Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[PhantomWolf]

The guy pursued him. That is plenty of reason to fear for your life.

logger, is that you?

 

[PhantomWolf]

You are completely wrong.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/19/head-trauma-is-nothing-to-be-taken-lightly/comment-page-3/
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...ent-after-shove-dies/articleshow/48119664.cms
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...dies-brain-bleed-hitting-head-playground.html
https://www.universalhub.com/crime/20150709/woman-faces-charges-after-shoving-elderly-woman
http://www.wmur.com/article/man-suffers-serious-head-trauma-trying-to-stop-fight/5188675
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/...Head-Hit-The-Asphalt-Testimony-262650951.html

i could go on and on

Doesn't matter, the shove had already happened and was done. You can't shot someone for an attack that has ended.

If I walk up behind you and whack you in the head with a baseball bat and then drop it and step back, you aren't entitled to draw your gun and shoot me, because the attack is clearly over. Doing so is not self defense, it's a revenge murder.

Same thing is someone is charging you with a knife and you shoot them in the shoulder dropping them to the floor. You can't then walk over and put three more bullets in them and claim self defense.

The shooter had enough time between drawing and firing to see that the guy was backing away, he was no longer a threat once the gun was draw. Without a reasonable imminent threat to his life or of serious bodily harm, the shooter no longer can claim that the shot was fired in self defense.

That reasonable threat to him had passed before he fired, thus it's murder.

 

[The Big Dog]

Doesn't matter, the shove had already happened and was done. You can't shot someone for an attack that has ended.

If I walk up behind you and whack you in the head with a baseball bat and then drop it and step back, you aren't entitled to draw your gun and shoot me, because the attack is clearly over. Doing so is not self defense, it's a revenge murder.

Same thing is someone is charging you with a knife and you shoot them in the shoulder dropping them to the floor. You can't then walk over and put three more bullets in them and claim self defense.

The shooter had enough time between drawing and firing to see that the guy was backing away, he was no longer a threat once the gun was draw. Without a reasonable imminent threat to his life or of serious bodily harm, the shooter no longer can claim that the shot was fired in self defense.

That reasonable threat to him had passed before he fired, thus it's murder.

wrong, the attack had not ended, the attacker was coming in for stomping time, and was stopped only because the gun was drawn, plus the whole thing lasted six seconds, and you are parsing out the moments after the victim got knocked on his ass? Ridiculous

 

[lobosrul5]

wrong, the attack had not ended, the attacker was coming in for stomping time, and was stopped only because the gun was drawn, plus the whole thing lasted six seconds, and you are parsing out the moments after the victim got knocked on his ass? Ridiculous

Not sure thats true. He seems to backing away before the gun was drawn. And even if it is true, so what? I have no problem with the guy drawing his pistol FYI, that seems prudent. And if Florida has that BS rule that if you draw you must fire, well that really needs to go.

 

[Cain]

If I could've carried a gun on my person between about 6th and 10th grade and shot every kid who shoved me or worse.... man I'd have quite the kill count.

If you were packing a gun, they wouldn't've shoved you. This is why Florida's well-known concealed carry-permits, and reasonable "stand your ground laws," means it's almost unheard of for people to shove strangers. It doesn't happen.

 

[Thermal]

wrong, the attack had not ended, the attacker was coming in for stomping time, and was stopped only because the gun was drawn, plus the whole thing lasted six seconds, and you are parsing out the moments after the victim got knocked on his ass? Ridiculous

Using telekinesis?

 

[Ziggurat]

wrong, the attack had not ended, the attacker was coming in for stomping time

Unsupported speculation.

and was stopped only because the gun was drawn

That's the whole point: the gun draw stopped everything. There was no need to fire. That's what makes firing the gun disproportionate and unjustified.

You're backing a bad case, TBD.

 

[Mumbles]

Does anyone think this guy would be out playing parking police if he wasn't armed? It takes a special kind of courage to be confrontational knowing that you have a gun hidden in your belt.

Would he?

Well, every responsible gun owner I know has stated that a concealed carry comes with additional responsibility to avoid confrontation. Simple idea being, they don't ever want to be in a situation where they start a fight, and someone notices their gun under their shirt or whatever, since at that point the whole thing turns into a fight for your life.

In other words, this guy could be finding courage via his gun, or he could be some hotheaded idiot who was just unable to control his anger properly. No telling which is which, in the end.

Legal or not, shooter is human garbage.

THat much we can agree on.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Wait, you just declared quite authoritatively that the victim was not in fear for his life, and that is your response. Mmmm_mmmmm! Delicious irony.

Seems, like the deceased’s mistake was “parking” an armed man on his ass because his baby momma was too *********** lazy to park like a human being.
Did you miss the whole shove and the victim hitting the concrete? Look at the video again.

Someone pointed out the first hilited statement as a dog whistle. The latter goes quite a bit beyond even that!

