Stand Your Ground In Florida. Listen to these facts. What you need to know!

[@kurtmiller8773]

I agree with the state. After he showed his gun the danger was over but the defendant had to escalate by pointing the firearm at him

[@hawksmith-r2d]

Actually the danger was not over. Two vehicles just sitting in the middle of a highway is a danger. The problem is the defendant left his castle. He either had to sit and stay parked or try to drive away.

[@harpsitardo]

Yep, it's pretty simple. The fact that the video creator seems incredulous that you can't just whip guns out over traffic incidents is a little telling of his own mindset. I work with people like him, who think that a gun is the solution to every situation in life. Jesus.

[@wendyandmatthew8637]

As soon as you said he exited his vehicle and walked towards the other man's car I knew it wasn't going to end well for him legally. I love hearing about cases like this cuz it helps me to better prepare myself if ever in that situation. I think it would have been best to drive away after the threat ended. Thanks for the great information God bless you brother

[@claudiamarku6738]

For real this is nuts he never should have done that.. I’m so scared as a small women when someone just stabbed two women to death after they fell asleep by my grandmothers area of residence randomly! How do I protect myself and my family anymore, especially when people have guns! Why is this world so messed up.

[@claudiamarku6738]

So if someone tries to rob my family by breaking in.... what can I do other then call 911... what if they don’t come fast enough? I know it’s a different topic but I’m scared.

[@claudiamarku6738]

If you have no gun...

[@wendyandmatthew8637]

@@claudiamarku6738 Anything you can 👍

[@Lepidopterous.]

Well put. I don’t think exiting your car with a gun to instigate further after someone gets back in their car is in any way making anyone safer in that situation. It just escalates everything.

[@stephaniealtman4021]

should have never gotten out of his car threat was over after guy returned to his truck he could have kept still defending his self and family from car only

[@justindc3124]

Exactly. Defend your family, stand you ground, but don't think just because you have a pistol and a license, you now are a wild west cowboy and have authority to police the streets.

[@ypmm53]

Next best option after the guy walks away, evade ie gtfoot.

[@simplyneat22]

exactly

[@willh1827]

Welcome to reality… the threat wasn’t over. For all he knew the first guy was going back to his truck for his own gun.

[@dangard88]

If the aggressor backs off & returns to his car....that's when you get back in YOUR car and GTFOT!!!

[@wellsmr197]

The court is absolutely correct on this.

[@TekniQx]

Omg... All parties in this case were idiots. Free legal advice: If you conceal carry on the daily, avoid any road rage instances at all costs. After the aggressive driver cut the defendant off and stopped on the highway, there's multiple opportunities to simply drive around said lunatic & carry on about your business. There's absolutely ZERO justification to exit the vehicle once the initial aggressor is retreating.

[@lannyseals2084]

Should have never got out of the car and walked up to the truck..he rightfully got charged

[@lilvandall]

Once the aggressor back down there was no longer a threat. He could have went on his way but he went from being a victim to being the aggressor.

[@saintmichael1874]

I agree with the Court. You have a right to defend yourself. You don't have a right to enforce laws without 51%.

[@whitebeltbjj3739]

Makes perfect sense to me. You can’t be innocent if you’re then walking toward the guy after he walks away. If he would’ve got out of the car and went behind his car and called the police I feel he would have been fine especially if he thought the man were to retaliate by going to his car and retrieving a firearm himself. By what he did he obviously was not afraid.

[@Harlem55]

Except that incorrectly imposes a "duty to retreat". Rather, what this case was is nothing more than an impermissible circumvention of the statutory law. Plus, every firearms instructor out there that knows anything about defensive tactics is going to tell you you don't ever run from a lethal threat. Also, whether the Defendant actually was afraid is irrelevant- the law reads "reasonable person", and under the totality of the circumstances it is reasonable to believe that the individual presented a threat.

[@lfuaau]

Situation never got to the level where self-defense was necessary. Threat was over when the guy retreated to his truck. The tables were turned, when he decided to exit his vehicle and approach the truck with his firearm. C'mon folks, its not that hard.

[@notchagrandpa8875]

Sorry but I agree with the police on this one judging by the facts provided had the guy that cut them off had jumped out holding a tire iron, knife, or firearm and was shot by the defendant then he would have had a stand your ground case, all the defendant needed to do was write down the tag number and call police not hold him hostage at gun point.

