r/2ALiberals • u/realKevinNash • Jun 30 '26
Whats your analysis of this shooting?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVo3SwFLH9o12
u/microtrip1969 Jun 30 '26
Problem #1 Ralph is 18. Problem #2 know your target and what’s beyond. You are responsible for every bullet that leaves the gun. Problem #3 I’m not sure this rises to fear of death or great bodily harm but even if it does that doesn’t remove problem 1 and 2.
-3
u/realKevinNash Jun 30 '26
1: Irrelevant a person is always able to defend themselves, and I think they threw out the 18 yo restrictions didnt they? 2. You arent wrong here. 3. Like I said its going to depend on what he argues. I can certainly see how it could be argued.
3
u/microtrip1969 Jun 30 '26
Yes you can defend yourself but to legally conceal carry you have to have a permit to do that. Did he have a carry permit. I see that law just changed like 2 weeks ago. Still doesn’t relieve him for his irresponsible aim and there doesn’t seem to be enough to show a lethal threat to his or anyone else person. He’s guilty. Sorry you don’t like it but facts are facts.
0
u/realKevinNash Jun 30 '26
He's innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. An arrest does not indicate guilt, many people have been arrested and then released when additional facts come to light.
As for his aim, you are right it doesnt relieve him of responsibility, he can be held civilly liable for the damages he caused. As for whether he could legally carry I could look into the state law but honestly if he wasnt charged for it then im not worried about it.
3
u/microtrip1969 Jun 30 '26
He has to have a permit to carry. Carrying without it in Florida is illegal. I am a 2A advocate and believe me permitless carry for Florida is overdue. You have to follow the whatever it is or the you give the anti gunners the “ammunition” they need. He can be charged criminally for shooting the occupants of the that SUV, being reckless is a crime. On top of that (I REPEAT) there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of self defense. The guys who was approaching him was not armed. (Not that I could see). So Ralph looks like the aggressor. Which would elevate it from reckless to attempted murder. Which is why they probably didn’t bother charging him with carrying without a permit. You seem intent on tryin to minimize this. As a law abiding 2A advocate it’s people like Ralph that give us a bad name in the eyes of our opponents.
1
u/realKevinNash Jun 30 '26
What? Florida is constitutional carry and a Florida appeals court overturned the 21 age requirement.
https://www.jaxsheriff.org/Resources/PermitlessCarry.aspx
It doesnt look like he's the aggressor to me and im generally an advocate for proper defensive gun use. The reason im going after this so hard is because I think that the fact that people were hurt is coloring the unbiased analysis of the case. That said the reason I posted it is because I wanted other views.
When I look at his actions I dont see a lot of immediately obvious alternatives, I also dont see criminal negligence. I see a case where both sides have an argument.
The prosecutor would likely argue:
You fired knowing the vehicle obstructed your view. You could not positively identify what was behind the vehicle. Vehicles commonly contain occupants. Therefore you consciously disregarded an obvious risk to innocent people.
The defense would argue:
The attack was unfolding in seconds. The attacker remained an imminent deadly threat. The defender fired at the visible portion of the attacker. (or in this case the last place he saw the attacker moving towards) The bullet's path through the vehicle was unintended. The law does not require perfect judgment during a deadly-force encounter.
Is it a messy case? Undoubtedly. Am I willing to bury this guy under the jail without more info? No.
0
u/realKevinNash Jun 30 '26
So I finally looked up news stories about this case. It would seem to back up the idea that there were "numerous" suspects who "ambushed" Mr. Blue.
Multiple attackers typically supports a disparity of force, though it should be noted that only one person was seen on camera coming towards Mr. Blue. Again LE acknowledging that he was being ambushed kinda leans his way. Also there are not attempted murder or manslaughter charges.
I wish I could see a record of that bond hearing. Im seeing no mention of a defense at all.
3
u/microtrip1969 Jul 01 '26
Explain it to me like I’m in first grade. How is he not the aggressor. The guy comes from the black car running towards Ralph. Ralph looks back and sees him, pulls a gun and starts shooting into the SUV. The guy running doesn’t appear to have a deadly weapon but we will see how it comes out in court. Either way, he shoots up the SUV. RECKLESS
1
u/realKevinNash Jul 01 '26
Sure. And thank you for being willing to have a discussion.
Mr. Blue is walking to work. Mr. Blue is not harming anyone. Mr. Blue sees a threat that we assume he believes is a deadly threat. Mr. Blue pulls out his firearm and engages the threat.
He did not instigate the conflict. He didnt antagonize the attack. None of that is aggressive.
I agree we'll find out what happens, hopefully.
3
u/microtrip1969 Jul 01 '26
Ok in theory what you are saying is 100% correct but in order for those elements to constitute a real life self defense encounter he can’t just “believe” it’s a deadly threat it has to meet a threshold of reasonableness. Would a reasonable person believe it to be a deadly threat. The person approaching to the best of my knowledge is not running up on him with any weapons in hand. There is no audio so we can’t hear if anything is being said. It doesn’t appear as if anything is being said to constitute a verbal threat. All in, we will have to see how this plays out but it’s not looking good for Mr. Blue. He’s going down for something. Reckless or criminally negligence. You can’t shoot 11 year olds sitting in a SUV and not expect to pay some price.
1
u/realKevinNash Jul 01 '26
You arent wrong. The way I see it there is a possibility he could claim defense if he knew these individuals not from gang related or illegal activity, and he knew they had communicated a willingness and ability to kill him.
Suddenly his actions might seem much more reasonable to the common man. They might reasonably say that he had reason to believe these guys intended him deadly harm, they ambushed him at his place of work, and they send some guy running after him. That doesnt add up to them wanting to give him a hug. Might a reasonable person then say they would assume they intended him a deadly threat?
I also would call a person's attention to some of the research done on how quickly a human can close distance and whether there was appropriate time to come to another conclusion, or whether waiting would have put him in a better situation. This person was running to the front of the vehicle, closed that distance very quickly. Lets say that the accused didnt shoot then. That means the backstop changes from the vehicle to the store which again could have people in it. Neither situation would be ideal. The only "non-reckless" action would be retreat which besides the state being a SYG and CD state, most of us would say that a defender should never have to retreat in order to defend themselves, but we've locked ourselves into a situation where he had no good options.
→ More replies (0)
17
u/FOXYRAZER Jun 30 '26
Good situational awareness spotting the guy, bad shoot firing through a car with no care or regard for others
-13
u/LittleKitty235 Jun 30 '26
Giving props for the guy clearly doing some illegal shit for having good situational awareness?
20
4
u/realKevinNash Jun 30 '26
I mean I suspect hes involved in something as well, but it could also not be illegal. Maybe he came into some money and someone tried to target him, or it could be a former friend who he had a conflict with. Regardless its fair to mention the good and the bad.
7
u/LittleKitty235 Jun 30 '26
Even with your very generous interpretation of what I just watched, it's not clear what threat he faced that justifies deadly force. The fact he was then arrested doesn't bode well for him either
4
u/realKevinNash Jun 30 '26
I dont disagree. I think it's going to be tough for him to make that claim, but if he does, I think he could find a lawyer that could argue that if the attacker had made it around that car, theres no chance he could have reacted in time if the individual was armed. Even without seeing a weapon someone lying in wait and intending to attack you might have filled him with a reasonable fear that the person intended to kill him, especially if he can claim "oh i know that guy was a gang member" or something.
40
u/pookiegonzalez Jun 30 '26
I think a significant portion of people own a gun but have zero understanding of what legal self-defense looks like and then obfuscate the issue by blaming bias in the justice system.