Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[Thermal]

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?

Hard to justify buying a Glock if everyone isn't trying to kill you.

Another good question for our killing contingent: how many people have you killed in civilian life? Not military or law enforcement, but regular people who opine so casually about taking human life. How many of you have done so?

 

[sadhatter]

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.

Weapons make you immune to fear? You need to inform the military of your ground breaking new information.

 

[Tippit]

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

There are some mitigating circumstances. For instance, if you're encircled by a group of people who are threatening you but have not yet physically assaulted you, it could be construed as reasonable in the court's eyes to use deadly force, because you had reasonable fear for your life. It's impossible in many cases to tell what people's motives are when they are acting in a threatening manner, and if you give them the benefit of the doubt, they may reveal deadly intent after it's too late. When you're outnumbered and/or out-sized or facing weapons of their own, it's better to act first and face the possible legal consequences later.

I don't think this logic applies to the OP, because the man reacted to the harassing of his wife with a shove, and didn't seem to escalate it after that, especially after the gun was drawn.

 

[3point14]

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?

I think this can be explained by the "If it bleeds, it leads" philosophy of (some?) US broadcasters.

Crime is going down. Fear of crime is going up.

 

[Meadmaker]

Weapons make you immune to fear? You need to inform the military of your ground breaking new information.

That's why the "reasonable person" standard is so important. I don't know whether or not he was in fear. However, there was no reason to be in fear at that point, so it would not be considered justification for killing someone in self defense.


Of course, a jury will have to, or at least should have to, decide if there was reasonable fear involved. It's not like the law spells out exactly when people have reason to fear. If, among six people (I think Florida uses six person juries), there is just one who thinks he had a reasonable fear of loss of life or great bodily harm (which is probably a term defined in Florida law, and does not include a bloody nose or skinned knee), he'll walk.

 

[Tippit]

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.

It's not quite that simple. Sometimes being pushed to the ground is the extent of the assault, and sometimes it precedes being violently beaten to death while incapacitated on the ground. The possibility of the latter doesn't necessarily justify deadly force, but it does justify the drawing of a weapon to meet force with force, imo. What happens after that should be on the attacker.

 

[Tippit]

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?

We Americans have the same understanding of probabilities as anyone else. The difference is that we choose to place all of the risk on the perpetrators. If you want to come to Florida and "burglarize" me, good luck with that. I am going to make the worst case assumption that you're going to kill me as well (an entirely reasonable assumption), and react accordingly. The law here fully supports me.

Your best course of action, therefore, is to not burglarize people in Florida. We like it this way.

 

[Fudbucker]

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.

Yes, that's correct. Once the gun is out, a reasonable person would have had no fear.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Have any witnesses described just what the man was yelling at the woman in the five or six seconds it took for her partner to walk over from the door of the store?

I wonder if there's anything he might have said to her which provoked the shove. I mean, I'm really not a physical or confrontational person in any way, but is there absolutely nothing a stranger might yell at my wife that would provoke me to shove him away? It's hardly inconceivable.

 

[Fudbucker]

Have any witnesses described just what the man was yelling at the woman in the five or six seconds it took for her partner to walk over from the door of the store?

I wonder if there's anything he might have said to her which provoked the shove. I mean, I'm really not a physical or confrontational person in any way, but is there absolutely nothing a stranger might yell at my wife that would provoke me to shove him away? It's hardly inconceivable.

I wondered this too. If someone was yelling at my wife, I probably wouldn't push them, but I might, if I was mad enough.

 

[Reactor drone]

Have any witnesses described just what the man was yelling at the woman in the five or six seconds it took for her partner to walk over from the door of the store?

I wonder if there's anything he might have said to her which provoked the shove. I mean, I'm really not a physical or confrontational person in any way, but is there absolutely nothing a stranger might yell at my wife that would provoke me to shove him away? It's hardly inconceivable.

Was the man even yelling at the woman or was she yelling at him? His body language didn't seem particularly confrontational but there was certainly enough noise to get the attention of people entering the store.

The prosecutor has looked at all of these statements and the video and decided that they don't have enough evidence to make a case against him.

 

[Fudbucker]

Was the man even yelling at the woman or was she yelling at him? His body language didn't seem particularly confrontational but there was certainly enough noise to get the attention of people entering the store.

The prosecutor has looked at all of these statements and the video and decided that they don't have enough evidence to make a case against him.

It would probably be a loser of a case. There would be at least one or two jurors who would view the shooting as justified.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Was the man even yelling at the woman or was she yelling at him? His body language didn't seem particularly confrontational but there was certainly enough noise to get the attention of people entering the store.