[@jelambertson]

I think the law is fair. The weapon served its intended purpose. As with nuclear weapons others knowing you’re equipped did the trick and prevented any further escalation.

[@bretwalley4673]

Sounds like a good arrest, what was his lawful reason to show his firearm, then gets out of his vehicle and points a gun at the driver, then threatens to shoot another driver that was not a threat. Pointing a gun at the guy and telling him not to leave is also false imprisonment, he should have been charged for that too. Had the driver of the truck shot him, he would have been in his legal right to stand his ground and shoot him. Sounds like the courts got it right, clearly not a SYG case, or self defense case. After the guy in the truck went back to his truck, the defendant should have just stayed in his car and left, instead of committing multiple felonies. Roger P. Foley, do you think the defendant acted lawfully? Can you explain how the defendant was attacked? Can you explain how the defendant had a right to get out of his car and point a gun at the guy and tell him he would shoot him if he left?

[@dannybarron6139]

The first thing being taught in gun training when the threat ends. Which is when one retreats, and the threat ends. Training training training. Or JAIL, JAIL, JAIL.

[@thelawofficesofrogerp.fole7886]

I agree 100% and so does the case law.

[@dougmoore5252]

Drive away is the thing to do if able to. Pull the gun only when necessary to protect life.

[@hpneurotoxichydroshock2075]

The law explains it you're not a cop you're not allowed to pursue ,stand your ground means you could defend yourself in your ground at that time as long as your life is threaten ,as long as you don't witnessed someone killing somebody or kidnapping ,you are not allowed to pull that gun and pursue

[@rrodriguez0085]

True story. I have been in 2 situations in which I feel I could have pulled out my pistol. Was followed in both situations while driving I guess road rage. Both individuals never came out of their vehicle even though it was really obvious that they were following me. I knew that it wasn't a good call to come out weapon out. Stayed calm recording and in my vehicle. And they left. This guy was in the wrong in my opinion. Need to have gun safety instructors help with some of these judgements and change some of the laws.

[@csmith8503]

Change what laws? Change them in what way?

[@abc456f]

I almost got in an accident and the other guy started chasing me, IN REVERSE, at high speed until we had to stop at a stop sign. The guy got out of his car and started walking towards mine. I believe I had a legal right to pull my gun but I didn't. I did not let him say one word, I started telling him how I didn't mean to possibly cause an accident and how stupid it was for him to chase me down in reverse. I told him I carry a gun and the next time he might chase down the wrong person and end up dead over what? To show off to your girl that you're a tough guy? I really did some verbal judo on him. After I finished talking, he held out his hand to shake mine. I shook his hand and it was over. Now, if he had come out of his car with a weapon, I certainly would have pulled my gun. There were two cars between us, I would have drawn my gun and told him to get back in his car. If he then would have continued to approach me, I believe I would have had a legal right to shoot.

[@dave5833]

Just found your channel and subscribed thank you. Where do you practice?

[@thelawofficesofrogerp.fole7886]

Florida

[@camouflagepeacock6414]

He made himself the aggressor. Escalated the incident.

[@fashionstreet1]

Great that's awesome video tutorial well explain you took all the confusion out of the stand your ground law as in the dreka trial that guy was convicted and tried to use the stand your ground law I would like a better understanding on the castle doctrine law?

[@pnowikow]

Once he walked back the threat was over. I would have driven around the Dunning guy as soon as he hopped out. Don't let your ego get the best of you. Pulling a gun is an absolute last resort. The fact he walked up on the retreating assailant caused all his grief. I agree with the judge here.

[@JoeSheehan1]

When the defendant exited the car, he became the aggressor rather than the defender. I think court was right on this one. The defendant should’ve driven away when the aggressor returned to his vehicle. My layman opinion, this is a no brainer.

[@davec3226]

Yes, once the guy retreated there was arguably no longer a threat. Had I been the defense attny, I would have argued that the original aggressor had committed an assault with a deadly weapon (his truck) during the road rage, and then by returning to his vehicle, had again become an ADW threat wiyh the vehicle as the weapon.

[@popsiclecheese4256]

Classic case of letting the bully get away and punishing the person who stands up to them. Couldn’t you argue that since the guy retreated and got back to his truck, but didn’t immediately drive away, that he might still be a threat. If he was intimidated by the gun and turned around to leave, wouldn’t he drive off? He didn’t, he stayed in his truck enough for the defendant to notice and approach him. For all he knew the guy coulda been going back to his truck to get a gun. It’s sick for people to just say “the threat was over” no , as soon as the truck driver initiated the threat and didn’t leave after returning to his truck, the threat never ended

[@thelawofficesofrogerp.fole7886]

It’s important how facts are presented.

