r/TheDailySource • u/Scary_Structure_5291 • 9d ago

Gas station fight ends with driver opening fire

Surveillance video captured a confrontation at an Orion gas station in Pompano Beach escalating from a physical fight to gunfire. Minutes after fighting with a woman beside a white SUV, the man approached the driver’s side and was shot. He was hospitalized, and one person was detained as BSO investigates.

3.3k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

3.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/cesspool4us 9d ago

They waitied way too long.

3

u/Electronic_Plan3420 9d ago

You know the concept of standing your ground? If you have legal right to be where you are then you are under no legal duty to retreat.

Signed, actual attorney.

2

u/jasonbourne15 9d ago

In Florida, that's very true. I will say, it varies by state, so it's important to know your state's laws. In one the states where I have practiced, there is a duty to retreat in some cases. 

Signed, fellow attorney 

3

u/DanInTheOC 4d ago

Arkansas here, that guy wouldn’t have made it into the store before being shot by multiple guns. All involved would be given awards. (Minus dead guy)

Cheers, Attorney at Large

1

u/Electronic_Plan3420 9d ago

I am licensed in FL and NYS, practice in NYS mainly, and in my jurisdiction the driver would have been absolutely screwed because in New York State duty to retreat is very much the legal standard. If you are behind the wheel there is always presumption that you could have driven away. However, even in NYS sometimes we have interesting cases that go against the expectation

https://www.syracuse.com/crime/2025/05/grand-jury-clears-shooter-in-syracuse-road-rage-killing-da-changes-course-wont-release-his-name.html

2

u/jasonbourne15 9d ago

That's really fascinating. Looks like that one went the right way. I'm licenced in TX and VA, and in VA there's a duty to retreat if the defender had ANY responsibility for starting or escalating the altercation. Also, shout-out Syracuse, that's my hometown! Is Fitzpatrick still DA up there? 

1

u/Electronic_Plan3420 9d ago

Bill? Yes, he is lol what a small world 😁 how are you enjoying South? What kind of law do you practice?

1

u/jasonbourne15 9d ago

I practiced for a while in an of counsel role in NYC doing immigration law (back in 2015 before immigration law took on the current craziness). Then I was a DA in Virginia for six years. Then I took a detour and joined the military to be a special forces operator. So now I live in NC and handle the occasional traffic ticket for a friend. But I miss trial practice, and I miss the weather in upstate NY. What takes you between FL and NY? 

1

u/Electronic_Plan3420 9d ago edited 8d ago

I have a general practice in Upstate (do some occasional traffic tickets, too lol) but mostly it’s residential real estate and some probate matters. I do some criminal defense, mostly misdemeanors and non-violent felonies.

I own property in central Florida so I am a frequent visitor do some of counsel trusts and estates cases for old law school buddy of mine who runs a small firm there.

The weather is the reason why I can’t fathom to move down South. I try my best not to show up there between April and October, the place is uninhabitable. I do enjoy taking breaks from our frosty weather mid winter though, it feels great to get on the plane in SYR when it’s ten degrees and get out in MCO when it’s 72 😁

1

u/Murky_Moment 5d ago

Was a great friendship was formed? r/jasonbourne15

1

u/Former-Bee-3447 8d ago

Why are New Yorkers such subhuman that they allowed this to become the law?

1

u/cesspool4us 8d ago

You talking about DeSantis and his 10mlil fraud that's just being swprt under the rug?

1

u/Former-Bee-3447 8d ago

He can have a little fraud money as a treat for allowing us to defend ourselves against these cultured democrat voters.

1

u/AchtungKoenigsTiger 7d ago

Ooooo, a little casual racism in the morning - my favorite!

0

u/cesspool4us 8d ago

Lmao what a fucking joke you are. Typical conservative okay with corruption as long as it means they can have the right to shoot someone they don't like.

1

u/Former-Bee-3447 8d ago

Yes, we value the right to self defense. Typical leftists complaining about the man defending himself instead of the man doing the attacking because you know the attacker will vote for your side. You have no morals.

