Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[TJM]

The point is of course that being knocked to the ground does not in any way end the encounter.

Absolutely correct.

I'm with the Sheriff on this one; I'm not say it's right. It is what it is. Under the law it was a justified shooting. Anyone who looks at that video and doesn't see McGlockton deliver a bone-jarring hit, I suggest looking again. It was a wallop.

So, he's in a heated argument, he's focused on her when he's blindsided. Then you have another patron now approaching the fight - what was his intent? Drejka may have rightly assumed he was about to be the recipient of a 3 on 1 ass whooping.

Don't get me wrong though. Let me be clear: Drejka is a dangerous ******* idiot who initiated this incident by being a wannabe cop.

Sadly, he wasn't the only idiot present.

 

[Mumbles]

Zimmerman claimed they were fighting Martin was getting the upper hand in the fight. Zimmerman did have a few injuries, they looked minor.

Under Florida law, that's all he needed.

This guy does not even have that.

Zimmerman, like this guy, was plainly the aggressor, and white, while the murdered person in both cases was black.

*shrug* Not sure why anyone is surprised by this, I fully expected it after various racists rushed to Zimmerman's defense and claiming that Martin was some sort of black brute, jive-talking stereotype.

ETA: regarding World Star Hip Hop: haven't seen anyone concern themselves with that site for years - it was a place to see nuditiy in amateur rap videos, and to watch idiots injure themselves or others.

You'll note that I didn't specify black idiots. Mostly because pretty much anyone getting beaten or tazed would cut it. College kids rioting because their team won or lost, that guy that grabbed a waitress' ass and got bodyslammed the other day, some white guy who knocked out three black guys that started a fight for no reason...it was pretty much all there, except for the really awful torture/rape/etc garbage. People who equate it with "violent black people" are basically just snitching on themselves.

 

[Mumbles]

Seriously, you are hating on a law without even understanding it.

All of the US has pretty much the same self-defense law, if you have a reasonable belief that your life is in imminent danger, you can use deadly force.

Where the differences come in is if you have a duty to try and retreat prior to doing so. Many States say that if you are in your home or vehicle, then you don't, in other places you do. Florida says if you are legally in the place, then you don't have retreat. This is the only difference, and that is what SYG is, period, you don't have to retreat from someone threatening you.

And it's irrelevant in this case anyway.

The guy was on the ground, and thus he couldn't retreat.

Even if he was in NYC which requires a duty to attempt to retreat if you can, that he was on the ground negates it because he couldn't retreat.

SYG is thus totally irrelevant to the entire thing, and it's simply a case of did he have a reasonable belief that his life was in imminent danger.

The video would suggest that the answer to this is no, that any such fear was unreasonable.

The Cops have the Law wrong. The Sheriff stated that we couldn't put our belief over the shooters, but in fact that is exactly what the Law demands. It demands that the fear is reasonable, in other words, if a reasonable person was in the position, would they consider their life to be in imminent danger.

As I said the answer is no. Thus he should be charged with Murder 2 and plead his case in court. Simple.

The Sheriff has it wrong, so stop beating on a law you clearly don't understand and place the blame for the failure to arrest where it belongs, squarely in the shoulders of a dumb-ass sheriff who doesn't understand the law he supposed to be enforcing.

And yes, the media don't understand it either, well they might, but they like to use flashy headlines and stories to sell their news so it's easy to paste SYG everywhere and watch all the half-educated explode as they respond to the click-bait.

Nearly all other states:

1) do not insist that the state prove that there was no "reasonable fear" involved - instead, the defendant would have to prove that he or she did have reasonable fear.

2) would not accept being pushed once, while yelling at the other person's spouse/friend/etc. as "reasonable fear".

All of this varies by race, wealth, and so forth in every state in the US, of course - racism's one of many problems with the US justice system, and arguably not even the worst compared particularly to health treatment (particularly addiction and mental illness). But it seems to be particularly bad when it comes to southern states with these BS "stand your ground" defense laws - much as it does when police can justify any shooting by simply stating "I feared for my life".

 

[Ziggurat]

Nearly all other states:

1) do not insist that the state prove that there was no "reasonable fear" involved - instead, the defendant would have to prove that he or she did have reasonable fear.

