Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[3point14]

The point is, there was no reason to shoot another person dead.

I disagree. The way the law regarding self defence and firearms seems to work in the US, there are an awful lot of reasons to shoot another person dead that will stand up as 'self defence'.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Fair enough, actual screaming is not in evidence. The witness who reported to the clerk that there was a guy harassing a woman in the lot is seem on video. He looks to be about 20 or so feet away, but seems alarmed. This seems to suggest that it was more than a conversation. Would you agree that it was likely pretty loud and heated to draw this attention and reporting?



I'm not suggesting McGlocklin made a smart move, and your response is of course the preferable and more civilized. But if you were to pick a fight with a woman in a car (with her infants inside) out of the blue, and the father comes up and pushes you away, can you see how that is not exactly an attack? Far closer to over-protectiveness in my book, while again not excusing it.



That's fair, kids bounce back. But same scenario: you walk up and pick a fight with a woman and her infants with a gun in your waistband (Drejka is reported to have picked the same fight with others at this same location, and the Sheriff says he was reported to have brandished his gun in an earlier road rage incident). This guy was ready and prepared for serious confrontation. That he went ahead and initiated.



Illegal parking is a great way to pick a fight. People that do so tend to be arrogant and entitled, making them great candidates to get rowdy with. Or you just get high and mighty and give them a lecture or browbeating. I doubt it had any real significance other than a convenient justification.

Again you're equivocating a verbal disagreement with 'picking a fight', I've had enough verbal arguments with people over inconsiderate behaviour that haven't degenerated into any kind of physical interaction at all. She got out of her car to argue back at him, if she thought he was a threat at that time to her or her children why not just move the damn car. If he was out to pick an actual fight the other two people involved did a great job at enabling him. I also disagree that it's a particularly good way to pick a fight compared to many others, it's too easy for people to admit they're in the wrong and move or just roll up the windows and ignore you. I think there's more there.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

The actual point was that there was no reason to violently shove that person to the ground.
The shover created a highly chaotic situation, triggering a basic fight or flight reaction.

lots of things he could have done to deescalate the situation, he chose to escalate an argument to a physical attack, and paid the price.

He chose poorly.

Yes, shoving a person is scary. A bullet should not be the consequence.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

True or False quiz:

1) McGlocklin assaulted Drejka
2) McGlocklin was about to kick/stomp Drejka after throwing him to the ground
3) McGlocklin was about to attack Drejka after the gun was drawn

It seems clear (to me) that the answers to the above are:

1) T
2) ?
3) F

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I disagree. The way the law regarding self defence and firearms seems to work in the US, there are an awful lot of reasons to shoot another person dead that will stand up as 'self defence'.

I live in a county where many people wear firearms. They don't use them in these situations. They don't cause them, either.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

True or False quiz:

1) McGlocklin assaulted Drejka
2) McGlocklin was about to kick/stomp Drejka after throwing him to the ground
3) McGlocklin was about to attack Drejka after the gun was drawn

It seems clear (to me) that the answers to the above are:

1) T
2) ?
3) F

I rarely agree with you, but that seems accurate.

 

[The Big Dog]

True or False quiz:

1) McGlocklin assaulted Drejka
2) McGlocklin was about to kick/stomp Drejka after throwing him to the ground
3) McGlocklin was about to attack Drejka after the gun was drawn

It seems clear (to me) that the answers to the above are:

1) T
2) ?
3) F

Keep in mind, the answer must be from the perspective of the person who just got blindsided and slammed to the ground. One can not by clear evidence establish that his state of mind was not reasonable.

What we do know is that the initial attack could and should have been avoided.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Keep in mind, the answer must be from the perspective of the person who just got blindsided and slammed to the ground. One can not by clear evidence establish that his state of mind was not reasonable.

What we do know is that the initial attack could and should have been avoided.

No, the answer is "reasonable fear."

You don't get to kill someone for your own fears.

 

[Thermal]

Again you're equivocating a verbal disagreement with 'picking a fight', I've had enough verbal arguments with people over inconsiderate behaviour that haven't degenerated into any kind of physical interaction at all

How is that equivocating? Have you never heard someone say they got in a fight with the wife or coworker? Doesn't imply physical violence, right? If it sounds odd to you, I'm happy to switch to 'confrontation' or whatever. Not just an argument, though. We have arguments on these threads. Drejka had more than a difference of opinion going on.

