Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,752
Video of the initial assault with intent to injure.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=szemB_1532302198
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground
- Thread starter This is The End
- Start date
Video of the initial assault with intent to injure.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=szemB_1532302198
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,796
Strictly speaking that was even weirder, those were warning shots that accidentally hit her and he had no legal liability for it for some reason. At least at trial.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,796
We are talking about how it is actually applied not in theory what the law says. In application that is how it works. Like in application you are never legally liable in florida for negligent discharges killing people.
The deceased was turning to his right and beginning to swing his left foot around, as if to take (at least ) a pace away. He was most definitely not advancing on the gunman.
But if we take a view on the word 'retreat' in the law here - does no obligation to 'retreat' imply that you may 'advance'? And here I'm not viewing those words in the sense of physical position, as the shooter clearly 'advanced' the development of the situation. Just wondering.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
The shooter should be charged, though I'm not sure whether a jury would find him guilty or not.
Ultimately the question is whether the jury would find it reasonable for him to shoot when he did. Like others have said, the video shows that the shover had taken a few steps back and did not seem to be making a further effort to attack the shooter when he fired. I am of the opinion that drawing the firearm was justified, but by the time the pistol was produced, firing it was not justified. The attacker stepped back and enough time had passed that a reasonable person would not feel their life was imminent danger any longer. Simply put, brandishing the weapon was enough to end the attack and that would be clear to any reasonable person in this situation. Firing was not lawful IMO.
While it's certainly a breach of common civility, criticizing strangers in public is not violence or the threat of violence. Unless Drejka was saying something explicitly threatening to the woman in the car, McGlockton was not legally or morally correct in shoving him. Verbally confronting him would have been acceptable and satisfying to most, while remaining well within the bounds of the law. Call him a tiny-dick busybody and go about your day. Whether a single, forceful shove is enough for someone to reasonably fear for life and limb is something I hope a jury would decide, not the sheriff.
I'd generally categorize the two types of responses from people that carry a concealed weapon. One type realizes that, by virtue of carrying a deadly weapon, any conflict they get into could easily escalate to deadly violence. Knowing such, they act in a way to avoid and deescalate conflicts as much as possible, even in cases where they are legally and morally in the right. Discretion is the better part of valor and all that. I'd like to think I fall into this camp.
Another group sees their hidden weapon as a secret trump card. They act more boldly and feel more inclined to address all the ills of society knowing that, in the likely event of a negative response, they will prevail. These people disgust me, even in cases where they are legally in the right. It's the "I'm not touching you" defense for morally abhorrent behavior. While not written into the law, I find it hard to imagine a jury wouldn't let this kind of poor attitude affect their decision making to some extent in a self-defense case. Most have little pity for those who go out looking for trouble and find it.
I would speculate that had Drejka not been carrying a concealed weapon, he wouldn't have felt so bold in his mission to protect the sanctity of handicap parking.
Ultimately the question is whether the jury would find it reasonable for him to shoot when he did. Like others have said, the video shows that the shover had taken a few steps back and did not seem to be making a further effort to attack the shooter when he fired. I am of the opinion that drawing the firearm was justified, but by the time the pistol was produced, firing it was not justified. The attacker stepped back and enough time had passed that a reasonable person would not feel their life was imminent danger any longer. Simply put, brandishing the weapon was enough to end the attack and that would be clear to any reasonable person in this situation. Firing was not lawful IMO.
While it's certainly a breach of common civility, criticizing strangers in public is not violence or the threat of violence. Unless Drejka was saying something explicitly threatening to the woman in the car, McGlockton was not legally or morally correct in shoving him. Verbally confronting him would have been acceptable and satisfying to most, while remaining well within the bounds of the law. Call him a tiny-dick busybody and go about your day. Whether a single, forceful shove is enough for someone to reasonably fear for life and limb is something I hope a jury would decide, not the sheriff.