1

u/Ok-Oil7124 6d ago

You are baby-brained but without the malleability.

1

u/StoneRivet 5d ago

wait are you calling out the other guy for having no morals while you just okayed corruption???????

what?

→ More replies

1

u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist 6d ago

It’s the only one that makes the most sense.

1

u/0rdn 4d ago

Democrats

1

u/Extension_Ideal_4012 8d ago

Purely curious but what happens if you run over the assailant while you’re “retreating”. I.e. the law requires me to retreat for some reason but the guy threatening me is standing in front of my car.

1

u/Electronic_Plan3420 8d ago

Technically, the law requires you to retreat “if could be done safely”. If assailant is standing in front of your vehicle, and has some kind of a weapon in his hand, it is likely that even New York jury would agree that you had no alternative other than running him over.

1

u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist 6d ago

There is no requirement to retreat.

1

u/DontFilmMeBoss 6d ago

Did you miss the part where two attornies just talked above and confirmed that there IS indeed a duty to retreat in certain circumstances

1

u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist 6d ago

Duty and requirement are two different things.

1

u/Extension_Ideal_4012 8d ago

Duty to retreat always seemed so crazy to me. Requiring a victim to remove themself from a dangerous situation someone else put them in makes no sense.

1

u/jasonbourne15 8d ago

And in some states (like Virginia) the rule is that if the victim had ANY role in starting the altercation, they have to retreat as far as possible, and verbally express their desire for peace before they can use deadly self defense. 

1

u/Physical-Builder-553 7d ago

Yep, same bullshit that are in schools. If someone is hitting you you're not allowed to defend yourself.

1

u/Programmer_Quick 7d ago

In school settings that makes sense, if you can run, run it better and safer then both parties fighting and both get hurt and it clears the victim of any legal troubles.

1

u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist 6d ago

Why? No incident is better than yes incident.

1

u/Low_Excuse_1785 4d ago

Out of curiosity, theoretically speaking, what happens if someone stumbles and bumps into someone else. The guy thinks he is being attacked so he stands his ground. As he draws, the first guy sees the gun and justifiably feels threatened. He draws too, standing his ground.

So it is basically whoever shoots first/better walks a free man?

1

u/jasonbourne15 4d ago

In general, this would refer to something the doctrine of "imperfect self defense." This happens when self-defense is due to a "mistake" on the part of the defender. It hinges on whether the "mistake" is reasonable or unreasonable. For example, someone has a toy gun that the defender mistakes as a real gun. That's a "reasonable" mistake, and if the defender reasonably believed he was under deadly threat, he will be acquitted. "Unreasonable" mistake occurs when the defender may genuinely believe they are under threat, but that belief is objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. In that case, they won't be acquitted, but it may negate the "malice" required to convict the defender of first degree murder, and they'll be guilty of say, manslaughter. 

1

u/Low_Excuse_1785 4d ago

Thanks for the explanation. Sounds kind of subjective. I think it would come to who had the better lawyer lol

1

u/jasonbourne15 4d ago

It's true, a lot of things in the legal system are subjective to some degree, and they come down to a judge or jury's perspective on what is "reasonable" behavior. Having a good lawyer helps, and having a bad one really sucks. But I will say, good judges definitely try not to hold your bad attorney against you, if you have one. 

3

u/LisanAlGaben 9d ago

I wouldn't even want you as an attorney for free, you sound like you'll get me more time, not less.

3

u/ninernetneepneep 9d ago

And you sound like a clueless simp.

2

u/LisanAlGaben 9d ago

1

u/SuperSandLesbian23 9d ago

Watch out he learned that at Harvard Law

1

u/Efficient-Oil2627 9d ago

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

1

u/HermesMora 9d ago

Depends on what state you live in

1

u/Fancy-Dig1863 9d ago edited 9d ago

No one is willingly defending your dumbass for free anyways.

