Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[theprestige]

Oh, and thanks for posting this:


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.

Okay, but what if the threat was still present?

If he lowered his gun, was his assailant far enough away that they couldn't leap to the attack the moment the opportunity presented itself?


And he can only cover one assailant at a time, from the ground. Where's the woman? What stops her from braining him while he's covering her partner?

Prone on the ground is a terrible place to be when people are doing you violence. Especially if that violence is what put you prone in the first place.

 

[Meadmaker]

Okay, but what if the threat was still present?

If he lowered his gun, was his assailant far enough away that they couldn't leap to the attack the moment the opportunity presented itself?


And he can only cover one assailant at a time, from the ground. Where's the woman? What stops her from braining him while he's covering her partner?

Prone on the ground is a terrible place to be when people are doing you violence. Especially if that violence is what put you prone in the first place.

He wasn't prone on the ground when he pulled the trigger. In fact he was never prone on the ground. He rolled once on the ground and popped up to his knees and pointed the gun.

As for the idea that the woman might brain him, I'm wondering if your response is a Poe.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

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.

You must live in a nice neighborhood! I can remember some of the neighborhoods I lived in growing up, and I think a gun could come in handy. Or even the idea that one might have a gun could come in awfully handy.

As for the idea that the woman might brain him, I'm wondering if your response is a Poe.

I don't recall where she was standing at the time of the gunfire, but it seems like a reasonable concern.

 

[Thermal]

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'".

I'm not sure I understand you. If you pick a fight, you might get one and have things get out of control, yes. I would think Drejka is saying 'yeah, I got em fired up, then I put em down. Went like clockwork'. I don't see him as some innocent who was minding his own business.

You as why ramping up the action from physical isn't provoking. Well, it is. But I consider shoving and scrapping to be the endgame. Breaking out the killing tools is not part of that scale, if you take my meaning. Killing is on a whole separate plane than verbal fighting and shoving. For me, they are not on the same spectrum, and certainly not part of the continuum that you seem to suggest. Am I reading you wrongly?

 

[Thermal]

"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.

I watched the video again, and you are right, the little steps he took are more pronounced than I recalled. I would still consider them all bleed off from the shove, especially as they slow down, not speed up. Now, you say a six-footer's stride is about 30". Are you seriously suggesting that he traveled 60", five feet? I see inches, maybe a foot or so. For all intents and purposes, he was not aggressively attacking, as I said. You can keep the Mr. Spock BS, I'm not biting. I mean seriously, you are calling out how long McGlocklin's steps were as a failure of critical thinking in the face of the Totally Imminent World Star Hip Hop Stomping and other pure fantasies?

 

[The Big Dog]

My "conclusion" is correct. If the victim concluded otherwise, that's not a reasonable conclusion on his part, and doesn't justify the shooting.

Ah.

Didn’t read the link then?

It’s cool.

 

[This is The End]

See above. This isn't a hobby of mine. Do we have any actual data that you know of?

Data of racism in America? Aside from the 2016 election results? And in Florida in particular? Seriously though, there is tons.

Aside from proof of racism (which I seriously hope you don't need) I posted earlier the study that showed that SYG increased murders. And I'll give you one guess on who gets murdered disproportionately.

 

[Max_mang]

I watched the video again, and you are right, the little steps he took are more pronounced than I recalled. I would still consider them all bleed off from the shove, especially as they slow down, not speed up. Now, you say a six-footer's stride is about 30". Are you seriously suggesting that he traveled 60", five feet? I see inches, maybe a foot or so. For all intents and purposes, he was not aggressively attacking, as I said. You can keep the Mr. Spock BS, I'm not biting. I mean seriously, you are calling out how long McGlocklin's steps were as a failure of critical thinking in the face of the Totally Imminent World Star Hip Hop Stomping and other pure fantasies?

I suggest you re-read my posts. I also recommend you look up transference and projecting.

 

[Cain]

I don't recall where she was standing at the time of the gunfire, but it seems like a reasonable concern.

And where were the kids? The little savages might some day seek revenge, so he's justified in ending the man's bloodline.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Data of racism in America? Aside from the 2016 election results? And in Florida in particular? Seriously though, there is tons.