I'd generally categorize the two types of responses from people that carry a concealed weapon. One type realizes that, by virtue of carrying a deadly weapon, any conflict they get into could easily escalate to deadly violence. Knowing such, they act in a way to avoid and deescalate conflicts as much as possible, even in cases where they are legally and morally in the right. Discretion is the better part of valor and all that. I'd like to think I fall into this camp.
Another group sees their hidden weapon as a secret trump card. They act more boldly and feel more inclined to address all the ills of society knowing that, in the likely event of a negative response, they will prevail. These people disgust me, even in cases where they are legally in the right. It's the "I'm not touching you" defense for morally abhorrent behavior. While not written into the law, I find it hard to imagine a jury wouldn't let this kind of poor attitude affect their decision making to some extent in a self-defense case. Most have little pity for those who go out looking for trouble and find it.
I would speculate that had Drejka not been carrying a concealed weapon, he wouldn't have felt so bold in his mission to protect the sanctity of handicap parking.
Last edited:
kali1137
Illuminator
I don't feel its accurate to state that he was looking for a fight simply because he has a history of addressing people in handicap spots. I do it too. Is it because my mother is handicapped? Most likely. But I also call people out for not taking carts back. I just hate lazy, inconsiderate people. That being said, I wouldn't shoot anyone for being a lazy ass. I live in PA where we have a SYG law in place. I also have a gun and have a carrying permit. I have never drawn on anyone to date. There isn't a problem with the law itself. The problem is with people today and how they overreact to almost everything. Fact, the people in the handicap spot were wrong. Coming out and knocking the guy down - wrong. Pulling a gun and killing someone because you got your pride bruised in a parking lot - punishable offense.
Thermal
August Member
I think Drewbot meant that the shove was the initial assault and that it was intended to injure.
Regarding advancing, I don't think so. That would shift the dynamic to mutual assault, as opposed to strictly defending. I'm not sure you could claim self defense when you are actually assaulting under Florida law. Stand Your Ground kind of implies neither retreating nor advancing.
If I got shoved to the ground I wouldn't take that as 'intent to injure', whereas a punch in the face would be another matter.
Then it seems to me that when the shover backed off the shooter did not 'stand his ground'. He advanced. Pulling the gun established his ground and that he was going to defend it.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,827
Question of the law aside, isn't the issue here that the sheriff has unilaterally acquited the guy? Who is he to determine there was a "reasonable" fear? If there was, shouldn't that be determined by a jury?
Ok, let SYG be a defense against homocide charges. But make that case in front of a jury, don't leave it up to a jury to assess, not Bubba the Good Ol Boy sheriff or DA
Ok, let SYG be a defense against homocide charges. But make that case in front of a jury, don't leave it up to a jury to assess, not Bubba the Good Ol Boy sheriff or DA
Thermal
August Member
The State gets a run at charges too. They can still get our Captain Courageous in the defendant's seat
Skeptic Tank
Trigger Warning
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Messages
- 3,121
Was just reading a Huffington Post article about this where they have the girlfriend interviewed and she says:
“He wanted somebody to be angry at,” Jacobs said. “He just wanted someone to fight him. He was picking a fight. I’m just sitting, waiting for my family to come back to the car.”"
Let's say she's right and this guy was looking for someone to be angry at. Okay... so if he hadn't found someone parking in the handicapped spot he would've figured something else out to be mad about? Maybe, but probably not. If she'd apologized and moved to a different spot, or expressed shame (or even feigned ignorance) and just said that her boyfriend parked there and she hadn't realized and she'll make sure to tell him not to do it again, or anything like that rather than getting into a shouting match with the shooter, would her boyfriend have ended up shot? If he'd come out and not immediately physically assaulted the guy, would he have ended up shot?
There are people in the world out there who do have chips on their shoulder or are kind of looking for a conflict. It's hard to say whether they just want to tell someone off, or if they're looking for more than that. Some of them are armed. The best thing we can all do is to not be idiots who break the law, get into angry shouting matches when called out on it, and not be the kind of people who physically assault someone for telling us off about breaking the law. 99,999 times out of 100,000 that will keep us bullet free.