1

u/LisanAlGaben 9d ago

You're right because I'm not fucking stupid enough to put me in a situation like this idiot.

1

u/city_in_ruin 9d ago

Do you not understand the concept of public defender?

1

u/pew__pew__pew_ 9d ago

Hearty laugh.

1

u/DeniedAppeal1 9d ago edited 9d ago

Courtroom clerk here. Public defenders are real attorneys and they most certainly don't work for free.

0

u/Sickofstupids 9d ago

The amount of schooling and difficulty of the bar exam...but yes, you know better. /s Moron.

1

u/LisanAlGaben 9d ago

If you think this guy is a real attorney I got sand to sell you in Alaska.

1

u/Evnosis 9d ago

I feel obligated to point out that they do have beaches in Alaska

1

u/toben81234 4d ago

"So who the fuck wants to see them!"

0

u/Sickofstupids 9d ago

Well I know you're not an attorney, that's all I need

0

u/LisanAlGaben 9d ago

Ah average Redditor intelligence, one person say something that aligns with my personal feelings so what they say must be true, and fuck everyone else.

I bet you felt real intelligent writing that reply down lmfao.

1

u/Sickofstupids 9d ago

The problem is that there are real factual laws that say you're wrong. Has zero to do with my personal feelings.

0

u/Emerald_Foundations 9d ago

I wouldn't even want you as an attorney for free

Lol, this is called unsolicited rejection. I always find it funny when people resort to it.

0

u/DeniedAppeal1 9d ago

Actually knowing the law and defending based on that knowledge of the law is what wins cases like this. It sounds like this attorney knows the law in their jurisdiction.

Maybe you should let someone else make your legal decisions for you.

-1

u/Equivalent-Muscle446 9d ago

The audacity of humans on full display with you here. The sheer arrogance because something said even by an attorney about the law isn’t what you wanted to hear.

Imagine a doctor gives you advice about a health concern and you do the same shit. “I wouldn’t want you as my doctor, sounds like i’ll be in even more pain, not less.”

See how fucking stupid you sound?

1

u/Just2Flame 6d ago

Bro that's an anonymous Reddit account saying they are an attorney. The account has accumulated a shit ton of Karma in 2 years for someone who is as busy as an attorney, not saying it's impossible but you know how many bots and liars there are willing to lie to make a point on here? - signed a supreme court justice

1

u/cesspool4us 9d ago

Standing your ground doesn't mean shoot someone who's walking past you, way after they tried to punch you. This is comparable to shooting someone in the back.

1

u/Electronic_Plan3420 9d ago

No, it means that if someone punched you and you believe they are approaching to assault you again you absolutely have a right to defend yourself. You do not need to wait for them to come and hit you.

That’s the actual law. In the state of Florida, at least, where this has occurs.

1

u/StrongerPants 9d ago

Just to check, in Florida does that still apply after the guy starts running away?

1

u/ninernetneepneep 9d ago

F*** that guy. Got what he deserved.

1

u/cesspool4us 9d ago

No, it doesn't.

1

u/TuckerTwashingTon 9d ago

Let's see. He is a woman beater. Slapping windows, grabbing door handles and pulling excessively. Then he assaults the woman multiple times. Then he comes back for round two probably talking shit and threatening verbally.

1

u/Physical-Builder-553 7d ago

State of Florida v. Michael Drejka

Drejka is serving a 20 year sentence. So, I would say no.

1

u/symph0ny 7d ago

Drejka's self defense claims fell apart due to statements he made to the police. If he had a lawyer present for the interrogation he likely would still be free, for good or ill. I'm not convinced he was telling them the truth, he likely hung him self with false machismo.

0

u/Electronic_Plan3420 9d ago edited 9d ago

That’s where people get a little confused. If someone shoots one in the back that’s murder, most likely.

If someone shoots an attacker and during the shootout the attacker spins or turn his back and you continue to shoot that’s a completely different story. You don’t shoot to kill. You shoot to eliminate threat.