[@jamesmiller360]

Good information, thanks for posting.

[@balderjohnson430]

After listening to the story, I have to agree. I think the man was right when he initially pulled the gun while he was inside his vehicle and the gun was still in the holster that should’ve been enough. The other man should’ve just drove off the gentleman that was in the car was cut off initially he should’ve called 911. He was still sitting inside his vehicle safely, locked behind the doors and left it at that. Anything else is it’s just too much you know to get out the car and point the gun at someone else yeah that’s overdoing it to have his family get out the car and hide down in a ditch perhaps But still I think he should have just let this guy drive away and if he didn’t drive away call 911 stay there with his gun and wait until the cops show up

[@davida.mourino9749]

that makes sense if you could run away run but do not go towards danger unless your stuck and can not run

[@dwayneroberts6616]

When your clients son got out of the car he became the aggressor end of story. What don't people understand about " immediate threat " once an aggressor walks away it's over get the hell out of there. Nothing good can happen if you stay.

[@hawksmith-r2d]

Drive around the aggressor. When the agressor starts chasing you down the road... and if he starts trying to ram you with his vehicle using it as a deadly weapon... then bang bang.

[@boomboompyrofireworks346]

Should not leave your vehicle! Castle doctrine

[@thelawofficesofrogerp.fole7886]

Correct

[@scott7270]

to me it sounds like the courts got it right , the immediate threat had past, the defendant exiting his vehicle was after the man returned to his truck then became a threat to the other driver, stand your ground doesn't give a person the right to try and detain another , or to enforce laws. THE COURT WAS RIGHT !!!

[@25Killer]

To combat road rage, I try to say to myself "that's what brakes are for" and try to move on from that situation. You can't take a product of human ignorance and/or human error as personal. Being safe after an incident is what matters. Throwing yourself at another driver for a second incident puts you and others at risk AGAIN, potentially in a more deadly situation I think road rage needs more attention and the preventative measures suggested with it. Road rage can potentially lead to homicide(s) andno one truly wants to go through the system on a felony charge or have that kind of psychological weight (especially the emotional damage to the victims family). The secondary encounter is completely unnecessary, and why start another round of chaos instead of going home safely. Don't be a vigilante for yourself over someone's dangerous driving

[@pmh1nic]

The driver should have never gotten out of the car with his gun. Once the other driver returned to his car that incident was over unless he got out of his car again to further escalate the situation. When he got out of the car with the gun he became the aggressor.

[@tobylopez445]

Awesome educational video, thank you very much, Sir. attorney at law at its best!

[@saintmichael1874]

Some folks watch too many spaghetti Westerns.

[@SantyThePhotographer]

Makes perfect sense here

[@RoyJones-jh6sw]

I left FL in December went to West Virginia FL had WV serve restraining order on me and now I'm charged with mistermeaner battery In FL but I live in NY have no way back to Florida how should I handle this

[@thelawofficesofrogerp.fole7886]

Hire an attorney.

[@Ahsosauce]

I own a gun and have my CCL. I took a certified gun class and the law on CCL in your car states it needs to be in a locked box while in your car and traveling! Even brandishing it is illegal. The only way that you can carry it on your body in a holster is if you're an armed security guard going to and from a store or to and from work as well as an officer/leo. My instructor told me I should get a lockbox cable to the passenger seat underneath the seat with a fingerprint code so that I could get to a gun if I needed to use it quickly but it could not be on my body or Insight same with c c l in Florida nobody is supposed to be able to see your gun holstered on your body at any time if somebody does they can call the police and if you're wearing tight clothing you can be arrested that's not how the CCL works. CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE...UNSEEN IS THE LAW

[@gilberttejeda973]

If you are a CCL holer, you can carry inside your car, it does have to be concealed, but not in a locked box. If you do not have a CCL permit in Fl, then you do need to have it an a locked box where it is not easily accessible.

[@willh1827]

That not how it works in FL my guy.

[@manifistator]

That is 100 percent agravaded assult. The aggressor had fled and he became the aggressor .

[@robertbradley7528]

The easy out was when the guy got out of his truck..Speed off around him..Avoid putting yourself in these kinds of situations..

