Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[P.J. Denyer]

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!).

So far as I'm aware I never claimed that all verbal confrontations are legal....

 

[This is The End]

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?

Perhaps you have audio of the event?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Perhaps you have audio of the event?

Perhaps you have evidence that the verbal argument fell into the fairly small number of criteria in which using your voice is illegal?

FFS. It is quite possible to think that assaulting someone and shooting someone to death are both wrong. Saying that physically attacking someone because they've voiced an opinion about your wife's parking doesn't automatically mean you believe that a lethal response was therefore justified.

 

[Nessie]

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.

Being beaten to death is incredibly rare.

I agree drawing the weapon and giving a verbal warning would have been OK to do. Then it is up to the attacker.

 

[Nessie]

Have you heard of the Use of Force Continuum?

Yes, your point is?

If continuum of force was applied, the next stage would be a verbal warning given with probably drawing the gun.

In Scotland we called it escalation of force and the police response was after the suspects. The police would only raise the level of force after the suspect had raised the threat and vice versa.

 

[a_unique_person]

No. It's not "plain" that Zimmerman was the aggressor in that case, it's merely hypothesized (without much evidence).

It is plain that McGlockton was the aggressor in this case, having escalated a purely verbal confrontation (which is not illegal) into a physical one (which is illegal). McGlockton committed a crime of assault.

Drejka should be convicted for killing McGlockton, not because he was the aggressor, but because his use of deadly force was disproportionate to the threat at the moment he fired.

Who's to say that the armed idiot wouldn't use the gun this time during the argument.

 

[Nessie]

To give this some perspective, in the UK the verbal confrontation over the parking space would be considered a breach of the peace and a crime. So Drejka was the initial aggressor and he had committed a crime.

I understand there is not the same attitude in the USA, but knowing other countries do it differently will help to explain why some think Drejka was the aggressor.

I do wonder to what extent did Drejka go about being confrontational, so at some point he could use his gun?

http://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/ne...-spot-weeks-before-stand-your-ground-shooting

"Salous says Drejka has a history of confrontations in and around his store.
"He told me I can't help it. Every time I do this I get in trouble, and I can't help it. I keep doing it," Salous said.
Kelly said Drejka called his job and left a threatening voice mail on the answering service."

That would be enough for the police to seize a licenced gun owner's firearms in the UK.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

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.

Dang, that kind of talk indicates a truly mythical misunderstanding of the real street, at least one without guns, as is the case in normal places. As an ex-bartender in a port city, with the scars to prove it, I can say that guns would never, ever have improved any situation I experienced, and they were far "harrier" than a simple push and shove match.

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.

This logic, applied to the prior case, would justify killing the perp outright in the parking lot, without first shoving him to the ground, as he was a clear and present danger to a loved one: self-defense. Yet now, you are with the perp. Make up your mind. Oh, forgot, the alt-right is dedicated to dishing it out, but cannot take it for a nanosecond. How brave. Anything for a manhood substitute with bullets.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh, forgot, the alt-right is dedicated to dishing it out, but cannot take it for a nanosecond.

"Alt-right" has become the new "neocon". Most of the time, as here, it doesn't actually mean anything other than you don't like the person you're applying the label to.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

Actually, not anymore. I believe murder rates have started to climb back up recently.

But yes, people's perception of risks (and not just from crime) are often disconnected from the actual risks involved.

 

[sadhatter]

Dang, that kind of talk indicates a truly mythical misunderstanding of the real street, at least one without guns, as is the case in normal places. As an ex-bartender in a port city, with the scars to prove it, I can say that guns would never, ever have improved any situation I experienced, and they were far "harrier" than a simple push and shove match.



This logic, applied to the prior case, would justify killing the perp outright in the parking lot, without first shoving him to the ground, as he was a clear and present danger to a loved one: self-defense. Yet now, you are with the perp. Make up your mind. Oh, forgot, the alt-right is dedicated to dishing it out, but cannot take it for a nanosecond. How brave. Anything for a manhood substitute with bullets.