Indeed, it would be good to know. So far as I understand the story, one customer (presumably the man seen peering at the scene from the doorway) told the cashier there was a man messing with a woman in a car outside (or some such form of words). We can speculate that she might have been giving back as good as she was getting, or that conversely she might have been terrified, but a silent video doesn't help us there.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

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.

I think everyone would agree that fear is subjective, based on a lot of variables. One good reason not to attack people is there is no way to predict their response -- no way to predict how much it will scare them and how their fight or flight instinct will kick in. What it comes down to is how scared was this guy when he hit the ground? How disoriented? Should his attacker (or anyone else) expect this victim to be thinking clearly in the seconds immediately after being attacked? We can sit here and watch the tape over and over and get a clear picture of exactly what went down, but that certainly doesn't mean the shooter saw the same thing when he pulled the trigger.

In any case, I think decision to prosecute should err on the side of the person being attacked, not on the side of the attacker.

 

[Pope130]

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

There is a big difference between burglaries and home invasions. Details vary, but in most jurisdictions in the US burglary consists of illegal entry into a building (or vehicle in many places) with the purpose of theft. Home invasion is the illegal entry into an occupied dwelling with intent to do harm. Knowingly illegally entering an occupied dwelling carries with it the presumption that there is intent to do harm, and justifies use of force on the part of the occupants.

I have had the experience of a break-in while I was home. When confronted, the perpetrator turned and ran. I believe his intent was burglary of an un-occupied building.

Getting back to the subject of the OP: I've looked at the video of the incident. In my opinion it's a bad shoot, and should have been prosecuted.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

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.

Nonsense. I meant exactly what I said. In the county I live in, roughly 90,000 citizens have carry permits, and everyone in the state can carry a loaded gun in their car without a permit, as long as isn't on their person and they aren't personally precluded from doing so by some previous run-in with the law. Every state in the South I've checked has codified the "castle doctrine" to include your car along with your residence and property. So, there are a whole lot more people going around armed than there were five years ago.

 

[Fudbucker]

I think everyone would agree that fear is subjective, based on a lot of variables. One good reason not to attack people is there is no way to predict their response -- no way to predict how much it will scare them and how their fight or flight instinct will kick in. What it comes down to is how scared was this guy when he hit the ground? How disoriented? Should his attacker (or anyone else) expect this victim to be thinking clearly in the seconds immediately after being attacked? We can sit here and watch the tape over and over and get a clear picture of exactly what went down, but that certainly doesn't mean the shooter saw the same thing when he pulled the trigger.

We can't get into his head, but the prima facie incident looks bad enough so that the shooter should be required to tell us WHY he was afraid when HE was the one with the gun out and the guy he shot wasn't attacking him, and was moving away from him. If he can prove he was concussed or something, that would be a mitigating circumstance.

In any case, I think decision to prosecute should err on the side of the person being attacked, not on the side of the attacker.

There were two attackers.

 

[Meadmaker]

Should his attacker (or anyone else) expect this victim to be thinking clearly in the seconds immediately after being attacked?

Yes. At least, that is the legal standard to which he ought to be held. "Your honor, when I blew that guy away, I wasn't thinking clearly."


"Oh. Thanks for clearing that up. Not guilty."


I don't see it.


If you aren't the sort that can keep your head about you in a dangerous situation, you really ought to think twice about keeping a loaded gun available. If you decide to take the gun, you are responsible for whatever happens with it, even if you weren't thinking clearly at the time.

 

[Fudbucker]

Yes. At least, that is the legal standard to which he ought to be held. "Your honor, when I blew that guy away, I wasn't thinking clearly."


"Oh. Thanks for clearing that up. Not guilty."


I don't see it.


If you aren't the sort that can keep your head about you in a dangerous situation, you really ought to think twice about keeping a loaded gun available. If you decide to take the gun, you are responsible for whatever happens with it, even if you weren't thinking clearly at the time.

If the shove to the ground really did scramble his circuits, you think he should still be convicted? I would have a hard time with that, as a juror. When you push someone to the ground, you are taking a chance.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The prosecutor has looked at all of these statements and the video and decided that they don't have enough evidence to make a case against him.

Unless you know something no-one else seems too, the above doesn't appear to be true, the States Attorney's Office is still looking into it.

The Sheriff's Office declines to press charges, however I have seen a number of articles with Lawyers speaking out saying that in their opinion, the Sheriff's Department has applied the Law incorrectly because they merely took Drejka's word that he feared for his life rather than applying the Reasonable Standard to that fear as the Law calls for.