• 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

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.

What ever your opinion, it is in your interest that you are as at little risk of being charged and imprisoned if you use your gun for self defence as possible. It cannot be in your interest that its use is likely to result in your arrest and a potential spell on remand in prison awaiting a trial.

I agree this guy should be in prison and what he did was a homicide. But that is not the point I am making. The point I am making helps to explain why he was not even charged.

There are numerous shootings that would absolutely result in charges and almost certainly prison if they happened in the UK. This one, the cop who shot the kid in the hotel as he crawled, as instructed, towards him and many others.

The bar is set far lower in the USA than anywhere else for a reason.
 
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?

They would. But that is dramatically different from what you said in your previous post.
 
What ever your opinion, it is in your interest that you are as at little risk of being charged and imprisoned if you use your gun for self defence as possible. It cannot be in your interest that its use is likely to result in your arrest and a potential spell on remand in prison awaiting a trial.

I agree this guy should be in prison and what he did was a homicide. But that is not the point I am making. The point I am making helps to explain why he was not even charged.

There are numerous shootings that would absolutely result in charges and almost certainly prison if they happened in the UK. This one, the cop who shot the kid in the hotel as he crawled, as instructed, towards him and many others.

The bar is set far lower in the USA than anywhere else for a reason.

Maybe, but its also in my interest to not be shot because someone thought maybe I kinda sorta represented a theoretical threat to them and figured why not go ahead and shoot since they won't be prosecuted. Its also sure as hell not in my interest to be shot by police for pulling up my pants after begging them not to shoot for 5 straight minutes all because someone saw a gun in my hotel room (you mentioned police shootings in your previous post too).
 
Last edited:
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.


When I lived in a dodgy area of town I kept an under-bed baseball bat for self defense. I wanted to feel safe in using it to defend myself. I wanted to avoid as much risk of conviction and imprisonment for using it as possible, ... so I didn't thump it in my hand when asking the neighbors to turn the music down, or brandish it when the pizza guy was 15 minutes late.

So you proceed from a distorted premise (there's a drive to make shooting as widely justifiable as possible), but given the topic that's hardly surprising around here.
 
It all goes back to gun owners and carriers having an onus not to start stuff themselves. A gun shouldn't be thought of an exclamation point on your requests for people to move their cars, turn down their music, etc.
 
It all goes back to gun owners and carriers having an onus not to start stuff themselves. A gun shouldn't be thought of an exclamation point on your requests for people to move their cars, turn down their music, etc.

Forgive me, but may I simply note that here between the request that the person not park in the handicapped spot and the gun coming out, there was a mighty violent attack on the victim.
 
Forgive me, but may I simply note that here between the request that the person not park in the handicapped spot and the gun coming out, there was a mighty violent attack on the victim.

Yes, there was. And between the gun coming out and the gun firing, McGlockton retreated. Therefore the shooting was not justified, despite the violent attack. Revenge is not a justification for the use of deadly force, not even revenge against deadly force. You have consistently failed to address this crucial point.
 
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.

I agree. Now, on to what that means.

The move towards him when down justifies drawing the gun. The move away from him after the gun is drawn makes the shooting unjustified.
 
Yes, there was. And between the gun coming out and the gun firing, McGlockton retreated. Therefore the shooting was not justified, despite the violent attack. Revenge is not a justification for the use of deadly force, not even revenge against deadly force. You have consistently failed to address this crucial point.

Interesting that you have concluded that the shooting was "revenge," based on, what exactly, a slight movement away from the person who was violently attacked initially? That is hardly a basis to conclude it was "revenge," indeed it makes zero sense given the time frame involved.

As in addressing this point earlier I explained that the attack had undoubtedly triggered the deep set fight of flight reflex, which makes sense, unlike the revenge conclusion, which makes none whatsoever.
 
Interesting that you have concluded that the shooting was "revenge,"

No, TBD. I haven't concluded any motive. I'm saying that the only way your argument works is if revenge is a justification. Since it isn't, your argument fails. It doesn't matter that the shove was a violent assault. It doesn't matter that McGlockton advanced on Dejka after he shoved him. After the gun was drawn, he retreats. The shooting, regardless of motive, was therefore unjustified.

As in addressing this point earlier I explained that the attack had undoubtedly triggered the deep set fight of flight reflex

You can't shoot someone on the basis of "reflex".
 
No, TBD. I haven't concluded any motive. I'm saying that the only way your argument works is if revenge is a justification. Since it isn't, your argument fails. It doesn't matter that the shove was a violent assault. It doesn't matter that McGlockton advanced on Dejka after he shoved him. After the gun was drawn, he retreats. The shooting, regardless of motive, was therefore unjustified.

You can't shoot someone on the basis of "reflex".

I am mystified by your statement "the only way your argument works is if revenge is a justification. Since it isn't, your argument fails." I didn't say it was revenge, you did. In fact I pointed out that your revenge claims make zero sense.

Here is beginning primer on the fight or flight reflex:

"The sympathetic nervous system originates in the spinal cord and its main function is to activate the physiological changes that occur during the fight-or-flight response. This component of the autonomic nervous system utilises and activates the release of norepinephrine in the reaction."

Lots more here

Lots of links to science stuff there that support my analysis.

Take a gander, don't cost nothing.
 
I agree. Now, on to what that means.

The move towards him when down justifies drawing the gun. The move away from him after the gun is drawn makes the shooting unjustified.
I agree with you in principle. At first glance, the video seems to support your analysis. And for sure TBD's line of reasoning is tragicomically bad. If this is were just about Five Minutes' Hate for TBD's argument, I'd be right there with you.

But the more I think about this particular incident, the more I think the shooter may have been justified after all.
 