[@dougmoore5252]

Makes sense to me, should never have approached Dunnings vehicle.

[@AMomentInTimeProductions]

well of course the courts decision was correct, the threat was over when the truck driver went back to his truck, it's not your job to detain any one because they threaten you, your not the police.. So walking up afterwards to the truck driver and pointing the gun at him is unacceptable and not legal, you can't do that.. If the truck driver was to come back again then yes your in the clear to point the gun at him because now he is re-threatening you again.. Stand your ground doesn't mean you can chase down criminals or detain some one even if they committed a crime your not law enforcement, the only time it's legal for 1 citizen to detain or arrest another citizen is, if that said citizen committed a felony, how ever i strongly urge you to think that over clearly because you don't want to get involved in some crazy charge of false arrest or violation of civil rights, all you should worry about is defending yourself, with the least amount of force possible, if a threat has been lifted than just call police and do nothing, let law enforcement handle them situations..

[@TheHitDat]

The problem was over when the guy went back to the truck.

[@thelawofficesofrogerp.fole7886]

yes but many dont understand that.

[@ry-uh3yp]

But the cops can pursue you for almost anything 😂😂 you can’t pursue someone that threatened you to protect ur family. BS

[@ClipzSan]

fr if a cop sees a guy who he THINKS he has a gun then shoots him they get away with it because they THOUGHT he had a gun. if we get. in a worse situation and we get a charge

[@paulhealey8221]

You should never wave or show your firearm to threaten anybody.. even your attacker! You pull it out, you damn well better use it! Or else your not in grave danger. Also, carry some form of firearm owners defense insurance to cover legal fees and bail. Get educated to local laws, and get advanced gun defense training. if you have a way out, take it! This whole scenario could have been avoided by driving around that truck and calling 911 as your pulling away. Happy vacation!

[@Harlem55]

Incorrect: Basic firearms tactics teach that the odds are against you if you attempt to "speed draw" from an open holster. (There's a reason they teach law enforcement to avoid the speed draw like the plague- and they're much faster and more accurate than the average person with a permit) The odds only get worse if you're using a concealed holster. Rather, because it takes an average of two to three seconds to clear an open holster, bring a firearm on target, and properly discharge a round IF you're well trained (Read: meet law enforcement firearms qualification standards which most people can't meet without extensive training that is unreasonable for most people) it stands that the average person should bring a firearm out of the holster and on target a lot sooner than someone whom is expected to be well-trained.

[@hawksmith-r2d]

So you are saying it is better to wait and keep the firearm completely concealed and just wait for the agressor to attack....then just shoot the agressor. Got it.

[@jessehadaway9375]

Can I use my gun in a situation where someone is shooting randomly or committing a crime, with a gun, against someone else?

[@richardlow1821]

It all depends, I personally being a CCW in the state of florida, will not get involved if a person is fighting/stabbing/ shooting another person UNLESS you can clearly (like day and night difference) know who is the aggressor and who is the victim and you must have a lot of witnesses and still might get charged by cops for killing/seriously or severely injure a person, so I will not play the hero unless the victim is a direct family member of yours or something like that, basically do not do it for someone you are not willing to spend a lot of money(lawyers are not cheap) or Jail time(in case you mess up or the case goes agaisnt you).

[@Mr.Bathelus832]

He should have just left the moment the guy walked back to his truck

[@fashionstreet1]

The constitution is to protect the people from being infringed on by the government especially our 2nd amendment but with all the these government restrictions that is apparently infringement that's why we need constitutional carry and then law abiding citizens can walk in peace and crime world go down because criminals will understand people are capable of defending themselves they would not commit heinous crimes try telling that to our Florida legislative!

[@champy1210]

Enter _Burns v. State_ (4th DCA, 2023), as compared to _Little v. State_ (4th DCA, 2020). 1. Display of a firearm is nondeadly force as a matter of law (case law). 2. On and off private property, with or without consideration of reasonableness and/or proportionality, as displaying a weapon IS NONDEADLY force: your analysis? Consider defiant trespassers, road-ragers, hands not visible + verbal threats of deadly force, other credible threats of imminent, unlawful deadly force as well as imminent, unlawful nondeadly force.

[@allfurlovefrenchies5905]

So guy threatens he's gonna shoot someone then took cover behind his vehicle that had his family in it.. don't care if that clown gets charged

[@abc456f]

This lawyer thinks it's bullshit that this guy was brought up on charges? Imminent fear of serious bodily harm or death. Of course the guy is guilty.

