Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[Ziggurat]

I do not recall a thread where people are so enamoured with their opinions based on after the fact speculation that completely ignores the dominant issue here, which was the unprovoked attack on the victim.

Not a good look for most here.

Yes, it was an unprovoked attack. So what? That doesn't suffice. Seriously, that's not how legal self-defense works. There are multiple requirements, and this only provides one of them.

And given the absence of time travel or prescience, we're all stuck with after-the-fact analysis.

 

[Thermal]

I do not recall a thread where people are so enamoured with their opinions based on after the fact speculation that completely ignores the dominant issue here, which was the unprovoked attack on the victim.
Not a good look for most here.

That's...that's, uh...not the dominant issue here. The dominant issue is the shooting. You know, the murder of the shover. Getting shot and killed kind of eclipses that.

Or do you mean that there is some...trait...about McGlocklin that you find so reprehensible, that you find murder a fair retribution for shoving?

 

[This is The End]

S/he is saying spouse as a covienient shorthand for 'domestic/romantic partner and mother of his children'. Why would you feel the need to correct this inconsequential detail?

The religious right does not like the term spouse being used on people who are not religious (and not white for that matter).

 

[This is The End]

I hope they check her cel phone records, I would not be surprised if she called boyfriend to come out and do a beat down on this annoying MF.

Worst logic fail of the year.

 

[The Big Dog]

That's...that's, uh...not the dominant issue here. The dominant issue is the shooting. You know, the murder of the shover. Getting shot and killed kind of eclipses that.

Or do you mean that there is some...trait...about McGlocklin that you find so reprehensible, that you find murder a fair retribution for shoving?

He’s a bully that blindsides people?

Good point

 

[angrysoba]

He’s a bully that blindsides people?

Good point

Yes, that's say he is. Now, how do you justify shooting him?

 

[This is The End]

Within the time of that pause,

Keeping in mind it is about the same amount of time that the man had between when he was told someone was outside verbally attacking his spouse and him pushing the shooter away. For some reason TBD does not give that man the same benefit of "no time to think" as the shooter.

Also, Ziggurat, I sincerely apologize for earlier in the thread. I want everyone to know that I know Ziggurat is not racist I was just pissed off about the nightly Trump news on top of this case breaking. (Though dammit Ziggurat it's a fine line between defending Trump for... well pretty much anything the guy does, and being part and partial.)

Again, I'm sorry Ziggurat for earlier in the thread.

 

[This is The End]

I'm not like Mumbles. I don't see every shooting of an unarmed black man as a racist murder.

To be fair, it so often is that someone could be excused for being wrong the few times it isn't. (Zimmerman case not being one of the isn'ts BTW. )

 

[This is The End]

I do not recall a thread where people are so enamoured with their opinions based on after the fact speculation that completely ignores the dominant issue here, which was the unprovoked attack on the victim.

There you are with those two words again. Both wrong.

Defending his spouse was provoked by him being told a man was outside verbally attacking her.

It was one push to separate the attacker from his spouse.

Therefore you have both words completely ass backwards. We know why you do it, but I'm still going to point it out every time you do it.

 

[This is The End]

Remember, the push can be both provoked and a misdemeanor. Just because it is possibly not legal does not magically make it unprovoked.

 

[The Big Dog]

There you are with those two words again. Both wrong.

Defending his spouse was provoked by him being told a man was outside verbally attacking her.

It was one push to separate the attacker from his spouse.

Therefore you have both words completely ass backwards. We know why you do it, but I'm still going to point it out every time you do it.

This is precisely the type of misrepresentations, diminishing the attack, and just plain victim blaming that I was talking about earlier.

Curious that the defense of initial attacker is based on a complete fairy tale, ain’t it.

Gaze upon it, and come to the correct explanation which I have provided.

 

[PhantomWolf]

This is precisely the type of misrepresentations, diminishing the attack

The attack is really irrelevant. I know you seem to believe that revenge is a perfectly acceptable reason to shoot someone, it's not.

If this thread was "Black Man arrested for pushing someone" then you might have a case to make if people were defending him, but it's not because instead of [the shooter] calling for help and getting someone to ring the police while he held the attacker at bay with the gun, he shoot the guy while he was no longer an imminent threat.

Do you understand what "Imminent Threat" means?

and just plain victim blaming that I was talking about earlier.

The victim of the attack needs to be blamed for how he reacted to it. In a civilised society we don't shoot people that have disengaged and are retreating. That's called Murder.

Gaze upon it, and come to the correct explanation which I have provided.

No, you are indulging yourself in a revenge shooting because rather than wanting to understand the Law, you think it should be an eye for an eye. That's not how the real world works.

 

[This is The End]

The attack is really irrelevant. I know you seem to believe that revenge is a perfectly acceptable reason to shoot someone, it's not.

But he only thinks that for the white shooter. He doesn't think that revenge is a perfectly acceptable reason for a black man to push someone.