Here is beginning primer on the fight or flight reflex:

He was scared. And? That isn't enough. McGlockton was retreating. Dejka had time to observe and process that McGlockton was retreating. Elevated levels of norepinephrine don't change that.
 
I agree with you in principle. At first glance, the video seems to support your analysis. And for sure TBD's line of reasoning is tragicomically bad. If this is were just about Five Minutes' Hate for TBD's argument, I'd be right there with you.

But the more I think about this particular incident, the more I think the shooter may have been justified after all.

Hmm, you are beginning to agree with my conclusion but think my "line of reasoning is tragicomically bad."

Well, it is always good to check to see if we are in fact on the same page, as such, please kindly tell me what you think my line of reasoning is.

Thanks in advance!
 
He was scared. And? That isn't enough. McGlockton was retreating. Dejka had time to observe and process that McGlockton was retreating. Elevated levels of norepinephrine don't change that.

I have highlighted the place where you have substituted your conclusion for the victims, and yes, elevated levels do change that:

Content specificity

The specific components of cognitions in the fight or flight response seem to be largely negative. These negative cognitions may be characterised by: attention to negative stimuli, the perception of ambiguous situations as negative, and the recurrence of recalling negative words.[21] There also may be specific negative thoughts associated with emotions commonly seen in the reaction.[22]

Lots of good stuff in that link, strongly suggest that you read it.
 
Here is beginning primer on the fight or flight reflex:

"The sympathetic nervous system originates in the spinal cord and its main function is to activate the physiological changes that occur during the fight-or-flight response. This component of the autonomic nervous system utilises and activates the release of norepinephrine in the reaction."



This is very interesting, and related to something I was thinking of posting, so here goes.



Yes, TBD has shown what appears to be a correct analysis of the situation. Having been attacked, Mr. Drejka appears to go into a non-rational, instinctive, behavior. He chose, but not necessarily as a rational, deliberate, choice, "fight" over "flight". He didn't stop to think, "I'm going to kill that S.O.B." He just subconsciously, instinctively, and irrationally assessed that he was in danger, and reacted based by impulse.


We, as human beings, have some control over that impulse. We aren't total slaves to a situation. A lot of people would not have chosen "fight" in that situation, but Mr. Drejka did.


One could debate the grander topic of free will, but I'm not going to go nearly that far, but we do certainly have the appearance of control over our actions, at least up to a point. That only goes so far, though. We're human. We act partly on emotion.


One of the interesting things about human self control and the way we react in such situations, whether we choose "fight" or "flight" depends partly on our preparation, our training. Our reaction to a situation starts long before we enter that situation. We train. We visualize. We run though scenarios in our head. We discuss what we would do in situations, and what we ought to do in certain situations. Before the situation has ever happened, we think about how to react, and when the situation happens, we recognize it and go with our training. We don't even think about it and decide at that moment what to do. We have already made the decision. Mr. Drejka was primed to "fight", and fight he did.


So shall we give Mr. Drejka a free pass, saying he is not responsible for his actions, since they were subconscious, non-rational, impulsive acts? Uh....no. That's kind of the point of being human, as opposed to animal. We are judged as if we had self control in those situations. That may seem unfair, but it isn't really, because how we prepared for that situation will largely determine our actions. If you train yourself to turn the other cheek, you won't blow that dude away like Mr. Drejka did, even though he shoved you, and could have injured you.


That's why the law demands that we be judged based on what a reasonable person would do, not how an impulsive, out of control, person would do.


In fact, you are talking about "fight or flight", but that instinct is only applicable when there is a great threat. At the time Mr. Drejka pulled the trigger, the threat had passed. We expect him then to revert to rational behavior at that point, rather than instinct. Sadly for him, Mr. Drejka had trained himself to see threats everywhere. He even armed himself against them. He failed to recognize that, however dangerous it might have been to be shoved, it was not dangerous at the moment he pulled the trigger.


As a result, I believe he will face charges, and will probably be convicted. We don't tolerate people who have no self control, and who injure people by acting on their animal instincts. We expect rationality.


And this brings me to the actual point I was thinking about making. It wasn't really about Drejka himself. It was actually about people who wander the streets with guns. People who have concealed carry permits, and use them to carry loaded guns, even though they do not face some sort of elevated risk due to dangerous employment. What sort of person does that? Well, I don't want to paint with too broad of a brush, but, generally, they are kind of paranoid. They think they might need a gun to defend themselves even though, realistically, that almost never happens unless you put yourself in harm's way. This guy wandered the streets with a loaded gun, jumping into situations where he really would have been better off avoiding. Is it any surprise that he chose "fight", and did so even after the danger had passed? He was primed to see threats everywhere.


Because of this, one of the gun control measures I am strongly in favor of is limiting concealed (or open) carry permits to those people who can show some specific reason that they need to have a gun with them in the parking lot of Circle-A. I'm perfectly willing to let people like Drejka own a weapon, but I'd feel a whole lot safer if he left it in his house, at least until the well regulated militia is called up for service.
 
I have highlighted the place where you have substituted your conclusion for the victims, and yes, elevated levels do change that:

My "conclusion" is correct. If the victim concluded otherwise, that's not a reasonable conclusion on his part, and doesn't justify the shooting.
 
Oh, and thanks for posting this:
These negative cognitions may be characterised by: attention to negative stimuli, the perception of ambiguous situations as negative, and the recurrence of recalling negative words.

That's the "priming" I was talking about. He had created associations in his mind about ambiguous situations as negatives. The ambiguous situation was that a man who had attacked him was now retreating. He had been a threat, but now wasn't, but in Drejka's mind, he perceived the threat as still present, so he pulled the trigger.
 

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