[@gregorydamario7977]

This is a clear case of a guy with a gun not knowing the law. "Stand your ground" stopped as soon as he exited his car (his ground) and escalated the confrontation. This is my concern about constitutional carry. Armed people who don't know the law, who likely can't hit what they aim at and who do not know basic gun safety are a danger to themselves and the public. Not everyone can rise to the level of Alec Baldwin and get away with manslaughter, by stating, "Duh, I diden no it was loaded." Now, before everyone goes nuclear, constitutional carry is just that, a right affirmed by the Second Amendment of US Constitution. I am in favor, however, rights come with responsibilities and in the case of carrying and deploying a firearm, those responsibilities can quickly turn into consequences, such as jail, prison, bankruptcy for oneself (and ones family) and even death.

[@ypmm53]

The fact that they are not hurling Elijah Dickens as a hero proves that they don’t like the every day citizen to protect themselves or others. The kid is 22 years old. He shot and killed an assailant in a mall who had an assault rifle. I believe before Elijah shot him, the guy may have shot or killed 2-3 people. Oh yeah! The kid’s shooting skills are probably better than the average person and most cops. He hit the guy 8 times from a distance of 40 yards. I bet they are still trying to find a law he broke to lock him up. If he is not a national hero. He is one in Indiana and in my book. It’s simple. Better judge by 12 than carried by 6. We need to learn the laws.

[@avonleamontague2469]

So, did the issue start when he pursued then? I can see someone keeping a gun aimed at someone else who is retreating in the event that person may be going to get a weapon.

[@csmith8503]

Yes. He was not justified in pursuing.

[@ronnieblauvelt8812]

So in Florida we no longer have gun rights

[@bretwalley4673]

we have gun rights, but you can't just point a gun at someone that was not a threat.

[@Harlem55]

@@bretwalley4673 It rather comes down to what is a threat: what you do is obtain a good solid defensive firearms training and then use Daubert testimony to deal the state's case a fatal blow- in that the state can only counter expert testimony with their own expert- and this is an area where experts simply won't attempt to refute each other because it would be law enforcement's undoing.

[@AAA22323]

I had a guy in Miami almost run me and my girlfriend over going well over 60 in a 25mph. My girl yelled slow down. The guy stopped and hopped out of his car and said “do you want a hole in your face” he was holding something in his hand I couldn’t tell if it was a gun or phone. I turned my back and walked away waiting to get shot in my back….if I had a ccw. Would I be able to stand my ground legally?

[@csmith8503]

Stand your ground yes. Fire your gun, maybe. The SYG law is not a blanket licence to kill, or use excessive force.

[@Nicole_Gucci_Baby1k]

Question what about if a group of boys and another group of boys pulled up into the driveway and the first group started shooting at the boys who pulled up in the driveway and caused great bodily harm and permanent injuries and they shot back because the first group kept firing and shutting off the engine of the truck and they were injured and couldn’t retreat?? Now there’s actually a second part to this because there’s actually another group of boys that Robbed the first group of boys and made threats to come back and shoot the place up so the first group built a barricade and sat on stools waiting for those boys to come back and the group of boys that was causing all of this called the group of boys over to that address saying it was their new house so they pulling up thinking it was this other boys new house and had absolutely no idea that those boys robbed the first group of boys and it was their house and not the boys who said it was and so it all happened because of the one group of boys and one boy died from the first group and 2 boys were hurt in the group that pulled into the driveway and the boys who tried to pull the robbery and setup the group that pulled in never got in trouble or charged with anything and neither did the group that shot first at the boys that pulled into the driveway that didn’t even know them or what had previously taken place at the house? We think the boys friend from the first group accidentally shot him when trying to pull him to safety after he was shot and accidentally shot him because he still had gun in his hand because otherwise from the bullet trajectory someone would have had to of been standing on the roof the bullet never went through anything and didn’t come from any of the boys in the truck No DNA or Fingerprints were found on the actual murder weapon that actually killed him now all have lawyered up all the state witnesses and confidential victims/ witnesses?? So what do you think about this one because we’re going for the stand your group motion in the next few weeks! Might be one for you to look into and discuss because I can’t believe how bad the police messed up on in and with this investigation!!??? They came up with who was guilty in a matter of hours a few hours Rich upper class people versus working class families from a different side of town!! Truly sad to see that’s how our justice system works people of wealth get way less time than those who are different classes color etc… it’s not how our justice system is supposed to work!! Right is Right and Wrong is Wrong you would think that they would want to know the truth and give the family real answers and justice! Instead of ruining multiple families which is exactly what they did and caused permanent lifelong damage to a 19 yr old for the rest of his life after denying him proper necessary medical assistance treatment and care and he was taken right after his eye surgery where he was supposed to lay down facing the ground for 2 weeks and taken into custody and sat in booking for 6 days told to lay of the piss and shot filled floor or bond the fuck out 2 1/2 3 hours from home!! Because they had no medical beds available!!

