Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[theprestige]

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

Gun owners have the same interest in such a policy, for obvious reasons.

 

[Max_mang]

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.

I said nothing about the victim. Everything you said about the victim can be applied equally to the shooter.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.
t 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.

It is odd, there are numerous people in this thread declaring authoritatively that immediately after the victim was slammed to the ground that the attack had ceased, and that no reasonable person could have believed otherwise. On the otherwise, we have this, er, "argument" that attacker did not now what they were they were arguing about, and that his only recourse was to attack the individual.

"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." I can "guarantee" that they would not be saying that. Rather they would be saying that pushing the 25 year old guy was ******* idiotic, and just slightly more so than the 29 year old was here.

 

[sadhatter]

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?

I see someone who understands that firing a gun in public may lead others to think one is causing carnage, and is taking steps to ensure people know he felt he was acting in self defense.

I tend to carry a weapon for self defense and should I use it and the police pull up I'd do the same thing.

It seems you are insinuating the only reasonable response to police is panic.

A panicky person is the last person who should have a weapon of any kind. Regardless of if the shooter is in the right or wrong he did the right thing with his gun.

 

[sadhatter]

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.

Find term videos online of ugly street fights starting . Tell me how many start with one idiot pushing the other.

Don't lay your hand on someone. Want a further explination of why go listen to "asain people" by gwar.

 

[Thermal]

Find term videos online of ugly street fights starting . Tell me how many start with one idiot pushing the other.
Don't lay your hand on someone. Want a further explination of why go listen to "asain people" by gwar.

I'll do you one better. See how many start with picking a verbal confrontation.

In a mutual fight, a shove may be the opening volley, like a challenge. Muggers, rapists, and other actual attacks do not attack by starting with a freaking shove. It's a challenging move, not a killing tactic. I mean, why just shove someone you plan to kill? Its ridiculous.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

I'll do you one better. See how many start with picking a verbal confrontation.

In a mutual fight, a shove may be the opening volley, like a challenge. Muggers, rapists, and other actual attacks do not attack by starting with a freaking shove. It's a challenging move, not a killing tactic. I mean, why just shove someone you plan to kill? Its ridiculous.

A challenge? LOL. The guy didn't slap him with his glove, he attacked him and shoved him to the ground, then appeared to be hitching up his pants before continuing. The guy on the ground was at minimum in fear of great bodily harm, didn't have to try to run away and see if the other guy could catch him due to the prosecutor's favorite tool "duty to retreat" being done away with by SYG, so he neutralized the threat.

There are a lot of citizens carrying guns out there today, so bullies might want to be careful not to attack them. Their intended victims may be carrying a modern version of "The Great Equalizer".

 

[Fudbucker]

A challenge? LOL. The guy didn't slap him with his glove, he attacked him and shoved him to the ground, then appeared to be hitching up his pants before continuing. The guy on the ground was at minimum in fear of great bodily harm, didn't have to try to run away and see if the other guy could catch him due to the prosecutor's favorite tool "duty to retreat" being done away with by SYG, so he neutralized the threat.

There are a lot of citizens carrying guns out there today, so bullies might want to be careful not to attack them. Their intended victims may be carrying a modern version of "The Great Equalizer".

He wasn't in fear after he pulled the gun. Now he's armed, the other guy isn't, and the other guy isn't trying to attack him anymore. He's actually backing up when the gun appears. The shooting isn't justified.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

He wasn't in fear after he pulled the gun. Now he's armed, the other guy isn't, and the other guy isn't trying to attack him anymore. He's actually backing up when the gun appears. The shooting isn't justified.

And you know this, how?

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

And you know this, how?

Perhaps he should have said he shouldn't have been in fear. If it were a no-holds-barred cage match with the two of them, and Drejka had the gun, I know where my money would be.

When I watch the video, after the gun is produced Drejka does not seem to be in danger at all. And it seems like enough time has passed for him to accurately assess the situation and come to the same conclusion before shooting. I think all of this is supposed to be wrapped up in the word "reasonable" in legal-speak, as in a "reasonable fear of one's safety" or similar phrases.

 

[Nessie]

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.

How many murders start by pushing someone to the ground? Is the slippery slope argument of any physical contact can lead to death, therefore deadly force can be used against minimal force, really an acceptable one?

Lots of fights take place every day in the USA. Not that many people die. Being pushed to the ground by someone who is annoyed, does not strike me as a situation likely to lead to a murder.

 

[Nessie]

Gun owners have the same interest in such a policy, for obvious reasons.

Not in self defence situations. Then it is in their interests that any attack is considered as deadly and they can be excused using their gun.

 

[Thermal]

A challenge? LOL. The guy didn't slap him with his glove, he attacked him and shoved him to the ground, then appeared to be hitching up his pants before continuing. The guy on the ground was at minimum in fear of great bodily harm, didn't have to try to run away and see if the other guy could catch him due to the prosecutor's favorite tool "duty to retreat" being done away with by SYG, so he neutralized the threat.

There are a lot of citizens carrying guns out there today, so bullies might want to be careful not to attack them. Their intended victims may be carrying a modern version of "The Great Equalizer".

I can't believe you gave away the game.

Gotta give you credit for your honesty. Most wannabe Charles Bronsons lean on 'self defense from a life threatening attack' thing.

But no: you said it like it is. You want to kill the bullies.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... so he neutralized the threat.

And then a couple of seconds later he chose to shoot him.

 

[Nessie]

I can't believe you gave away the game.

Gotta give you credit for your honesty. Most wannabe Charles Bronsons lean on 'self defense from a life threatening attack' thing.

But no: you said it like it is. You want to kill the bullies.

Indeed, nutters with guns can safely provoke others into attacks and kill for kicks.

All you need to do is say you think the attack was going to continue.

 

[Nessie]

Was Drejka injured in anyway? I cannot find anything about that.

 

[Thermal]

Was Drejka injured in anyway? I cannot find anything about that.

I have it on good authority that Drejka was head injured, concussed, dazed and legally blind.

 

[GlennB]

Every time I read threads like this it occurs to me that while Americans talk of "home invasions", others talk of "burglaries".

What us it about the American psyche (or a good chunk of it) that sees imminent death in every bad event, even when it's only marginally threatening to one's life and limb?

 

[TJM]

Indeed, nutters with guns can safely provoke others into attacks and kill for kicks.

All you need to do is say you think the attack was going to continue.

You sometimes say the term "summarily executed".

This is one incident where I don't object to its use.

 

[Nessie]

You sometimes say the term "summarily executed".

This is one incident where I don't object to its use.

Indeed, it would appear the shooter's pride was at great risk and that is sufficient a reason to kill.