Aside from proof of racism (which I seriously hope you don't need) I posted earlier the study that showed that SYG increased murders. And I'll give you one guess on who gets murdered disproportionately.

That wasn't the point. If you read the exchange you'd know that. I have no doubt that the rate of shootings increased after SYG; the numbers are clear.

The counter to that is based on one study, which I think is quite flawed, and I believe Ziggurat acknowledge is a crap study, that claims that blacks claimed SYG in numbers disproportionate to their percentage of the population. The study was weak to start with (one of the features on the DB page was a request for people to email in local cases, not a terribly reliable data source) and also did not offer cross comparisons.

There was no other data. I asked Zig and asked you if we had anything else to go by. I'd be curious as to how many black SYG defenses were offered in relation to incidents of blacks shooting someone. Their preponderance of SYG defenses may simply reflect the statistical norm, as compared to black crime statistics.

I was simply asking whether you had come across any studies. I'd be interested in good data. I have my hypotheses, very similar to yours, but I'd be curious to see actual data, which because various LEOs keep their numbers in an old cigar box under the chief's bed, I'm pretty sure are going to be hard to get.

 

[rdwight]

I am still not seeing a baseline for what is considered 'reasonable' for deadly force. If the shove had been less 'violent', less forceful, are TBD conclusions about what was about to happen any less possible? TBD keeps hammering down the level of violence involved in the shove and I am trying to figure out what level of violence allows the use of force that happened. Does any physical threat at all allow deadly force in response? Because I am not seeing much beyond the answer of 'yes' from those defending the result.

To be clear, the attack had ended. That is not conjecture, guessing, or hoping. That is fact. If you don't agree, show me on the video where the attack continued. Beyond the shove, there was no physical contact between the two men. Anything past that is guessing what might have been. But the fact remains, the attack did not continue. Period.

As well, something that bugs me is the shooters response after the encounter is over. People seem to point out the fight or flight, his mind state immediately after the push etc. But after the encounter, 11-12 seconds after pulling the trigger, the shooter has the awareness to place his gun on the ground an arm length away from himself. Only 4-5 seconds after the guy that was shot has left his view. Am I the only one that doesnt view that as a man in panic, but someone in a state of mind capable of distinguishing his necessity to lessen his level of threat to responding officers in such quick timeframe?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I'm not sure I understand you. If you pick a fight, you might get one and have things get out of control, yes. I would think Drejka is saying 'yeah, I got em fired up, then I put em down. Went like clockwork'. I don't see him as some innocent who was minding his own business.

You as why ramping up the action from physical isn't provoking. Well, it is. But I consider shoving and scrapping to be the endgame. Breaking out the killing tools is not part of that scale, if you take my meaning. Killing is on a whole separate plane than verbal fighting and shoving. For me, they are not on the same spectrum, and certainly not part of the continuum that you seem to suggest. Am I reading you wrongly?

Don't have much time, early start and working through weekend but...

To me the end game of a verbal argument is arguing verbally, not scrapping. saying that going from verbal to physical is on the same spectrum but one level of physical to another isn't seems terribly arbitrary. People sometimes die or are injured after being pushed to the ground or after a single punch. Being spoken to impolitely, not so much. Once people are trading blows things tend to go bad.

Maybe it's cultural, in the UK we grow up hearing less about 'fighting words' and more about 'sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me', we worry more about who threw the first punch than if someone told someone off for breaking a minor law.

 

[Tippit]

I'm at a loss for words. This man went outside to protect the mother of his son... He saw a man screaming at her. He tried to protect her. And in Florida that means you get shot dead. He bleeds out in front of her and their son.

I am a concealed weapons permit holder, I live in Florida, and I support the SYG law. However, I don't think this shooting was justified, and here is why. The law clearly states that you are to cease using lethal force as soon as the threat ceases. Once the gun was drawn, the man backed off. A that point it is second degree murder, imo. I believe there is also another provision which states that you can't provoke people into attacking you so as to respond with lethal force, which is more or less what happened here.