You can't claim ignorance of their race. What would you like to tell us "like a human being" means in the context of a white/black confrontation thread?

 

[PhantomWolf]

wrong, the attack had not ended, the attacker was coming in for stomping time

Not only speculation, but clearly incorrect speculation

and was stopped only because the gun was drawn

Glad you agree that the attack was stopped before the gun was fired.

Ridiculous

Indeed, your arguments have become quite...

Ridiculous

 

[ponderingturtle]

Would he?

Well, every responsible gun owner I know has stated that a concealed carry comes with additional responsibility to avoid confrontation. Simple idea being, they don't ever want to be in a situation where they start a fight, and someone notices their gun under their shirt or whatever, since at that point the whole thing turns into a fight for your life.

An interesting argument, then I guess this guy deserved what he got.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/07/03/navy-veteran-killed-campus-police-had-concealed-gun-permit.html

Should have known better than to intervene while carrying.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

An interesting argument, then I guess this guy deserved what he got.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/07/03/navy-veteran-killed-campus-police-had-concealed-gun-permit.html

Should have known better than to intervene while carrying.

To be honest, it was unwise to intervene in his case. By getting involved while carrying, he introduced a firearm to a fight that previously didn't have one, escalating it tremendously. This is especially true if your weapon is holstered in such a poor way that it's likely to fall out onto the ground unintentionally. I can't really fault the police for shooting at someone who's holding a firearm during a street fight.

Whether he "deserved" to be shot is the wrong framing. He should have considered whether he, as a regular citizen who happened to be carrying a gun, was the best person to break up an unarmed street fight.

 

[bignickel]

In TBD's argument, if you come out to your car and see someone yelling at your spouse, and you push the guy away and he falls to the ground, then you're an "attacker" and you're "attacking" him. And killing you is justified for shoving the guy away from your vehicle with spouse inside.

Seriously, why is anyone engaging with this troll? Am I the only one getting a Russian accent here?

 

[Thermal]

In TBD's argument, if you come out to your car and see someone yelling at your spouse, and you push the guy away and he falls to the ground, then you're an "attacker" and you're "attacking" him. And killing you is justified for shoving the guy away from your vehicle with spouse inside.

Seriously, why is anyone engaging with this troll? Am I the only one getting a Russian accent here?

Not a spouse; that is an important distinction in his argument. Baby momma squatting in her jalopy. And McGlocklin was a hulking aggressor who blindside attacked and was going in for a World Star stomping, against a poor old man who was head injured and dazed. See how different it is?

DaVinci got nothing on The Big Dog

 

[Hellbound]

You're backing a bad case, TBD.

I suspect it's force of habit at this point

 

[Hungry81]

As an adult? I can assure you that it is a very serious crime. In Florida, McGlockton's actions constitute simple battery, which would make him eligible for up to a year in prison and a fine of not more than $1000. That is, unless McGlockton had been previously convicted of battery, in which case the law allows for him to be charged with felony battery, which would open up the possibility for him to serve up to five years in prison plus a fine of up to $5000.

If he had been arrested and charged with assault and a parking ticket issued then that would be a suitable resolution. The way things turned out was not.

 

[The Big Dog]

In TBD's argument, if you come out to your car and see someone yelling at your spouse, and you push the guy away and he falls to the ground, then you're an "attacker" and you're "attacking" him. And killing you is justified for shoving the guy away from your vehicle with spouse inside.

Ah, folks it was just a "push" and the "victim" "fell" to the ground.

The victim should have kept his feet on the ground! He "fell"!

Not really surprised at all how wildly people are underselling this blind side attack.

 

[Thermal]

Ah, folks it was just a "push" and the "victim" "fell" to the ground.

The victim should have kept his feet on the ground! He "fell"!

Not really surprised at all how wildly people are underselling this blind side attack.

You kepp using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Your blind side is opposite where your eyes are. McGlocklin walked up at a right angle and shoved him in the chest. Nothing about that is a blind side attack.

 

[bignickel]

Anyone remember the Python self-defense course skit? Where Cleese shoots the guy who's running at him with a banana? "He had a banana!"

Hilarious.

It's odd how in real life, the guy is 1. not running at the gun-welder 2. doesn't have anything, much less a banana.

Not so hilarious.

 

[The Big Dog]

You kepp using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Your blind side is opposite where your eyes are. McGlocklin walked up at a right angle and shoved him in the chest. Nothing about that is a blind side attack.

Yeah, NO. Here it was a deliberate attack to the side against someone who was not in a defensive posture able to defend himself.

Take a gander: "The definition of a blindside block established by the committee is “a block against an opponent other than the runner, who does not see the blocker approaching,”

https://www.nfhs.org/articles/new-b...ss-risk-minimization-in-high-school-football/

But I was told that the victim "fell down" because of a "push."