She got out of her car to argue back at him, if she thought he was a threat at that time to her or her children why not just move the damn car.

SYG in practice. Some whacko walks up and picks a fight...er, initiates a confrontation with me, especially with my kids around, and no way I am turning turtle. He's staying where I can see him and with me standing if at all possible. Why would you trust Captain Cuckoo to play nice when he is looking for unsolicited confrontation? I'd be assuming he planned ti ramp it up with the parking as a loose justification.

If he was out to pick an actual fight the other two people involved did a great job at enabling him. I also disagree that it's a particularly good way to pick a fight compared to many others, it's too easy for people to admit they're in the wrong and move or just roll up the windows and ignore you. I think there's more there.

Yes, but parking i n a handicapped spot gives him the moral high ground. He looks like a good guy, even when gunning... er, looking for trouble. Beats the hell out of claiming someone bumped into you or whatever alternate excuse he might use to pick a confrontation.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, the answer is "reasonable fear."

Why did you highlight part of my post and ignore the following sentence?

"One can not by clear evidence establish that his state of mind was not reasonable."

weird

 

[3point14]

I live in a county where many people wear firearms. They don't use them in these situations. They don't cause them, either.

I live in a country where I only see firearms at the airport.


What freaks me out about this is that the legislation does not allow for the shooter to be detained or arrested. Claiming self defence when the cops rock up means they literally cannot arrest the, er notatallasuspect.


Or, at least, that's the way it seems to me. I could me misinterpreting some of the information in this thread.

 

[Thermal]

True or False quiz:

1) McGlocklin assaulted Drejka
2) McGlocklin was about to kick/stomp Drejka after throwing him to the ground
3) McGlocklin was about to attack Drejka after the gun was drawn

It seems clear (to me) that the answers to the above are:

1) T
2) ?
3) F

#2 should be false for exactly the same reason #3 is. What he was about to do can only be inferred. There was no reason to believe he was going to attack in either 2 or 3. There is additional support for 3, in that he was actively retreating, but without a positive forward move with fists clenched or similar, there is zero reason to assume he was attacking after the shove, so the default conclusion should be that he was not

 

[Dr. Keith]

Because some of us think it is funny when people try to deliberately mislead by taking a clause out of context.

WorldStar style stomping was stopped by a guy with a gun

The context is still there. I still like what you are saying. Thank you for work here in showing this was murder.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I live in a country where I only see firearms at the airport.


What freaks me out about this is that the legislation does not allow for the shooter to be detained or arrested. Claiming self defence when the cops rock up means they literally cannot arrest the, er notatallasuspect.

You also get that sweet immunity from wrongful death lawsuits.

 

[The Big Dog]

The context is still there. I still like what you are saying. Thank you for work here in showing this was murder.

i don't think the dead guy can be charged with felony murder, but thanks anyhow

 

[Dr. Keith]

True or False quiz:

1) McGlocklin assaulted Drejka
2) McGlocklin was about to kick/stomp Drejka after throwing him to the ground
3) McGlocklin was about to attack Drejka after the gun was drawn

It seems clear (to me) that the answers to the above are:

1) T
2) ?
3) F

Well put.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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

It's like we all agree the sky is blue but we can't agree on how to pronounce the word blue. Or something like that . . .

 

[xjx388]

To me, one thing seems very clear: This entire situation came about because one person had a gun on them. Without that gun as backup, would he have been so confrontational in the first place? Certainly, the other guy wouldn't have been dead.

Then again, we don't know what the dead guy would have done without the presence of the gun. He may very well have finished him off if he didn't see a gun pulled.

Still: I can only see this as a gun emboldening someone to confront others. That's the First Cause, IMHO. Kinda makes me rethink the gun issue somewhat. . .

 

[TragicMonkey]

One thing is clear: Florida is frightening. Other states would be justified in shooting it.

 

[GlennB]

What freaks me out about this is that the legislation does not allow for the shooter to be detained or arrested. Claiming self defence when the cops rock up means they literally cannot arrest the, er notatallasuspect.

I tuned out when the thread became a TBD trollfest, but was he really not detained for a substantial time while investigations were performed? If so, how is that even possible? Was it established that he wouldn't flee prior to a possible court appearance?

I understand that SYG might be a valid defence in this case, but you need a frikkin' defendant in the first place.