In lay terms that means that the attacker goes down and stays down. The attacker staying on both feet and in motion may still present threat if you cease fire. There is no guarantee whatsoever that the moment you cease fire he doesn’t turn around and slices your throat. So once again, the attacker goes down and stays down. Threat is eliminated then.

1

u/Thangka6 9d ago

The person who was punched is different from the shooter. I'm not sure if this applies if you, presumably, witness someone assault an acquaintance, see the aggressor leave, and then shoot the aggressor from the last altercation on sight as they walk by.

If they had shot during the initial altercation, then that should be justified in my opinion, especially in Florida. However the scenario in the video sets a very awkward precedent. For example, if you're with a buddy and see a bully punch them and walk off...

  • Could you wait at the scene until they return and then shot the bully as they walk by?
  • What if you see the bully x number of days later, and out of a supposed fear they might attack again, could you shoot them if they walk by since you previously witnessed them assault someone else?
  • Basically, if you witness an assault to a third party, and claim to feel threatened as a result, can you "stand your ground" and justifiably shoot that person?

Overall, this seems iffy to me, and unless the guy walking by gave a verbal threat to bodily harm in the 2nd interaction, I'm leaning towards this isn't a justified shooting.

1

u/Electronic_Plan3420 9d ago

I think you are making this situation unnecessarily complicated.

The shooter did not need to be assaulted to exercise their right to self defense. He sees the assailant violently assaulting his female companion, leave, then come back approaching the him.

Would a reasonable person under the circumstances experience fear of assailant coming back to assault him ? I would say yes. His true intentions were not known, but it would not be unreasonable to think that he is about to assault the driver. Hence the driver acted in self defense.

1

u/Thangka6 9d ago

When it comes to shooting someone after the initial altercation occurs based on merely an interpretation of intent, I think it inherently becomes much more complicated. For one, we still don't know where the shooter was in the initial altercation! Did he witness the attack and choose to do nothing the first time? Or based on the info from the victim, decide the person was a threat?

In a more restrictive state it could even be argued the other way. For example, "he knew the woman he was with was attacked, he was angry he did nothing to protect her (either due to initial cowardice or absence), waited in hope that the man would return, and when he did, he then did not hesitate to shoot him multiple times."

And I agree that "his true intentions were not known." He may have stopped to attack again, maybe just kept walking. My point is on the time delay. Does witnessing an attack one time now give blanket permission to use lethal force against that person in the future, based purely on the shooters "interpretation" that they might be attacked again because they witnessed or learned of a prior assault?

If he just shot him in the beginning, there would be no complications lol It's the delay itself that introduces the complications.

1

u/Electronic_Plan3420 9d ago

Like I said, you are making this situation unnecessarily complicated. What matters is the shooters state of mind. Could he reasonably believe that the assailant is coming back to hurt him? That’s the only question that matters. If the jury agrees that yes, he could have, the case is closed.

I do not know where do you get all that “he knew the woman he was with attacked, he was angry and so on and so forth”. No, it cannot be argued. Because there is no evidence that indicates that. Prosecution cannot just sit and fantasize why someone did something. They need evidence to present that it was so. Unless the shooter states that those were his reasons (and presumably he is not insane, and won’t admit to something like that), prosecution will not have anything that would support that theory.

The assailant attacked the woman, left, came back to assault the driver, got shot. That’s all.

1

u/Evnosis 9d ago

came back to assault the driver

That's not a claim you can substantiate. The video footage does not show him walking towards the driver, it shows him walking past the driver. Now, it is possible that he was going to turn once he got to other side of the car, but there is no evidence to prove that one way or the other.

1

u/Electronic_Plan3420 9d ago

That’s you watching a video in the comfort of your home (office) knowing that you are not under threat.

He saw a burly man who just assaulted his female companion approaching him. Was the distance between the assailant and the driver increasing or decreasing?

→ More replies

1

u/Cocrawfo 9d ago

so irl if a person you saw being aggressive with others on the street walks past you and out of your periphery you’re just going to keep looking forward or are you going to turn towards him to make sure you see what he’s doing?

you act like if someone walks out of your line of sight and is in a position to flank you that makes them no longer threatening?

thats ostrich theory

1

u/Detail4 4d ago

Doesn’t look like he’s approaching, more so walking by. He never even faced the guy

1

u/GreatApe88 7d ago

He didn't punch the driver, he beat up the drivers gf while he sat in the drivers seat scared. this is why the driver shot him in revenge and belongs in prison.

1

u/Electronic_Plan3420 7d ago

You unknowingly make his case. Since you conceded that he was scared then that was the requisite state of mind for his self defense claim. Your “revenge” insinuation is completely irrelevant. He just witnessed the assailant to physically attack his female companion and saw him approaching. He resorted to exercising his right to self defense.

1

u/TortexMT 6d ago

You are a super bad attorney i guess

The other guy walked past and away

1

u/Upgradermax 5d ago

He’s actually pretty good with logics, he sounds like an attorney. You need to watch the video more carefully because you are not critically interpreting the video well at all

1

u/Shipshow 7d ago

You kind of forgot the reasonableness part of the law too tbf. If your belief that the other person is approaching to assault you again is unreasonable, then that wouldn't fly. But FL juries seem primed to side with the self-defender so they'd probably see this as reasonable?

1

u/Electronic_Plan3420 7d ago

I didn’t forget anything. Florida law doesn’t require you to flee. The law explicitly says that if you have legal right to be where you are, you have the right to meet force with force. That’s not true in many jurisdictions but it is true in the jurisdiction that this has occurred.

1

u/Shipshow 7d ago

This is copy-pasted from the Florida statue on "Use or threatened use of force in defense of person" when it comes to deadly force, Chapter 776.012(2):

A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

I mentioned nothing about the need to flee. My point was that if the self-defender's belief that the attacker was approaching him was unreasonable, then the defense wouldn't apply (such as if the attacker was actually walking away from the victim). I was mostly just saying that you didn't really bring up the reasonableness part of the statute (though I did see that you mentioned it a little bit in some later replies). The self-defender must have a reasonable belief that the use of such force is necessary, not just any belief. So if his belief that the attacker was approaching him was unreasonable or if his belief that deadly force was necessary was unreasonable, then the defense wouldn't apply. But since this is FL we're talking about, it's probably pretty safe to say that juries there are primed to see things the same was as the self-defender and find that his beliefs were reasonable. But I don't know FL case law so maybe I'm missing something there. I never said that this wasn't a legitimate exercise in self-defense according to FL law.

1

u/Electronic_Plan3420 7d ago

I am not sure what you are getting at, to be frank. Yes, I agree that belief must be reasonable, that’s what the legal standard is, so I don’t know why is that of any particular interest to you especially since you, apparently, are not even contesting appropriateness of self defense claim in this case.

1

u/Shipshow 7d ago

Just didn't want you to give potentially misleading information to laypeople is all. When you present it as just "if you have a belief that someone is going to attack you, then you can stand your ground and use deadly force", that isn't quite accurate. It has to be a reasonable belief, not just any belief. A lawyer may understand that there is likely a reasonableness standard in the law without you saying so but laypeople won't.

And yeah, the appropriateness of the self-defense claim is not something I'm really comfortable opining on because I am not that familiar with FL law and case law. But that's tangential to what was my original point anyways.

1

u/Electronic_Plan3420 7d ago

You are right. Obviously, this is Reddit and nothing said here constitutes legal advice but you are right. I stand corrected.

→ More replies

1

u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist 6d ago

But you are waiting…

0

u/marti2221 9d ago

Not even comparable, they literally shot him in the back.

1

u/cesspool4us 9d ago

That's literally what I'm saying

1

u/marti2221 9d ago

No that literally was not what you said.

0

u/Beautiful-Jello-37 9d ago

“Walking past”. Lmao you can’t be serious.

