit. A war of words raged through social media and culminated the night of Feb. 26, 2017, in the parking lot of Oakley’s Grille on Bruce B. Downs Boulevard.

It was there that Chronister drove with a friend, Micah Puckett, to fight with Matthew Cerro, who worked the Oakley’s kitchen with Manzi.

Cerro, an experienced fighter with training in wrestling and mixed martial arts, quickly pinned Manzi as the group watched and shouted. Chronister waited in the car, but walked over as the bystanders hurled insults.

Manzi recorded the fight’s final moments with a cell phone. The short video, which was played repeatedly in court last week, shows Cerro grappling with Puckett on the ground in the darkened parking lot as Chronister steps closer. A blade is visible in his left hand.

Manzi is heard shouting.

"What … are you going to do?" he says. "Nothing!"

Chronister then moves toward the camera with his hand raised. The image goes dark.

Defense attorney Ron Darrigo said that there is much more to what went on than just what was captured on the video.

"Obviously what Mr. Chronister did in the video is subject to interpretation," he said. "I think if you listen to and watch the video, the interpretation can be just as bad on the alleged victims."

Darrigo argued that Chronister believed he was going to be attacked next. He said — and, on this, the judge agreed — that Manzi was encouraging Chronister to join the fight.

"It’s reasonable for Zack to believe that great bodily harm was imminent with those circumstances," Darrigo said in closing arguments. "When you’re small, skinny, and you’re not tough, and you’re outnumbered, you’re outmatched by an individual that’s an MMA fighter, grabbing a knife is not unreasonable to protect yourself from great bodily harm."

In denying the stand your ground motion, the judge noted several statements Chronister made during a police interrogation, including a comment that he brought the knife so he wouldn’t get attacked and have a video of the beating posted to Twitter.

"I would rather catch whatever was going to happen to me and defend myself than get beat up and posted on the Internet and embarrassed and humiliated," Chronister said, as quoted by the judge.

The defendant also said he went after Manzi instead of Cerro because Cerro "would kill him."

"Those statements indicate that to the extent that the defendant feared anyone, it was Mr. Cerro and not Mr. Manzi," Nash said. "His fear with respect to Mr. Manzi seemed to be a fear of embarrassment through social media."

Chronister remains charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. A trial date is scheduled for September. If convicted, he could face up to 21 months in prison.

[jjk308]

The shooter now has 3 lawyers. Ready for a 3 ring circus of a trial?

[tcpip95]

The shooter now has 3 lawyers. Ready for a 3 ring circus of a trial?

And McGlockton's family has secured Benjamin Crump (lawyer for Trayvon Martin's family) to add to the circus.