This is incorrect.

2) would not accept being pushed once, while yelling at the other person's spouse/friend/etc. as "reasonable fear".

What makes you think Florida would accept that? Certainly Florida law doesn't specify "reasonable fear" differently in this regard.

But it seems to be particularly bad when it comes to southern states with these BS "stand your ground" defense laws - much as it does when police can justify any shooting by simply stating "I feared for my life".

What about this case makes you think it's a "stand your ground" case? It doesn't look like one to me.

 

[Ziggurat]

Zimmerman, like this guy, was plainly the aggressor

No. It's not "plain" that Zimmerman was the aggressor in that case, it's merely hypothesized (without much evidence).

It is plain that McGlockton was the aggressor in this case, having escalated a purely verbal confrontation (which is not illegal) into a physical one (which is illegal). McGlockton committed a crime of assault.

Drejka should be convicted for killing McGlockton, not because he was the aggressor, but because his use of deadly force was disproportionate to the threat at the moment he fired.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Absolutely correct.

I'm with the Sheriff on this one; I'm not say it's right. It is what it is. Under the law it was a justified shooting. Anyone who looks at that video and doesn't see McGlockton deliver a bone-jarring hit, I suggest looking again. It was a wallop.

The Law does not say you may resort to deadly force if "you suffer a bone jarring hit" or a "wallop".

So, he's in a heated argument, he's focused on her when he's blindsided. Then you have another patron now approaching the fight - what was his intent? Drejka may have rightly assumed he was about to be the recipient of a 3 on 1 ass whooping.

The Law does not say that you may resort to deadly force if you believe you are "about to be the recipient of a 3 on 1 ass whooping."

Don't get me wrong though. Let me be clear: Drejka is a dangerous ******* idiot who initiated this incident by being a wannabe cop.

Sadly, he wasn't the only idiot present.

You're right, the Sheriff is an idiot too.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Nearly all other states:

1) do not insist that the state prove that there was no "reasonable fear" involved - instead, the defendant would have to prove that he or she did have reasonable fear.

This is just plain wrong. Every State requires this. Self Defense has no burden on the Defendant to show it being true beyond their normal burden to convince the jury it is, it is part of the Defense's case and just with any other part of the Defense's case, the burden is on the State, which has to show that it is not true beyond reasonable doubt.

2) would not accept being pushed once, while yelling at the other person's spouse/friend/etc. as "reasonable fear".

We haven't seen that Florida will yet either. The verdict of a number of lawyers that have spoken out on this case is that the Sheriff has the Law wrong, and that it should be prosecuted. Let's wait on the State Attorney's decision before going off half cocked.

All of this varies by race, wealth, and so forth in every state in the US, of course - racism's one of many problems with the US justice system, and arguably not even the worst compared particularly to health treatment (particularly addiction and mental illness). But it seems to be particularly bad when it comes to southern states with these BS "stand your ground" defense laws - much as it does when police can justify any shooting by simply stating "I feared for my life".

The burden for the use of Self Defense in ALL US States is a reasonable fear for one's life, not just in the Southern ones. Stand Your Ground Laws simply remove the Duty to Retreat. Castle Laws remove the duty to retreat in one's home or vehicle.

Do you really believe that if someone is threatening your life you should have to find a way to run away before defending yourself?

*NB*

I'm going to note again, that in the case being discussed, the Shooter was on the ground and so not in a position to retreat, so even if this was in a Non-SYG State (such as New York), the law would be being considered in the same way because, the Duty to Retreat was unable to be met!

This is not a SYG case, it's a classic self defense one.

Thus all that matters in this case is Was there a reasonable belief that the shooter was about to suffer imminent death or serious bodily injury?

And to repeat my many answers above. From the video above, the answer is no. This is why the State Attorney should press Murder 2/Manslaughter charges, and it should be tested in Court.

 

[PhantomWolf]

No. It's not "plain" that Zimmerman was the aggressor in that case, it's merely hypothesized (without much evidence).

I honestly wouldn't bother, a number of posters here have convinced themselves that their make-believe world around that case is the real truth, despite the fact that the Zimmerman trial is one of the few US Court Cases that can be watched in it's entirety on YouTube.