[@bacardincrys]

The breach of peace argument won’t work, the driver did not commit a felony at best he committed a misdemeanor. There was no need to pursue, no injuries or property damage occurred. Once the family man repealed the threat he got balsy and tried to detain the guy all over a misdemeanor with no damages or injury. A reasonable person would have just called the police and recorded the tag number.

[@kevinhalpin4168]

monty python said it best, runaway. big rabbit angry people. find the exit. no shame in conceding. teach your children well,

[@batboyxl2]

Most people kill there self defense case when they pursue after

[@brillosandTwackOuts]

Heyy attorney Foley quick question, if you have no concealed permit, a past Florida withhold, and caught in a situation where your life is in imminent danger and you defend yourself with a firearm, what are the charges you would face and the possibility of you beating it. Btw you’re on probation for a non violent offense with adjudication being with held

[@thelawofficesofrogerp.fole7886]

If on probation you cant possess a firearm. If its someone else's firearm and its life and death then obviously you take that chance.

[@brillosandTwackOuts]

The Law Offices of Roger P. Foley, P.A. Thanks for the reply #southfloridasnumber1lawyer

[@alexsoto4678]

@@brillosandTwackOuts im NOT a Lawyer, but in the state of FL we have the 3 step method if you travel with a gun and dont have a concealed permit. 1. unloaded 2.in a holster 3. in a compartment ( glovebox, backpack, ect) so basically instead of it being loaded and holstered, you would follow those 3 steps in travel. hope that helps at all.

[@bretwalley4673]

@@alexsoto4678 that is bullshit, there is no 3 step rule, where do you come up with this crap?

[@tyg9155]

@@alexsoto4678 that’s a myth, there is no 3 step rule in Florida

[@AmmoDude]

With the treat removed, the guy walked back to his truck, you are no longer standing your ground when the defendant got out of his car and approached the truck. Yep, guilty. I am a CCP holder in Florida and retired military. The very last thing you want to do is pull your weapon; the circumstances must be dire to yourself or another person.

[@stevenstrother672]

Didn't Duning basically commit vehicular assault at the onset?

[@rrodriguez0085]

He didn't handle that situation well.

[@frontier9142]

Seriously stand-your-ground is not that hard to figure out.. someone starts attacking you, You pull your gun, if he walks away it's over.. You don't jump out of your vehicle trying to stop the attacker from getting away! That's the cop's job to take care of him from then on.. Once this guy jumped out of his vehicle with his gun trying to confront the attacker he became the attacker..

[@vitalule8889]

You are a people's lawyer

[@oneministries4878]

People cut off at fault, kid walks up and points a gun?, this is definitely aggravating and was a stupid move, you (person walking up and pointing gun) were trying to take ground and not stand it putting them in a defensive position, kid could have been shot. No case

[@trustyskills5009]

Problem is that after someone tries to attack you and you pull a gun so they dont attack you when they leave they might be coming back with a gun so the risk is still very real. Someone that jumps out to fight in traffic is still a thret after that... just not by law I'd say that's wrong we should change that

[@othelloalford8478]

This isnt the 18th century !!!! Hondo you shouldnt persue!!!!

[@roberttolley5055]

That went to far , murder

[@Capt.sierra]

Not necessary to aim the gun or show it , just relax and let it if the driver of the truck , have a gun ? Different story

[@Harlem55]

This could be quite dicey in reality- I don't see the federal district court upholding Brethrick for the simple fact that the courts have held that immunity bears the procedural requirement of the summary judgment standard. The federal courts have explicitly held that the plaintiff explicitly has burden of proof, subject to the standards of a motion for summary judgment, in the context of every other form of statutory-imposed or common-law imposed immunity. (e.g. qualified immunity, Section 230 CDA immunity, etc. requires Plaintiff to be able to overcome a summary judgment standard.) if Plaintiff is to overcome immunity doctrine and proceed to trial. Rather, self-defense doctrine and immunity doctrine are two different things, though in the context of stand your ground, both apply simultaneously. Properly understood, immunity in this context is a motion for summary judgment, and as such, Plaintiff (the state) bears burden of proof pursuant to the case law of the 11th circuit with respect to the question of immunity doctrine.

