• 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

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. . .

Quite likely, but it could also be suggested that in a wider sense it is a symptom of a society that glamourises not backing down (even when you're in the wrong) and sees violence, whether with hands or guns as the appropriate way of settling disputes.
 
Just to expand a bit:

I agree that a person has a right to confront others about handicapped parking, but I don't agree that a private citizen has a right to harass others about it.

"Hey, I'm calling the cops because you don't have a parking permit." Just fine.
"Hey, what the **** is wrong with you, you idiot? Get out of that space or I'll make you get out!" Not so fine.

I'm not saying that the second quote above is what happened here, but clearly, Drejka was a bit more confrontational than the first quote. And maybe, he was more confrontational because he had the gun.

Now, clearly, McGlockton was totally in the wrong because he doesn't have the right to just come out and knock over a dude arguing with his girlfriend. That is clear cut assault. He also seemed to move towards Drejka until the gun came out. Only then did he back away.

And that's the point at which the gun did it's job. I think the mere presence of the gun was enough to end the conflict. Pulling the trigger was completely unnecessary.

If Drejka isn't charged with at least something like manslaughter, then it seems to me that the Florida law basically allows retaliatory killing, not just self-defense killing. Beyond that, the law emboldens these kinds of crusaders. It allows them to be a lot more confrontational because they know that if they get into trouble, they can kill someone and get away with it -it's a "loophole" that basically allows murder. Just harass someone enough to physically confront you and you are allowed to shoot them. That seems like a stupid law and I think prosecutors should make an example in this case: No, that is not what the law is about. And legislators should be scrambling right now to reword the law and fix this "loophole."
 
Just to expand a bit:

I agree that a person has a right to confront others about handicapped parking, but I don't agree that a private citizen has a right to harass others about it.

"Hey, I'm calling the cops because you don't have a parking permit." Just fine.
"Hey, what the **** is wrong with you, you idiot? Get out of that space or I'll make you get out!" Not so fine.

I'm not saying that the second quote above is what happened here, but clearly, Drejka was a bit more confrontational than the first quote. And maybe, he was more confrontational because he had the gun.

Now, clearly, McGlockton was totally in the wrong because he doesn't have the right to just come out and knock over a dude arguing with his girlfriend. That is clear cut assault. He also seemed to move towards Drejka until the gun came out. Only then did he back away.

And that's the point at which the gun did it's job. I think the mere presence of the gun was enough to end the conflict. Pulling the trigger was completely unnecessary.

If Drejka isn't charged with at least something like manslaughter, then it seems to me that the Florida law basically allows retaliatory killing, not just self-defense killing. Beyond that, the law emboldens these kinds of crusaders. It allows them to be a lot more confrontational because they know that if they get into trouble, they can kill someone and get away with it -it's a "loophole" that basically allows murder. Just harass someone enough to physically confront you and you are allowed to shoot them. That seems like a stupid law and I think prosecutors should make an example in this case: No, that is not what the law is about. And legislators should be scrambling right now to reword the law and fix this "loophole."

Of course it is what the law was about, always has been. See how shocking it was that the former cop who offed that guy for texting in a movie theater even got charged was.
 
Quite likely, but it could also be suggested that in a wider sense it is a symptom of a society that glamourises not backing down (even when you're in the wrong) and sees violence, whether with hands or guns as the appropriate way of settling disputes.
I think the laws encourage violence, certainly the law in Florida seems to. There should be some requirement to de-escalate. At the very least, killing someone should be the absolute last resort -it is clearly the only way to stop imminent harm or death. There should also be some provision that if you initiate a conflict, which Drejka clearly did, that is a factor which creates more responsibility in the person with the gun. IOW, if you carry a gun and go around starting conflicts, you need to be responsible for any injuries/deaths that result from the discharge of the gun.
 
I think the laws encourage violence, certainly the law in Florida seems to. There should be some requirement to de-escalate. At the very least, killing someone should be the absolute last resort -it is clearly the only way to stop imminent harm or death. There should also be some provision that if you initiate a conflict, which Drejka clearly did, that is a factor which creates more responsibility in the person with the gun. IOW, if you carry a gun and go around starting conflicts, you need to be responsible for any injuries/deaths that result from the discharge of the gun.

I'm confused: How would any of that increase gun sales?

- NRA Lobbyist
 
I think the laws encourage violence, certainly the law in Florida seems to. There should be some requirement to de-escalate. At the very least, killing someone should be the absolute last resort -it is clearly the only way to stop imminent harm or death. There should also be some provision that if you initiate a conflict, which Drejka clearly did, that is a factor which creates more responsibility in the person with the gun. IOW, if you carry a gun and go around starting conflicts, you need to be responsible for any injuries/deaths that result from the discharge of the gun.

How do we go about that, start with repealing the first amendment?

Folks, the dead guy would be alive right now if he did not initiate the violence.

period.
 
There's a "responsible gun owner" joke in here somewhere, but alas a man brute has died.
 
I consider you an honest poster, so I don't want to descend into semantics or point scoring or arguing for the sake of arguing, please don't interpret my responses as an attempt to move in that direction.

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.

