Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[Tippit]

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.

Your anecdote doesn't mean much, because you were just lucky enough not to have ever been beaten to death. The reality is that it happens all the time. Lots of people end up seriously injured, if not dead. Maybe you're a big guy who won most of his fights. Maybe you even started a few of your own.

I'm of the mindset that people who are quick to use violence against others should be quickly "de-selected" by those of us who are armed, and like living in civilized society. Don't put your hands on me, or anyone else, and law-abiding gun owners won't shoot you. It's just that simple.

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.

Nonsense. You have no evidence that the shooter touched the woman in the car, nor does the video show any such evidence. We don't know if he threatened her or not, and if so, that would definitely change things. I also already expressed why I thought the shooting was unjustified, and murder. Now you're attempting to justify why the guy was shoved in the first place, which you can't. The fact that you bring "manhood" into this is evidence that you don't seem to know, or don't care, that criminals typically stack the odds against their victims, either with numbers, weapons, or size. The firearm evens the playing field, and allows those of us, unlike you, who may not wish to brawl with everyone, the ability to either prevent an attack, or end it quickly.

 

[ServiceSoon]

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.

From the video it appears that the deceased skipped step 1-Presence, step 2-Verbalization, step 3a-Soft physical technique, and skipped directly to step 3b-Hard physical technique.

The abused had no obligation to deescalate by reacting with step 2-verbalization and instead increased by one level on the continuum to step 4-lethal force. Obviously tragic none-the-less.

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.

The last time I took a peak, the majority of homicides are black on black, and white on white.

Mild shock. That's what happens in a society barely 40 years out from segregation.

I guess I am unclear what the purpose of your claim was. Didn't you claimed that black people are disproportionately negatively affected by SYG?

Also, this study found that the narrative that black men are more likely to be the victims of stand your ground laws found that the additional deaths caused by the laws were largely concentrated among white men. I understand you provided a study that found the opposite. Conflicting studies lead to lack of evidence to support that narrative.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm of the mindset that people who are quick to use violence against others should be quickly "de-selected" by those of us who are armed, and like living in civilized society. Don't put your hands on me, or anyone else, and law-abiding gun owners won't shoot you. It's just that simple.

Whoah! That is a murderous mindset you have there!

 

[Thermal]

Your anecdote doesn't mean much, because you were just lucky enough not to have ever been beaten to death. The reality is that it happens all the time. Lots of people end up seriously injured, if not dead. Maybe you're a big guy who won most of his fights. Maybe you even started a few of your own.

I'm of the mindset that people who are quick to use violence against others should be quickly "de-selected" by those of us who are armed, and like living in civilized society. Don't put your hands on me, or anyone else, and law-abiding gun owners won't shoot you. It's just that simple.


Nonsense. You have no evidence that the shooter touched the woman in the car, nor does the video show any such evidence. We don't know if he threatened her or not, and if so, that would definitely change things. I also already expressed why I thought the shooting was unjustified, and murder. Now you're attempting to justify why the guy was shoved in the first place, which you can't.

You seem to be saying that just touching or laying hands on someone warrants shooting them. Is that what you mean? Anny allowances for a drunk or nutjob? If so, how do you determine on the fly if they are, or do you advocate shooting first and determining their capacity after the smoke clears?

The fact that you bring "manhood" into this is evidence that you don't seem to know, or don't care, that criminals typically stack the odds against their victims, either with numbers, weapons, or size. The firearm evens the playing field, and allows those of us, unlike you, who may not wish to brawl with everyone, the ability to either prevent an attack, or end it quickly.

Does a gun even the playing field, or stack the odds overwhelmingly in favor of the gunman? Police are accused of unnecessary shooting all the time, and they are trained to deal with these situations. What is your level of training in how to evaluate attackers? Not marksmanship, but evaluating liklihood of mental disorders and the like? Do you, like the pros, have non lethal alternative self defense equipment or is the killing option the only one you bother with? Your concern to live peacefully would demand pepper spray, tazers, etc to be available first, and the gun as an absolute last resort, right?

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you, like the pros, have non lethal alternative self defense equipment or is the killing option the only one you bother with? Your concern to live peacefully would demand pepper spray, tazers, etc to be available first, and the gun as an absolute last resort, right?

No. An armed civilian is not the equivalent of a police officer. It is the job of police to apprehend criminals. That apprehension is the primary reason a spectrum of force options is incredibly useful. Citizens are permitted self-defense and the defense of others, they cannot use deadly force for the apprehension of criminals. For defense alone, a spectrum of force options is not necessary.

 

[This is The End]

No. An armed civilian is not the equivalent of a police officer. It is the job of police to apprehend criminals. That apprehension is the primary reason a spectrum of force options is incredibly useful. Citizens are permitted self-defense and the defense of others, they cannot use deadly force for the apprehension of criminals. For defense alone, a spectrum of force options is not necessary.

The defense of their spouse, toddler, and newborn baby from being accosted by an unknown man perhaps??

 

[This is The End]

"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 "

Too perfect.