In all the fights you have seen there were no permanent injuries? If so your bar wasnt as scary as you make it out, if not id rather get the opinion of the people permanently injured.

 

[This is The End]

Saying that physically attacking someone because they've voiced an opinion about your wife's parking doesn't automatically mean you believe that a lethal response was therefore justified.

I've pointed out several times to you that he did not know that. You only know that it was "about his wife's parking" because it is after the event.

At the time, the victim only knew that his wife, toddler, and baby were being accosted. He did not know the 'why'. He made the decision to remove the aggressor from his family with one quick push.

From this point on anyone else in this thread that continues to act like the man knew that the spouse was being accosted over a parking spot is doing so knowingly IMO.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I've pointed out several times to you that he did not know that. You only know that it was "about his wife's parking" because it is after the event.

At the time, the victim only knew that his wife, toddler, and baby were being accosted. He did not know the 'why'. He made the decision to remove the aggressor from his family with one quick push.

From this point on anyone else in this thread that continues to act like the man knew that the spouse was being accosted over a parking spot is doing so knowingly IMO.

I've never said he knew what the argument was about, although he did know that she was parked in a disabled space, had got out of the car to argue back and would certainly have heard some of the conversation as he walked up without verbally intervening and pushed Drejka over. But that's okay, it's not like anyone could possibly hold the opinion that it might be an idea to get an idea of what the situation is before assaulting someone.

Anyway, there are other people I've been discussing this without the patronising attitude so feel free to declare whatever victories you want. I won't see it.

 

[Thermal]

As many have said, the run-up doesn't matter much in terms of the shooting. When he drew the gun, McGlocklin was retreating and an imminent threat no longer existed. Drejka's cowardice or desire for revenge simply do not matter. Captain Courageous should face Murder 2

 

[The Big Dog]

I've pointed out several times to you that he did not know that. You only know that it was "about his wife's parking" because it is after the event.

At the time, the victim only knew that his wife, toddler, and baby were being accosted. He did not know the 'why'. He made the decision to remove the aggressor from his family with one quick push.

From this point on anyone else in this thread that continues to act like the man knew that the spouse was being accosted over a parking spot is doing so knowingly IMO.

You know she was not his wife or any possible definition of spouse.

If the arguments one makes are so bad that one has to constantly lie to support them, perhaps one should reconsider making them.

 

[The Big Dog]

As many have said, the run-up doesn't matter much in terms of the shooting. When he drew the gun, McGlocklin was retreating and an imminent threat no longer existed. Drejka's cowardice or desire for revenge simply do not matter. Captain Courageous should face Murder 2

Cowardance/revenge?

Oy vey.

 

[Thermal]

You know she was not his wife or any possible definition of spouse.

If the arguments one makes are so bad that one has to constantly lie to support them, perhaps one should reconsider making them.

Who the hell cares what their marital status was? How accurately it is described bears no relevance whatsoever to Drejka's killing him. Are we supposed to feel less compassion for the murdered man because he was living in sin or whatever petty judgment you are lobbying?

By your own acknowledgement, Drejka shot when the immenent threat no longer existed.

 

[Thermal]

Cowardance/revenge?

Oy vey.

Or being dazed and blind, per your other pontifications

 

[Thermal]

"Your honor, I was dazed when I shot him!"

"Then you are going to jail on reckless manslaughter and weapons charges."

"No, I meant he was going to World Star Hip Hop stomp me!"

"Video evidence shows the Court that the deceased was retreating. Your evidence?"

"Well, he was blaaaaa... uh, blatantly preparing...while retreating...to...uh...I'm totally blind in front of me!"

"Then you are going to jail on reckless manslaughter and weapons charges "

 

[Fudbucker]

Cowardance/revenge?

Oy vey.

If you have a gun out, and the other guy doesn't, and the other guy is backing away from you, what is your legal justification for shooting him? I can only think of one: temporary insanity. All of the other justifications revolve around things like revenge, which is not a legal justification for killing someone.