It is plain that McGlockton was the aggressor in this case, having escalated a purely verbal confrontation (which is not illegal) into a physical one (which is illegal). McGlockton committed a crime of assault.

This really depends. If McGlockton believed that Drejka posed an imminent threat to his wife/partner then this is covered under part 1 of the act....

(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

It comes back to if such a belief was reasonable. If you came out of a shop and saw your wife/partner in a heated yelling match with an unknown man, would you fear it was about to go physical at any second? If so, then his actions may have been legal.

Drejka should be convicted for killing McGlockton, not because he was the aggressor, but because his use of deadly force was disproportionate to the threat at the moment he fired.

This. Along with that there appears not to have been reasonable to believe that he was about to face imminent death.

 

[Ziggurat]

This really depends. If McGlockton believed that Drejka posed an imminent threat to his wife/partner then this is covered under part 1 of the act....

I don't think any such fear was reasonable. His wife didn't appear to act as if she was afraid of him.

This. Along with that there appears not to have been reasonable to believe that he was about to face imminent death.

It doesn't have to be death. Risk of serious injury suffices. And the push represented such a risk. People have died from stuff like that. People have gotten gravely injured from stuff like that. TBD isn't wrong on that score, it's what happens next that he's wrong about.

To expand on that point some more, the push was already done with, and you can't use deadly force against a threat that has already passed. There was significant distance between the shooter and the target, and McGlockton was backing away, not advancing. The pause between pulling the gun and shooting it means Drejka had time to assess the situation before firing. Under those conditions fear of serious injury or death was unreasonable at the moment the gun was fired.

 

[Cain]

This is a sad outcome because everybody seemingly did the right thing. The jezebel parked in a spot for cripples. The white guy made bitchy comments because she did not have authorization to take that particular space. Her boyfriend/father of the bastard violently confronts the guy (as one should), and the man unnecessarily killed him. It doesn't get more American.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I see some guy get pushed over and landing back on his splendiferous ass, not his head. The pusher stands back after shoving him. The guy on the ground then reaches into his pocket and fishes around in it for a few seconds for something, shortly revealed to be a handgun. The pusher still does not attack him and stands still. Gun comes out and two shots fired quickly with almost no aiming, only one hitting the pusher.

So yeah. In Florida, USA, a playground shove over a trivial parking issue ends in a messy killing. Remind me to never visit there. Looks like a hell-hole. Gaza or Syria seem more peaceful.

 

[Craig4]

Why the World Star references, TBD?

It's a round about way for TBD to say "SYG" is just a license for whites to kill non-whites without ever actually saying it.

 

[Mumbles]

I honestly wouldn't bother, a number of posters here have convinced themselves that their make-believe world around that case is the real truth, despite the fact that the Zimmerman trial is one of the few US Court Cases that can be watched in it's entirety on YouTube.

I was going to point out the actual differences between how many states handle self-defense, concealed carry, and the like...but I decided to stop here. I watched the trial, and there's no way Zimmerman's story works without resorting to outright "black brute" stereotypes - as opposed to the far more obvious explanation, which all evidence supports, that Zimmerman was just some racist hothead who started a fight and then murdered Martin in the middle of it. So, I'll offer you nothing at all concerning any other state.

But in the end, many people predicted that Zimmerman would continue to cause problems, and more importantly for this thread, that we'd continue to see laughable "self defense" claims such as the one in this case. The first proved true almost immediately, and the latter eventually did as well, including in this case.

Some dude that pushes you once because you were yelling and acting a fool next to his wife/GF, right next to your own child, and makes no move towards any sort of follow up, is in no way a threat. And I wouldn't be shocked if the guy said "Hey, get away from my girl!" or some such, indicating further that he was only responding to danger rather than just attacking out of the blue.

One thing I did not see was any word from a prosecutor, which is significant, since they could still decide to build a case and charge. The police chief in the Martin case decided to repeatedly smear Martin, this chief seems to be much more careful overall, which I'd consider to be for the best.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I was going to point out the actual differences between how many states handle self-defense, concealed carry, and the like...but I decided to stop here.

