Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[Max_mang]

Consider what McGlocklin did. Upon seeing some whacko screaming at his partner, he stolls up slowly, not rushing or even trotting. One shove to get the harasser away from his partner and car, and no further aggressive action.

This is not true. The video clearly shows the shover moving toward the downed man. He stops and backs up when the downed man reaches for his gun.

It's incredible to me how difficult it is for facts to stay straight on a critical thinking forum.

 

[Max_mang]

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.

Everything you've bolded could be equally applied to the shooter.

 

[Thermal]

This is not true. The video clearly shows the shover moving toward the downed man. He stops and backs up when the downed man reaches for his gun.

It's incredible to me how difficult it is for facts to stay straight on a critical thinking forum.

If you call that shuffling little stutter-step moving towards Drejka, you must live in paralyzing fear of attack all the time. What do you reasonably require, freezing like a stone statue? He made no aggressive moves, as in ones that appear to be violent. While you lament the quality of skepticism, were you being clear enough in your own thinking to interpret the context reasonably?

 

[Max_mang]

If you call that shuffling little stutter-step moving towards Drejka, you must live in paralyzing fear of attack all the time. What do you reasonably require, freezing like a stone statue? He made no aggressive moves, as in ones that appear to be violent. While you lament the quality of skepticism, were you being clear enough in your own thinking to interpret the context reasonably?

What you said was wrong. I gave no indicator of my feelings of this situation, yet you assign me a position and strawman it up. Once again you show a lack of critical thinking.

 

[The Big Dog]

If you call that shuffling little stutter-step moving towards Drejka, you must live in paralyzing fear of attack all the time. What do you reasonably require, freezing like a stone statue? He made no aggressive moves, as in ones that appear to be violent. While you lament the quality of skepticism, were you being clear enough in your own thinking to interpret the context reasonably?

No aggressive moves... until he blind sided the victim you mean.

Chuckled at the plea "to interpret the context reasonably" right after you typed that the guy who knocked the other guy ass over teakettle made "made no aggressive moves, as in ones that appear to be violent."

Brilliant.

 

[Thermal]

What you said was wrong. I gave no indicator of my feelings of this situation, yet you assign me a position and strawman it up. Once again you show a lack of critical thinking.

What I said was correct enough for the purpose of discussion, in any reasonable interpretation. Trying to reframe it as a false statement for no particular reason and to no benefit tips off your agenda.

If you think McGlocklin moved towards Drejka, how far and how quickly, or at least aggressively, did he move? I see a few inches with open hands at side. In context, you wouldn't agree that he was not moving aggressively?

 

[Thermal]

No aggressive moves... until he blind sided the victim you mean.

Chuckled at the plea "to interpret the context reasonably" right after you typed that the guy who knocked the other guy ass over teakettle made "made no aggressive moves, as in ones that appear to be violent."

Brilliant.

We are discussing after the shove. Do try and keep up.

Square to the chest, face to face, is still not blindside, btw.

 

[The Big Dog]

What I said was correct enough for the purpose of discussion, in any reasonable interpretation. Trying to reframe it as a false statement for no particular reason and to no benefit tips off your agenda.

If you think McGlocklin moved towards Drejka, how far and how quickly, or at least aggressively, did he move? I see a few inches with open hands at side. In context, you wouldn't agree that he was not moving aggressively?

I see we are on the same page

 

[Thermal]

I see we are on the same page

If you mean indulging in recreational hallucinations, perhaps so.

 

[The Big Dog]

If you mean indulging in recreational hallucinations, perhaps so.

Why are you on recreational hallucinations??

never mind.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

[Lotsa trim]That's why I blame Drejka so heavily. While there is nothing necessarily illegal about playing parking cop and initiating a confrontation, it is (to resurrect my previous expression) picking a fight. That you might very well get, and in spades. IMO, you can't cry victim when you go out of your way to provoke the response. I don't want my tombstone to read 'Here Lies Thermal. He was legally right'.

But if you consider a (legal) verbal confrontation to be provoking an illegal physical response, then why isn't the physical confrontation equally provoking the (illegal) armed response? By raising a non violent argument to a physical fight why aren't you provoking the response in spades? I'm sure Drejka is sitting with his friends saying "The guy provoked the physical fight I didn't want my tombstone to read 'Here Lies Drejka. He was legally right'".

 

[Max_mang]

What I said was correct enough for the purpose of discussion, in any reasonable interpretation. Trying to reframe it as a false statement for no particular reason and to no benefit tips off your agenda.

If you think McGlocklin moved towards Drejka, how far and how quickly, or at least aggressively, did he move? I see a few inches with open hands at side. In context, you wouldn't agree that he was not moving aggressively?

"Correct enough" is not generally not considered critical thinking, especially when someone rearranges or otherwise obscures the facts.

My only agenda is to keep the facts straight so there can be a fair discussion. Interestingly, your objection to this may give an insight to your agenda. Though most likely it's that you've painted yourself into a corner and would rather double down than admit your original mistake and the logical fallacies that followed it.

The video shows McGlocklin took 2 steps toward Drejka after the push. It's difficult to judge the distance he moved from the camera angle, but a normal stride for a 6 foot man is about 30 inches. Actually you could almost count 3 steps but that may be nitpicking as the first step could be interpreted as momentum from the push.

 

[Max_mang]

We are discussing after the shove. Do try and keep up.

Square to the chest, face to face, is still not blindside, btw.

Correct, we were discussing after the shove.

The video does not show a square to the chest, face to face shove however. He clearly hit him from the side.

 

[Nessie]

It is in the interests of all gun owners and the police, to have the bar for what counts as a threat for which shooting is justified, set to as low as possible. They want to be able to shoot with as little risk to their liberty as possible.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

It is in the interests of all gun owners and the police, to have the bar for what counts as a threat for which shooting is justified, set to as low as possible. They want to be able to shoot with as little risk to their liberty as possible.

Haha, not at all.

 

[Nessie]

Haha, not at all.

Why would someone who has a gun for self defence, or the police, not want as low a risk as possible of being charged with murder (or similar) and possibility of going to prison, if they use their gun?

 

[Crawtator]

I see what you are saying, Nessie, but there is the other side of the coin. If cases like this one continue to be "low bar" cases which are ruled "good shoots", then at some point, there will be a negative backlash at either lawmakers, gun manufacturers, or both. Perhaps both of these groups are too short-sighted to recognize that it is not in their best interest, but I can see it causing future problems.

 

[lobosrul5]

It is in the interests of all gun owners and the police, to have the bar for what counts as a threat for which shooting is justified, set to as low as possible. They want to be able to shoot with as little risk to their liberty as possible.

As a gun owner, I take issue with that blanket statement. I think this a bad shoot, and this guy should be behind bars for a minimum of 10 years.

 

[theprestige]

It is in the interests of all gun owners and the police, to have the bar for what counts as a threat for which shooting is justified, set to as low as possible. They want to be able to shoot with as little risk to their liberty as possible.

I think I'll defer to people who own and understand guns, on this one.

 

[Nessie]

I see what you are saying, Nessie, but there is the other side of the coin. If cases like this one continue to be "low bar" cases which are ruled "good shoots", then at some point, there will be a negative backlash at either lawmakers, gun manufacturers, or both. Perhaps both of these groups are too short-sighted to recognize that it is not in their best interest, but I can see it causing future problems.

It is in the lawmakers and gun manufacturers interest to have a low bar as well. Would as many people buy a gun for self defence if they thought its use was likely to result in their conviction and imprisonment, or a death sentence? The answer is an obvious no.

The gun lobby and makers want people to feel safe to use their guns.