Alber

The Spanish poet Ramón de Campoamor, in his poem Las Dos Linternas says: "In this traitorous world, nothing is true or false, everything is according to the color of the glass with which one looks". This said in Spanish rhymes and sounds very good, but it also holds a great truth. Currently there is a double standard that is scandalous, which is detrimental to the truth.
For the victim of an aggression the truth is different than for the victimizer. Anyone who suffers a violent physical aggression has the right to defend himself.
When the aggrieved person is also disadvantaged for any reason (age, physical constitution, illness) resorting to a weapon to defend himself is correct. The second amendment of the Constitution of this country authorizes the possession of weapons.
It is regrettable the violent death of any person, regardless of skin color, religion or political position, but when a person violently attacks another without a valid reason and does so by surprise, with treachery, advantage and/or premeditation; that person must adhere to the consequences that may arise from his attack, because the attacked (apparently defenseless) may be armed. This was what happened a few days ago in Pinellas County in the state of Florida, where the sheriff applied the stand your ground law in a clear case of self-defense.
There is a video taken by the security camera of the store and from this video, it is deduced that a man (the attacked) was arguing with a woman (the attacker's girlfriend), without physical violence. This woman was committing an infraction when she was using the parking lot for disabled people without having the right or reason to do so, since you can see the arrival of other cars parking in front of the store, so the parking lot was unoccupied when she arrived. There was no reason to have parked the car in that place.
A man (the attacker) came out of the store and taking the attacked by surprise pushes him violently, knocking him to the ground, in the way that a stevedore would throw a sack of sawdust. On the ground the attacked reacts, raises his head and torso, takes out a weapon and shoots the attacker, hurting him mortally. It is noteworthy that behind the attacker, following him very close, comes another individual from the store, who departs when he sees the weapon. Physically, the attacker looks much stronger than the attacked one and is twenty years younger. A fall by a stumble can produce a state of confusion and by an unexpected attack the confusion can turn into fear, more if another individual is seen coming behind the attacker. The reaction is justified, but it remains to determine if it was possible to have fired a shot that disabled the aggressor without killing him or having stopped him only by threatening him with the weapon. A security professional can master his reaction in a case like this, but not a common citizen.
That the attacker was in the store with his five-year-old son or that the attacker's girlfriend was in the car with two of his children is not important to the facts. At no time are the children seen in the video and the color of the skin of the participants in the event is not important, because all people are equal before the law. It can not be hear what the attacker said to the attacked person during the attack. As I have known, the attacker was imprisoned on a drug issue and had another problem due to a violent attack that was discarded.
I think it's well established that the attacker was the one who was killed. It is not a way to face a problem by acting with violence and this individual at no time tried to establish a communication with the attacked. If the attacked person, without having the authority to do so, but without exercising any violence, was calling the attention of the attacker's girlfriend for improperly using the place for the disabled, there is no justification for the violent attack, since there was no physical attack on her or her children, so the action was not in defense of the family as it is now said. It is true that the attacked possibly has a police complex and therefore carries a weapon and requires people for any illegality as I have been able to read, but the logical attitude towards this individual is not to argue with him, because although he does not have authority is right about the violation of the law. I estimate that if the one who died had known that the attacked person was armed he would not have attacked him. The behavior of the deceased is that of an abuser who makes an aggression with advantage and by surprise to another person. It is unfortunate that he was the father of three children, but this should not be taken as justification for his behavior.
On the other hand, there is talk about family and children, but it is said that the mother of the children is the attacker's girlfriend; that is, she is a single mother. It is noteworthy that they have three children. Are these children recognized by their father? Does this individual work to support his children? She works as a nurse, but: Does she receive help as a single mother?.
If she is a single mother, this individual is not legally a parent.
I do not believe that a civil proceeding can force the attacked to pay damages to the attacker's children for an illegal action of his father in which he was killed.
There may be many opinions based on different considerations, but the arrogance of the deceased brought him to his end.
I have read that the girlfriend's lawyer, who is an African-American, says the law is unfavorable to African-Americans, but the law does not establish anything that discriminates against them. The law is equal for everyone. Of course, it can be understood from what this lawyer says, that the law goes against certain behavior that is common to African-Americans.
Sample of the above is what happened in California, which was the subject of comment in OPP in recent days.
An African-American woman with a sturdy physique, hit twice on the head with a piece of concrete block a 91-year-old man and shouted to him: "Go back to Mexico where you came from." The elder fell to the ground unconscious and then other African-Americans continued to beat him. This case did not shock anyone, there was no protest and was only mentioned by the media, saying that it was not a hate attack. It seems that a violent attack because of Xenophobia is no longer a hate crime.
If the stand your ground law were to work in California and this old man had had a weapon to defend himself, he would have received fewer blows, but later he would have to face the protests and surely this old man would be guilty of anything else. It seems that now African-Americans are better than Mexican Indians. What would Martin Luther King say?
The sheriff of Pinellas County acted according to the provisions of the law and it can not be said that the stand your ground law is unjust. Now a group of persons protest saying the attacker's life matters. If the results had been otherwise and whoever was killed were the one attacked, for hitting his head on the pavement, surely there would be no protest because this life does not matters.

Carol Kelly

I don’t know why they parked where they did. That was wrong and definitely illegal. No one should die over a parking place, but by parking there he obviously was looking for trouble. I have a disabled sticker and often must park far away from my destination because someone or several someone’s are illegally parked in handicapped spots. Makes it difficult for me but not worth killing over. The key must’ve been that he deliberately parked there for a reason.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Very good post.

Loki Loc: Georgia

You do have to be careful. I nearly got a ticket one time for parking in a disabled spot because while I was in the store my dog, who was in the car, somehow knocked my disabled placard off of the dashboard where it was displayed in plain sight

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

I'm suspicious of those placards, I must admit.