My sympathy for the deceased in this case is mitigated somewhat by the fact that he violently shoved the man. There have been instances where people have died from their head striking the pavement or curb in similar circumstances. However, again, once the gun was drawn the man backed off and the shooting shouldn't have happened.

As a permit holder and someone who is armed virtually everywhere I go, I go out of my way not only to obey all laws, but also to avoid confrontations, and be as polite as possible to everyone, including people who are rude to me. It was not this man's job to harass the woman over a handicap parking space "violation", as he is not the police.

As someone who is concerned about all of the violent thugs out there who really do not have respect for anyone or their lives, and who quickly resort to violence, I think the SYG laws are important. But letting this man get a pass for what amounts to second degree murder is not only an injustice, it makes the law itself, and all law abiding permit holders look bad.

Incidentally, I would abolish all handicap parking spaces. At least in Florida, the vast majority of people with placards seem to be otherwise healthy older people with "friendly" doctors willing to give them elite status when it comes to parking, and rarely do I see actual disabled people using them.

 

[This is The End]

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

That's weird because the bolded parts were reminding me that the victim did not know that the shooter was yelling at the woman about being in a handicapped spot.

So no, that cannot be equally applied to the shooter. The shooter was the one yelling at her. I would hope he knew what about.

The victim, on the other hand, had no idea why a man outside was yelling at his family.

But if you consider a (legal) verbal confrontation .

It wasn't legal just because it was verbal. Verbal could be illegal for various reasons. Like disturbing the peace (or lying to her about something dangerous, like a fire). Or a robbery (Give me all of your money!).

Sure it is less likely to be illegal than something physical, but it does not make it so.



As for the actual thread, I love how some people continue to use the word "attack" for the push. When if they were a 50 year old white couple and the shooter was a 25 year old black guy they would be saying "a push to defend his family". Guaranteed.

 

[This is The End]

I am a concealed weapons permit holder, I live in Florida, and I support the SYG law. However, I don't think this shooting was justified, and here is why. The law clearly states that you are to cease using lethal force as soon as the threat ceases. Once the gun was drawn, the man backed off.

Well put. I believe you, and Ziggurat earlier, have boiled it down. Everything else doesn't really matter as far as the courts will be concerned.

 

[Nessie]

Nessie, as a non gun owner, what policy would you say is in your best interest?

That deadly force can only be used in defence when the attack is likely to be deadly. Defence should be proportionate.

 

[Nessie]

with not even a trial?

huh...

Meaning I would expect a conviction on the available evidence.

 

[Nessie]

They would. But that is dramatically different from what you said in your previous post.

How?

 

[Nessie]

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.

That is the issue. Some here think being pushed to the ground is a life threatening, incredibly violent attack. Others do not.

We should look to medical evidence to decide who is correct. How many people die every year from being pushed to the ground? How many people are pushed to the ground without being injured?

I would suggest that many are pushed to the ground (especially youths, just look at you tube, they are shoving each other over all the time) with no or minor injuries and very few are killed.

That would show those who do not think a push to the ground is a mighty violent attack are correct.

That so many here want a push to the ground to be considered deadly force, that can be responded to with deadly force with a gun, is because so many here want to be able to use their guns with little to no risk to themselves of prosecution.

 

[Reactor drone]

That would show those who do not think a push to the ground is a mighty violent attack are correct.

That so many here want a push to the ground to be considered deadly force, that can be responded to with deadly force with a gun, is because so many here want to be able to use their guns with little to no risk to themselves of prosecution.

I don't think that's the issue. The push to the ground was obviously not deadly. The question is whether that push could reasonably be considered the first strike in a potentially deadly physical confrontation.

Some would say that if the other person isn't attacking at that very moment that the attack has ended and they can go on about their day. Others might have the experience that being attacked leads to severe physical injury if you assume the benevolence of your attacker.

Could he have prevented further attacks just by threat of lethal force? Possibly.

Could he have interpreted the situation in the three seconds since he hit the ground as an imminent threat? Possibly.

We have the benefit of video replays, foreknowledge of the relationships of the parties and their locations. He's knocked over by a random attacker and has three or four heartbeats to assess whether to fire.