 

[This is The End]

part and partial

Ugh. This time voice to text got me. That should be, obviously, "part and parcel".

 

[PhantomWolf]

No, TBD, he's not wrong. And you seem to be the one not dealing with it.

I don't know why you're so invested in this case, but you aren't approaching this rationally. You've become the mirror image of Mumbles. It's not a good look.

You know, when Ziggurat and I are in agreement on something, you know that the Devil is looking for a scarf and mittens.

 

[Planigale]

It seems to me a fatal shooting should always be subject to a court hearing. I think that the killing of a person should be subject to an open and impartial review. Decisions behind closed doors e.g. the Sherif deciding to take no action, or the prosecutor deciding not to prosecute have the danger of being seen as corrupt.

I think the shooter should have been promptly arrested and interviewed to get an immediate record of what happened (with counsel if desired). The shooter needs to be breathalysed and checked for drugs (the shooting victim will be). The gun needs to be checked (just in case there is a claim it fired itself), the gun license needs to be confirmed, any training by the shooter recorded. The shooter does not necessarily need to be detained if he is not thought to be a danger to others.

If the shooter was intoxicated and judgement impaired this would be an important issue. If the shooter was diabetic and their glucose was low and judgement impaired this would be an important issue.

If knowing that you will have to go through a court process if you kill someone acts as a deterrent for shooting then I do not think this is a bad thing.

Yes I think this should include fatal shooting by cops. In simple cases the court hearing might be fairly brief, the bad guy had his gun out, he was shooting into the crowd I issued a verbal warning and then shot him. Case dismissed.

The point is a killing should be openly and publicly justified. (grand juries as I understand are not open and one sided so would not count). In England any death such as this would alwaysgo before a coroner's court* for an inquiry (not a criminal court), evidence is given, witnesses can be questioned, a jury gives a verdict. (There are many verdicts possible including narrative verdicts, but common ones are suicide, misadventure, justifiable homicide, murder). Even a verdict of murder by a coroners court does not result in automatic criminal proceedings, the burden of proof differs, but would be likely to be followed by prosecution authorities, even if a previous decision not to bring a criminal case had been made.

* If there is a criminal court case this can also function as the coroner's court inquiry but not vice versa.

 

[lionking]

You do realize that basically all you are saying is that your opinion differs from my analysis and the Sheriff's analysis. I get that people can differ, i assume you do too.

The only ones "losing" anything are the ones whose 'analysis" seems to be little more than conclusions wrapped up in false claims.

Others' opinions, your analysis???

Being a partner but not a spouse is somehow relevant.

This thread is surreal, and very entertaining.

 

[Ziggurat]

Also, Ziggurat, I sincerely apologize for earlier in the thread. I want everyone to know that I know Ziggurat is not racist I was just pissed off about the nightly Trump news on top of this case breaking. .

Things got a little out of hand. It's just this war and that lying son of a bitch Johnson Trump.

 

[Drewbot]

That is not the relevant legal standard.

Yeah, it seems that it is the relevant legal standard:

the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection (1)

In other words, if someone claims SYG, the prosecutor needs clear and convincing evidence to overcome that.

Note: I'm not saying this person doesn't deserve to be prosecuted, i'm just pointing out that the sheriff's office probably is handcuffed by the statute. I would not be surprised if the DA decides to prosecute. After the Trayvon case, I'm sure every cop was trained in how to deal with these cases. I would also not be surprised if the cops were trained to pass this on to the DA, and let them do a thorough investigation instead of the cop making the determination.

I would also point out that we have no idea what the McGlockton guy or his Girlfriend was saying after the violent shove. This could play a significant role in determining if the shooter was in fear of his life. If he said 'I'm going to get my gun out of the glovebox and kill you', would the shooter now be legitimately in fear of his life?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I'd agree that the attack was (mostly) unprovoked. But I don't think that is the dominant issue.

I agree, I've given my opinion earlier in the thread, no-one seemed particularky interested but for the record it was that the shooter should be charged with voluntary manslaughter.

But I am surprised how many people are handwaving away the fact that the victim initiated a violent physical confrontation. You could count the number of times that I've agreed with TBD on the fingers of a bandsaw operator with myopia and ADD, but he is right to refer to it as an assault, he's right that being pushed like that could cause serious injuries or death, and referring to it in terms like 'schoolyard shove' trivialises it unfairly.

Now personally I can't stand people who park like inconsiderate ********, my experience is that if someone parks with no consideration for the rules or other people, they drive with no consideration for the rules or other people. I have no problem with someone saying "You're parked in a disabled spot, don't be a dick, move", I'd applaud someone for doing it, but then I do live in a country where the vast majority of us aren't walking around with lethal weapons. An argument about parking (which obviously wasn't scarey enough for the driver to lock her doors, roll up her window, or you know, stay in the car) doesn't justify assaulting someone.

The shooting was absolutely wrong, but all three people involved contributed to the situation and it's escalation.