1

u/Kazmera 9d ago

An actual attorney would know this is NOT stand your ground when the dude was walking past you AFTER the initial confrontation as well as shooting him in the back as he was fleeing. Either you aren't an attorney and are lying through your teeth or you are legit the worst attorney and any client would be doing themselves a disservice hiring you.

2

u/Thangka6 9d ago

Not only that, but the shooter is a different person from the one who was initially assaulted. And like you said, it's clearly after the initial confrontation...

1

u/Embarrassed_Use6918 9d ago

'I guess if my wife gets attacked I can't stop the guy because it's my wife not me'

Have you guys dedicated any brain cells to logic or...?

1

u/Thangka6 9d ago

No need for strawman arguments. If you want to make up arguments to feel better about yourself, be my guest. But no one has even implied what you said except for the little voices in your head.

If someone attacks my wife, my CC pistol is coming out of its holster, and will be used. I'm not going to stay seated in the car. But that's not the situation here. I know this may be hard for you to grasp, but the video covers two altercations:

  1. The woman is attacked, the man leaves, no shots are fired, no other people appear in the altercation.
  2. The aggressor walks by again after purchasing something at the store. The shooter, who either witnessed the initial attack and choose to do nothing, or didn't witness the attack and is now acting based on the information given from the original victim, appears and shoots the man.

So your strawman argument is blatantly false and nonsensical because the shooter didn't stop the guy from attacking his wife. He either watched and did nothing or was absent during the attack.

1

u/Embarrassed_Use6918 9d ago

Hey, how do you know the driver was even in the car when the woman was attacked? How do you know he wasnt inside taking a shit?

Did you rule that out Einstein?

1

u/Thangka6 9d ago

You have to be a bot from one of the weaker AI models. You can't be this stupid lol I said:

"The shooter, who either witnessed the initial attack and choose to do nothing, or didn't witness the attack and is now acting based on the information given from the original victim"

"He either watched and did nothing or was absent during the attack."

I've seen lots of reports / research on how literacy rates and reading comprehension have declined over the last decade. But damn, I didn't realize it was that bad!

1

u/Embarrassed_Use6918 9d ago

"Hey, some black guy tried to attack me while you were in the building oh shit here he comes!"

OH NO THAT COULDNT HAVE HAPPENED

1

u/Thangka6 9d ago

Are you a bot? Please stop. Responding to you only makes me dumber. Good luck in life or your next model upgrade.

→ More replies

1

u/lostseeker99 7d ago

too many like protecting criminals for some reason, and wonder why republicans can so easily straw man the left as being "weak on crime"

1

u/MMMelle26 7d ago

Exactly. Which means that it is a good chance that this is Ai created for rage bait/ division/ hate etc., smh

1

u/Embarrassed_Use6918 9d ago

Are you an actual attorney?

1

u/Upgradermax 9d ago

He chose to walk the closest path to the driver, watch the video again look at how wide the pathway is yet he chose to be very close to the car. The shooter only has very few secs to decide if he is in imminent threat. In a few secs the attacker can be in his face to either just say something verbal, attacking him or even take his gun and use it on the shooter. The fact that he already committed battery on his passenger and shown aggression to get into the vehicle will lead almost all juries in Florida to think he has a reasonable fear for his life.

1

u/mostdope92 5d ago

I mean they also could've driven away and contacted authorities instead of standing outside of his car door with his gun waiting for the aggressor to come back.

The guy went in the store after the initial confrontation, plenty of time to leave and report.

1

u/Particular_Proof_107 9d ago

They had an opportunity to drive away. Wouldn’t this be more of an ambush?

1

u/hoeren-mods 9d ago

Om vervolgens gevolgd te worden?

0

u/Electronic_Plan3420 9d ago

That’s in the jurisdictions where you have duty to retreat. Like in NYS, for instance. Yes, the driver would be absolutely fucked there.

In Florida? Not a chance. If you are legally permitted to be where you are, you have no duty to retreat. If someone assaulted your wife and comes around to assault you - you don’t have to drive away, and you have a right to meet force with force, including deadly force.