Let us not forget how racist many of those in power in Florida have been shown to be. There is a very good chance this guy might get off even if the evidence and the law says otherwise.

 

[Thermal]

No. An armed civilian is not the equivalent of a police officer.

Shame no one made that argument. You're walking my position around. Please don't.

It is the job of police to apprehend criminals. That apprehension is the primary reason a spectrum of force options is incredibly useful.

That is only a part of a cop's job. Their primary job is to enforce law, and are given a range of options to do so. And I think you know this.

Citizens are permitted self-defense and the defense of others, they cannot use deadly force for the apprehension of criminals. For defense alone, a spectrum of force options is not necessary.

Citizens have broader powers. They can even make citizen's arrests. You deny this? Need a link?

Police cannot use deadly force willy-nilly for the application of apprehending criminals. They are bound by restrictions on when they can and cannot use deadly force, and as such are given alternatives. Do you deny this, too? Need a link?

To the primary point: options are morally and intellectually necessary to anyone who claims that self-defense is their reason for carrying a firearm. You simply cannot, IMO, claim to be primarily concerned with self-defense when your sole tool is a killing weapon. You would first need to be reasonably proficient in unarmed combat, non-lethal weapons, defensive equipment (body armor/kevlar, etc) and if your concern is honestly defense, lastly a firearm. If you refuse to carry, for instance, cheap and lightweight pepper spray, but are happy to carry a heavier, more expensive, and more dangerous sidearm, then you have openly declared your priorities. But be honest about it. Don't misrepresent what they are.

 

[Tippit]

Whoah! That is a murderous mindset you have there!

Not at all. Once again, if you keep your hands to yourself, you won't be "murdered". Funny how you don't seem to reserve the same judgement for actual violent criminals.

 

[Tippit]

You seem to be saying that just touching or laying hands on someone warrants shooting them. Is that what you mean? Anny allowances for a drunk or nutjob? If so, how do you determine on the fly if they are, or do you advocate shooting first and determining their capacity after the smoke clears?

I'm not saying that, nor do I advocate that. I'm just sick of violent criminals being coddled, and I don't sympathize with people whose first reaction in any kind of altercation is to hit or shove people, and it doesn't grieve me when sometimes these people end up dead in justified self-defense situations. Since I do carry a concealed weapon, I tend to not put myself into situations where I encounter drunks or "nutjobs", and if I did, and I was able to reasonably determine that they weren't interested in killing me, there is a lot I would tolerate, and despite SYG laws I would probably try to retreat as quickly as possible. Let me re-emphasize again that I think the shooting in the OP was unjustified, and he should be in jail.

Does a gun even the playing field, or stack the odds overwhelmingly in favor of the gunman? Police are accused of unnecessary shooting all the time, and they are trained to deal with these situations. What is your level of training in how to evaluate attackers? Not marksmanship, but evaluating liklihood of mental disorders and the like? Do you, like the pros, have non lethal alternative self defense equipment or is the killing option the only one you bother with? Your concern to live peacefully would demand pepper spray, tazers, etc to be available first, and the gun as an absolute last resort, right?

Carrying a weapon definitely stacks the odds in my favor, assuming that most violent encounters that I'm likely to have may be with unarmed assailants. I make no apologies for that. Once again, I don't go around causing trouble, bullying people around, insulting them, or putting my hands on them. I don't have any training in such evaluation. Perhaps, if like police, it was my business to confront criminals, I should be morally and legally required to employ non-lethal methods as a first resort. In my case, since I'm only ultimately going to be reacting to violent attackers or the threat of such, if I draw my gun it's because I have to. I will employ whatever means I have to de-escalate the situation prior to that, but I'm not going to employ escalating methods of response as a matter of practicality. If I pepper spray the wrong person as opposed to shooting them, it may end up costing me my life.

What's your alternative? To allow yourself to be bludgeoned by drunks and nutjobs, and hope they don't kill or maim you?

 

[Tippit]

To the primary point: options are morally and intellectually necessary to anyone who claims that self-defense is their reason for carrying a firearm. You simply cannot, IMO, claim to be primarily concerned with self-defense when your sole tool is a killing weapon. You would first need to be reasonably proficient in unarmed combat, non-lethal weapons, defensive equipment (body armor/kevlar, etc) and if your concern is honestly defense, lastly a firearm. If you refuse to carry, for instance, cheap and lightweight pepper spray, but are happy to carry a heavier, more expensive, and more dangerous sidearm, then you have openly declared your priorities. But be honest about it. Don't misrepresent what they are.

I don't agree with this. You're forgetting the fact that presenting your firearm and not discharging it is a valid, non-lethal option. This is where the shooter in the OP was unjustified. He didn't give his assailant the option to disengage. I'm not a bad person because it's not practical for me out outfit with an array of non-lethal weapons, I would be a bad person if I used lethal force where it was unjustified, as a first resort.

 

[Matthew Best]

I'm just sick of violent criminals being coddled, and I don't sympathize with people whose first reaction in any kind of altercation is to hit or shove people,

What about when their first reaction is to shoot someone?