It's kind of like that recent video of the guy groping the scantily clad waitress as he walked behind her at the bar.
If the only thing keeping you out of jail on a sexual assault charge is the fact that the stars haven't yet aligned to put someone in sufficiently skimpy clothing within arm's reach while you are the right amount of intoxicated, then that's a bad strategy for you because it's only a matter of time.
Likewise, if the only thing that has kept you from being shot dead is that you haven't yet encountered an armed busybody and physically assaulted them, you should do something to improve your odds (like not be a criminal) and if you're incapable of adjusting your behavior patterns to not include criminal assault, then perhaps society is better off with you shot.
“He wanted somebody to be angry at,” Jacobs said. “He just wanted someone to fight him. He was picking a fight. I’m just sitting, waiting for my family to come back to the car.”"
Let's say she's right and this guy was looking for someone to be angry at. Okay... so if he hadn't found someone parking in the handicapped spot he would've figured something else out to be mad about? Maybe, but probably not. If she'd apologized and moved to a different spot, or expressed shame (or even feigned ignorance) and just said that her boyfriend parked there and she hadn't realized and she'll make sure to tell him not to do it again, or anything like that rather than getting into a shouting match with the shooter, would her boyfriend have ended up shot? If he'd come out and not immediately physically assaulted the guy, would he have ended up shot?
There are people in the world out there who do have chips on their shoulder or are kind of looking for a conflict. It's hard to say whether they just want to tell someone off, or if they're looking for more than that. Some of them are armed. The best thing we can all do is to not be idiots who break the law, get into angry shouting matches when called out on it, and not be the kind of people who physically assault someone for telling us off about breaking the law. 99,999 times out of 100,000 that will keep us bullet free.
It's kind of like that recent video of the guy groping the scantily clad waitress as he walked behind her at the bar.
If the only thing keeping you out of jail on a sexual assault charge is the fact that the stars haven't yet aligned to put someone in sufficiently skimpy clothing within arm's reach while you are the right amount of intoxicated, then that's a bad strategy for you because it's only a matter of time.
Likewise, if the only thing that has kept you from being shot dead is that you haven't yet encountered an armed busybody and physically assaulted them, you should do something to improve your odds (like not be a criminal) and if you're incapable of adjusting your behavior patterns to not include criminal assault, then perhaps society is better off with you shot.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
Was actually with you right up to that last line. Even a criminal can turn it around and be a benefit. Hell, I work with guys with histories, who are solid contributors and good fathers now. We're not putting inconvenient dogs down in this great nation, just yet
sir drinks-a-lot
Philosopher
I think it's still a straw man.
sir drinks-a-lot
Philosopher
I've seen two videos from different camera angles.
I'd agree that the guy was pretty much blind-sided, and then it looked like the deceased was likely to attack again. Then the gun came out and the deceased was clearly retreating for a period of time before he got shot.
This is The End
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 10,925
Several people in this thread seem to be forgetting that even if the "shove" was 100% wrong (legally, morally, financially, whatever) the shooting can very well still be determined to be unjustified. Even in Florida.
TheGoldcountry
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2011
- Messages
- 8,382
I've been blindsided by punches and shoves. Never even entered my mind that lethal force was warranted in response.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Cain
Straussian
Yeah, he sprayed the hooker's car with bullets from an AK-47. In the end, he got off. Hope he got his hundred-and-fifty bucks back, too. I bet the next trollop won't pull the "got-your-money" stunt again.
This is The End
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 10,925
Well that's probably because you are not a piece of **** Republican Fox News Bubble racist ****** pussy.
ETA: (errr... I assumed that last word would be asterisked out as well... I'll leave it I guess!
)
Last edited:
This is The End
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 10,925
That should read "Mumbles is correct". I was reading the wrong word when trying to type the "correct" one.