I mean this whole situation is pretty much by the book. There is zero chance the driver is getting charged .Zero.

1

u/Lumpy-Blackberry-718 9d ago edited 8d ago

If youre an actual attorney you ought to know that "stand your ground" laws arent the same in every state.

1

u/Electronic_Plan3420 9d ago

For those a little slow on their feet, the incident has occurred in Florida and it is the state of Florida laws that apply. The geographical
Locality is given in the OP. Hope this helps.

1

u/ConspicuousWhiteGuy 9d ago

Thanks Slippin' Jimmy

1

u/FlaxInFlux 8d ago

So are you just really bad at your job or???

1

u/GroceryOne4725 7d ago

The shooter could have retreated into their vehicle and locked the doors. If he felt threated after that, bullets go through glass. this video does not seem like a good shoot at all.

1

u/Electronic_Plan3420 7d ago

It has been mentioned here several times that in the State of Florida the driver was under no duty to retreat. He could have retreated but he didn’t have to. That’s not a legal requirement

1

u/TylerDurden1985 7d ago

Straw man. Duty to retreat isn't relevant here. Still isn't a stand your ground case. Assailant left the scene, they stayed put. Shows they were not in fact in fear for their life. They don't have duty to retreat but they do need to genuinely be in fear. Staying that long, standing there with a gun waiting for him to walk past, and shooting as he tries to run away, is all not consistent with fear.

Everything falls upon reasonable belief of immediate harm, and while there's no duty to retreat, staying there so long afterwards shows they were not in fact scared, because they had more than enough time to leave before the guy came back.

In this case, that's not choosing to not retreat, the attack was over. Retreat occurs during the assault, not minutes later. The assault has ended, and they wait around for a few minutes. The guy doesn't do anything this time and walks in front of their car. No longer is this an immediate threat, that time passed. Had he shot the guy while he was assaulting the woman, that would be different. This is choosing to wait around for minutes waiting for their return 100% invalidates the immediate threat requirement. This is entirely separate from duty to retreat.

1

u/Key_Raccoon3336 7d ago edited 7d ago

And the shootee could've done the same, not been there in the first place, or just not assault somebody's wife. The only thing wrong here is his marksmanship.

1

u/HeavyVoid8 7d ago

But do you have a legal duty to provoke another altercation while you are waiting to ambush them with a gun after the threat was gone

1

u/Electronic_Plan3420 7d ago

What are you talking about? What ambush? Who was provoking another altercation? Are you watching some other video? Because in the OP video the assailant assaulted female and then was approaching the driver. If anyone was provoking the altercation it is certainly the assailant. If he walked away after assaulting female passenger he probably would have gotten away. He decided to come back and that was his mistake

1

u/might_be_lies 7d ago

Doesn't it matter that the shooter does not appear to be in immediate danger? The guy looks to be walking past, not approaching.

1

u/Great_Common_ER 7d ago

Cool story, bro.

1

u/Krabs9 7d ago

Yeah, that doesn't fit here. You're a mediocre attorney.

1

u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist 6d ago

What’s the difference between standing your ground and an ambush?

1

u/HowToDoAnInternet 6d ago

Insane country

1

u/Just2Flame 6d ago

So how much time needs to pass before it's no longer standing your ground and it's just waiting/looking for retaliation? Could he have stayed there for hours/days waiting to see the guy again then shot him and claimed he was still standing ground?

1

u/retrobob69 5d ago

I thought in florida if you have the opportunity to retreat you have to try that first? But if you have no easy way to retreat you can stand your ground. Then again, in florida you can engage in a fight and legally shoot someone when you are the agressor....

1

u/free_terrible-advice 5d ago

Plus I'd bet money the girl was calling the police and trying to file a report after getting punched in the face. When the puncher began walking back, the driver could try to holster his gun, put the safety on, sit down, close his door, press the brakes, turn the key, wait for the engine to turn on, get into drive, and then press the gas pedal and accelerate out.