Right, so instead of bringing something relevant to the table, you decided to waffle on about something totally irrelevant....

I watched the trial, and there's no way Zimmerman's story works without resorting to outright "black brute" stereotypes - as opposed to the far more obvious explanation, which all evidence supports, that Zimmerman was just some racist hothead who started a fight and then murdered Martin in the middle of it.

Cool story bro. Answer these two simply questions.

The main evidence of what lead up to the confrontation revolves around two phone calls. Zimmerman's with the non-emergency police operator which we get to hear, and Martin's which we get told about.

1) During those calls who describes the other person in racist terms?
2) During those calls, who appears to be agitated and upset by the other's actions?

See if you can be honest about it.

So, I'll offer you nothing at all concerning any other state.

I guess there there little more to say.

 

[Brainster]

I don't think any such fear was reasonable. His wife didn't appear to act as if she was afraid of him.

It doesn't have to be death. Risk of serious injury suffices. And the push represented such a risk. People have died from stuff like that. People have gotten gravely injured from stuff like that. TBD isn't wrong on that score, it's what happens next that he's wrong about.

To expand on that point some more, the push was already done with, and you can't use deadly force against a threat that has already passed. There was significant distance between the shooter and the target, and McGlockton was backing away, not advancing. The pause between pulling the gun and shooting it means Drejka had time to assess the situation before firing. Under those conditions fear of serious injury or death was unreasonable at the moment the gun was fired.

Keep in mind that the shooter does not have the view we do; after going ass over elbow like that he's liable to be somewhat disoriented. That said, I have to say now that I saw the entire shooting (the video linked in the OP did not show the actual shots fired), it does seem like McGlockton backed up enough that it is hard to make the positive claim that he remained an imminent threat to continue the attack.

We'll see what the state's attorneys decide. The wife is obviously going to sue him; if he's got a smart lawyer the next time we'll see him will be with a neck brace.

Does seem like a case where everybody decided to be a jerk and the consequences were tragic.

 

[Mumbles]

story bro. Answer these two simply questions.

Nah, I'm done giving you benefit of the doubt on this. Scram.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Nah, I'm done giving you benefit of the doubt on this. Scram.

Somehow I'm not surprised that you're unwilling to have your beliefs challenged. I guess you will just keep on believing the fantasy world you developed. But hey, you do you.

 

[Mumbles]

Somehow I'm not surprised that you're unwilling to have your beliefs challenged. I guess you will just keep on believing the fantasy world you developed. But hey, you do you.

Feel free to read through the threads on the subject. Or stick to the whole "Trayvon was a superstrong violent black brute" 1880s lynching apologist crap that Zimmerman was spouting. I don't really care, it's not the central topic here.

Only point here, again, is that the sheriff doesn't have the final say, the Attorney's office does. Whether or not this clown will be charged is still an open question - and considering the video, I think he certainly should be - although whether or not he *will* is another question entirely, for the reasons I already mentioned

 

[Norman Alexander]

Just FYI, this was just one of 34 reported gun deaths and 76 reported gun injuries on that day, 19-Jul-2018.

MAGA!

www.gunviolencearchive.org

 

[PhantomWolf]

Feel free to read through the threads on the subject. Or stick to the whole "Trayvon was a superstrong violent black brute" 1880s lynching apologist crap that Zimmerman was spouting.

It has nothing to do with "Trayvon was a superstrong violent black brute" it has to do with the physical evidence.

Other than the gunshot wounds, what injuries did Martin have?
What injuries did Zimmerman have?

If you look at the evidence then it tells its own story about what went on, no need to listen to Zimmerman's cya story or the fantasy speculation of the Trayvon was an angel crowd. The truth is there, if you are willing to look at the evidence dispassionately, but I know you won't because it doesn't match your narrative.

I don't really care, it's not the central topic here.

and yet for something you don't care about you repeatedly bring it up time and time again in cases that have nothing to do with it.

Only point here, again, is that the sheriff doesn't have the final say, the Attorney's office does. Whether or not this clown will be charged is still an open question - and considering the video, I think he certainly should be - although whether or not he *will* is another question entirely, for the reasons I already mentioned

Something we can mostly agree on, though I'm of the position he should and eventually will be charged.