 

[Ziggurat]

Citizens have broader powers. They can even make citizen's arrests. You deny this? Need a link?

Pay closer attention to what I said: "[civilians] cannot use deadly force for the apprehension of criminals." You cannot use deadly force to make a citizen's arrest.

Police cannot use deadly force willy-nilly for the application of apprehending criminals.

I didn't say they could. Nevertheless, circumstances permitting they can. That is different than for civilians.

To the primary point: options are morally and intellectually necessary to anyone who claims that self-defense is their reason for carrying a firearm.

Of course. The option to not use force at all always exists, and more often than not is the proper course of action.

You simply cannot, IMO, claim to be primarily concerned with self-defense when your sole tool is a killing weapon. You would first need to be reasonably proficient in unarmed combat, non-lethal weapons, defensive equipment (body armor/kevlar, etc) and if your concern is honestly defense, lastly a firearm.

This is unmitigated nonsense. You are basically arguing that unless you are a non-elderly, health, strong, medium to large male, you cannot arm yourself to protect yourself. Because, let's face it, nobody else can actually claim to be reasonably proficient in unarmed combat. If you happen to be elderly, or a woman, or small, then you have no right to arm yourself to defend yourself. You just have to take your chances, and if you encounter a large strong male who wants to do you harm, tough luck. According to you it is immoral to use the only tools that might be actually effective.

Your concept of the morality of self-defense is so perverse that I cannot take anything you say on the topic seriously.

 

[Ziggurat]

Carrying a weapon definitely stacks the odds in my favor, assuming that most violent encounters that I'm likely to have may be with unarmed assailants. I make no apologies for that.

Indeed. Outside of combat sports, the idea of choosing to enter a "fair fight" is stupid and/or crazy.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...I'm just sick of violent criminals being coddled, and I don't sympathize with people whose first reaction in any kind of altercation is to hit or shove people...

I would hesitate to classify the dead man as a violent criminal on the basis of one instance of a shove when we don't know what was being said in the altercation which provoked his intervention.

We don't need to sympathise with him to believe that he did not deserve to be killed for shoving what appears to have been an angry, ranting man away from his family.

 

[Ziggurat]

The defense of their spouse, toddler, and newborn baby from being accosted by an unknown man perhaps??

Shoving a person to the ground can be deadly force. Are you still confused about when the use of deadly force is permissible? I'll give you a hint: "accost" doesn't appear anywhere in the relevant laws.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I would hesitate to classify the dead man as a violent criminal on the basis of one instance of a shove when we don't know what was being said in the altercation which provoked his intervention.

We don't need to sympathise with him to believe that he did not deserve to be killed for shoving what appears to have been an angry, ranting man away from his family.

Seriously, why is it that people here are determined to paint this as a good guy vs bad guy scenario? The way I see it, McGlockton overreacted to a confrontation and used criminal violence. Drejka overreacted to said assault and used deadly force when there was not sufficient danger to justify it. I have more condemnation for Drejka because making an judgment error while carrying a firearm has far greater consequences than being unarmed. As far as I'm concerned, no one involved in this confrontation comes out looking very good, nor is it necessary to determine who is a hero or villain.

There is sufficient evidence to doubt whether Drejka was reasonably in fear for his life when he fatally shot McGlockton. A jury should examine this and decide if it was lawful self defense or criminal. You don't have to like McGlockton nor approve of his decisions to see that his death was the result of criminal action.

 

[Thermal]

Not at all. Once again, if you keep your hands to yourself, you won't be "murdered". Funny how you don't seem to reserve the same judgement for actual violent criminals.

You don't think the good guys should be held to a higher standard than criminals? What would separate them then?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Seriously, why is it that people here are determined to paint this as a good guy vs bad guy scenario? The way I see it, McGlockton overreacted to a confrontation and used criminal violence. Drejka overreacted to said assault and used deadly force when there was not sufficient danger to justify it. I have more condemnation for Drejka because making an judgment error while carrying a firearm has far greater consequences than being unarmed. As far as I'm concerned, no one involved in this confrontation comes out looking very good, nor is it necessary to determine who is a hero or villain.

There is sufficient evidence to doubt whether Drejka was reasonably in fear for his life when he fatally shot McGlockton. A jury should examine this and decide if it was lawful self defense or criminal. You don't have to like McGlockton nor approve of his decisions to see that his death was the result of criminal action.

That's what I've been saying since the beginning. I hope you have better luck trying to get the viewpoint across.

 

[Thermal]

<sipped for focus>

...What's your alternative? To allow yourself to be bludgeoned by drunks and nutjobs, and hope they don't kill or maim you?

That's actually what I'm asking you. You claim to have a provision in place to defend against imminent threat to your life. Well and good. What are your provisions for less than lethal assaults? Do nothing, or brandish the weapon as a threat (illigal in many cases)? You agree that the OP is not a clean kill, as most posters conclude. In a similar situation, not that you would instigate as Drejka did, what would be your response to the non lethal assault? Would you brandish, possibly violating law and becoming the more felonious criminal in doing so?