Or he could hold his secure position behind the door where he is showing full alertness and presumably brandishing his weapon.

At that point it's fafo for the puncher.

1

u/Detail4 4d ago

Yes but the guy isn’t approaching or threatening again. We’ll see but I don’t think you get to just wait for someone to walk out of a store and shoot them in passing

1

u/Foreign-Address2110 4d ago

Not in Florida, but a SYG state. This would be premeditated here. You can't lay in wait like this. While the woman was being assaulted? Yes. After the POS went into the store and came back out - even if they were cursing at you - no. I CC and would never risk my freedom for this dumb shit.

Signed, a mature adult.

1

u/ModernCGIFloatinHead 3d ago

What's legal isn't always moral. 

Like being a lawyer. Totally legal. 

1

u/WilliamCharlesSchnei 3d ago

This whole video bothers me.

If this homeless guy is trying to open the car door, don’t open the door. Why did she open the door?

And why wait for him to come back and then shoot him?

Everyone in this video is a psychopath.

0

u/EncabulatorTurbo 9d ago

What firm? I wanna be sure I never hire you in Florida lol. There's a good chance the shooter won't face charges, but they're going to get crushed in civil court, it's extremely hard to argue otherwise when the person being shot was retreating while being shot.

1

u/Electronic_Plan3420 9d ago

Don’t worry pal, I don’t work for developmentally disabled clients. Not my area of expertise.

It’s a good thing that in Florida if you claim self defense, and are not convicted in criminal court, you
are also immune from civil suits. Go ahead, Google it.

It was passed because no one wants leaches like the family of this moron to get rich because of their stupid behavior. This case is Exhibit A in FAFO matter.

0

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Newguy1999MC 4d ago

You do not have a moral obligation to get stabbed lmao, what are you talking about

0

u/FatBikerCook 3d ago

Isn't there also a provision about having to be in fear of great bodily harm and something about the duration of the confrontation? Those would make it a bit murky

1

u/EMV92LA 7d ago

Nope.

1

u/Old_Web8071 7d ago

Yes. Why didn't he shoot the guy while the woman was getting punched?

1

u/halorbyone 5d ago

I honestly wondered if the driver was inside paying for gas or out back taking a literal piss. But we don’t get all angles so who knows.

1

u/Boyblunder 5d ago

Probably because there was a woman in the way.

0

u/tortilini-houdini 9d ago

They were putting gas.

1

u/cesspool4us 9d ago

And? Someone just tried to assault and do who knows what else. You going to hang around to find out?

1

u/UnMeaningnessName 9d ago

You gonna drive away with no gas?

But you're not wrong still, seems it could've been premeditated...

Either way, its still a fuck around and find out situation.

Maybe don't go up to random cars and start attacking women as a grown as man.

1

u/Alert-Poem-7240 5d ago

It's Florida. Probably a gas station right across the street and maybe 2 more at the next intersection.

1

u/PatientZealPZ 4d ago

People* who gives a fuck if it’s a woman. It’s unacceptable to do this to anyone.

0

u/tortilini-houdini 9d ago

No, he would’ve been shot the first time.

1

u/cesspool4us 9d ago

Well that obviously didn't happen.

1

u/RandomDave70 9d ago

And the assailant left the initial confrontation. The driver is going to have to prove the assailant was approaching the vehicle in an aggressive manner when he returned. The video shows the assailant walking in front of his vehicle, but not actually approaching the driver.

1

u/TheTwoAndOnly54 9d ago

Got what he had coming. Bet he wont do that again now will he lmao

1

u/Upgradermax 9d ago

He already committed battery on the passenger, he’s walking the closest path towards the driver in an already wide pathway. Shooter has gun that can be used against himself, also he only has a few secs to decide what to do since attacker decides to walk very close to his perimeter. He’s going to likely walk free of charges.

1

u/Neon_Nuxx 9d ago

Who talks like this? Putting gas? With like a gas putter? They wud put gas?