[@paulv5460]

So, I guess the officer with only 6 months of training got it right as supported by both the local court and Florida Supreme Court; as compared to your years of training and scrutinizing case law. Hahaha

[@DBCooper3]

Its just best to stay out of society

[@Harlem55]

I don't see the federal district court upholding Brethrick on the grounds that immunity doctrine imposes the standard for summary judgment based upon the clear and long-standing law of the 11th circuit with respect to immunity. e.g. it is implied that statutory immunity or common-law immunity is properly understood as a "motion for summary judgment" where Defendant is movant, under which non-movant has the burden of proof to establish any fact that is not clearly established by undisputed evidence. Otherwise, Plaintiff must argue the law under movant's set of facts under the summary judgment standard. Unless of course, you'd suggest that the district court dispense with stare decisis as to what is now at least 30 year old federal case law. That's before we get into the fact that the Roberts court will take a very dim view of this case.

[@timandvickimcg5717]

You are correct about that case. But your comment about dealing with a police officer with just a high school diploma and six months of training was uncalled for. Not all police officers fit your profile. I agree with the judges ruling, What you just read, shows the imminent threat was over. He needed to try to leave the scene or move his vehicle to a safer place and call law enforcement. This guy placed his family in further danger shame on him.

[@justinsmudde2554]

That guy got out of his car after the threat was gone! Period end of story! They should have left. Guy learns his lesson and retreats. They sought conflict with the guy after he retreated. Guilty as charged

[@pozmarciv]

In regards to the police, many police officers have their bachelors, and masters degree. They also do have six months of training and job experience. So they are pretty well-versed. The people that need to understand more clearly or the people carrying these weapons. Once Dunning retreated back to his vehicle, there was no more threat. And that’s what you would want, right? It should’ve been over then and there.

[@TurdFerguson321]

you are trying to twist this to fit your narrative. i am a major pro gun and pro stand your ground guy, but this whole situation goes south when the defendant got out of his car after the initial dummy had already went back to his vehicle. he posed no imminent threat after that. so this is a wash man. the defendant would have been golden if he had stayed in his car and let the dunning guy leave. secondly i doubt the dunning guy would do what he did if the defendant and his passenger hadn't done SOMETHING when he was passing them. i drove truck for 30 years. I've seen it all out there. people all think they are tough guys and tough girls with their cars. and they flip people off and speed away like cowards. i have no doubt the defendant and his passenger used some gestures in this incident so once you provoke, your rights are a joke.

[@olddude5708]

I think everyone one should be able to protect them selves and their families only in a violent situation where they are getting attacked but if none is being fiscally attack then no

[@simplyneat22]

Trayvon Martin was never a threat and Zimmerman attacked him and killed him. he won with this law and his family connections. in this case the man should have never got out of his car. what they did to this man is what they should have done to Zimmerman.

[@brendabowman622]

Trayvon Martin was shot and killed during the commission of a forcible felony which was independently witnessed by an unaffiliated third party.

[@jski2617]

Stop starting from the beginning. Before halfway I stopped watching. You take too long

[@thelawofficesofrogerp.fole7886]

I always thought that people grabbed a beer and burger and watched.

[@ricklane1693]

There was NO need to exit his vehicle(either). The Gun wielding Son is absolutely WRONG !

[@Harlem55]

I don't see the federal district court upholding Brethrick on the grounds that immunity doctrine imposes the standard for summary judgment based upon the clear and long-standing law of the 11th circuit with respect to immunity. e.g. it is implied that statutory immunity or common-law immunity is properly understood as a "motion for summary judgment" where Defendant is movant, under which non-movant has the burden of proof to establish any fact that is not clearly established by undisputed evidence. Otherwise, Plaintiff must argue the law under movant's set of facts under the summary judgment standard. Unless of course, you'd suggest that the district court dispense with stare decisis as to what is now at least 30 year old federal case law. Thats before we consider that the Roberts court will take a dim view of this case in general.