My apologies if I misunderstood you, but in the context of a conversation about SYG and self defense I took fighting to mean, well actually fighting rather than a metaphor for verbal disagreement. I might say "I got in a fight with my boss at work today", but if the person I was talking to said "What, a real fight?" I'd know the distinction they were drawing and so, I believe, would most people. Genuinely, maybe there's a subtle difference between British and American semantics in this respect.

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.

Is it SYG if you get out of your car to confront them? That seems unlikely to me. If you don't trust Captain Cuckoo I think you'd be safer in your car with the doors locked on the other side of the car park than standing nose to nose with him leaving your kids in the car alone. She doesn't act like she's scared of him, angry, yes, but not scared. She's in the wrong and doubles down, yes people do that all the time but it doesn't make them right to do so.


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.

Cause no one ever picked a fight over a football team. Maybe this is a cultural thing, but up to the point that he pulled the gun out he would probably have been considered a 'good guy' in the UK. Healthy people without permits parking in disabled spaces is considered a bad thing and third parties attacking the person pointing it out is considered worse. I know Don't you honestly think the narrative about the events leading up to him hitting the ground would be viewed completely differently if he'd hit his head and been seriously injured or killed? The events would have been the same but we're projecting the end of the confrontation back.

Once again, not defending the shooting but I see the escalation from a verbal disagreement to physical violence as a significant step up in the confrontation. These weren't two people confronted by a third who kept ramping up the pressure until they were forced to act. All three of them actively increased the level of threat at one stage or another. Frankly I think that when these three people ran into each other it was going to end badly for someone.

Anecdote: This has me thinking about a good friend I now have. We met completely by chance in a pub and got into a conversation about this subject. I was rather drunk at the time and I remember saying to him "It doesn't matter if I call you the ugliest lanky bastard in Earth, if you throw the first punch in response to words, you're in the wrong." That's the position I hold ( I'd also extend that to escalating to deadly force in the face of a non lethal, to your knowledge, threat).
 
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.

Hey, I'm not defending my country's infatuation with guns.

My point was, I see guns on the hip of somebody, I don't get scared.
 
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

Oh dear, you agree, the shooter should be arrested, and the case shouldn't be dismissed by an LEO.

How far is your BS going?
 
How do we go about that, start with repealing the first amendment?

Folks, the dead guy would be alive right now if he did not initiate the violence.

period.

The dead guy would be alive if someone else didn't feel the need to draw on the dead guy.

That last sentence ignores a lot of facts, doesn't it?
 
Oh dear, you agree, the shooter should be arrested, and the case shouldn't be dismissed by an LEO.

That is literally the opposite of what I said.

Blown away by the level of disingenuousness in this thread, simply breathtaking

Before anyone mistakes my posts again I have said repeatedly that this was a completely justified shooting, as such, next time y'all want to mischararacterize what I said just remember that this was a Clean Shooting."
 
That is literally the opposite of what I said.

Blown away by the level of disingenuousness in this thread, simply breathtaking

Before anyone mistakes my posts again I have said repeatedly that this was a completely justified shooting, as such, next time y'all want to mischararacterize what I said just remember that this was a Clean Shooting."



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

What is there to mischaracterize?

I just don't think you understood that you were agreeing with everyone.
 
Yes.



Philistine. Best pizza ever has anchovies, capers and perhaps some olives.

Capers oh yes. Halved, pitted black olives excellent. Love anchovies, but they're too strong on a pizza. Please send me some pizza with my yellow card :D
 
There is something important (bolded below) that I'm pretty sure no one is keeping in mind about McGlockton.

He had a spouse outside in the car with a 3 year old and a newborn baby.

He is told by witnesses that someone is outside yelling at the woman.

The man does not have any idea why that is.

That is the part that no one here is really understanding. We have the "handicap spot bandit blah blah" information now. But the man inside did not. Again, it seems obvious to us that that is why the woman was being yelled at because we have the information. The man did not have that information. We have to remember that when deciding whether or not his reaction was reasonable.

For all the man knew she was being robbed.

Keeping that in mind, then this happens:

Within a few seconds he made the decision to separate the unknown attacker from his family with a push.

It is a 100% justified decision IMO, even if it could have ended up being a misdemeanor (or worse) if it turned out his spouse and kids were not in as much danger as he could have reasonably guessed.
 
How do we go about that, start with repealing the first amendment?
Rewrite the law to place some responsibility on gun carriers to not start confrontations when they are packing.

Folks, the dead guy would be alive right now if he did not initiate the violence.

period.

And the dead guy would be alive if the guy with the gun hadn't initiated the confrontation with the dead guy's babymomma in the first place.

My opinion is that if you choose to exercise your Second Amendment right to carry, then you should have a responsibility to conduct yourself a bit more carefully. Exercising your First Amendment rights stops when such exercise is likely to lead to harm. We don't allow people to use sexually suggestive speech in certain situations. What I'm proposing is that we don't allow gun-toters to engage in confrontational speech while toting.

In fact, the Florida law does address this:

776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.

So it seems that in this particular case an argument could be made that Drejka provoked the use of force by verbally harassing McGlockton's girlfriend, which puts a higher responsibility on him to withdraw from the conflict. That sounds like something a jury should decide. We don't have enough information about what Drejka actually told the girlfriend or the nature of the "heated argument" to draw any conclusions about such provocation. I can see that there were witnesses so it would be interesting to hear from them.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom