Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[Dr. Keith]

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.

You guys think you are so smart saying this on page fifteen. TBD had it sorted out on page six:

wrong, the attack had not ended, the attacker was coming in for stomping time, and was stopped only because the gun was drawn, plus the whole thing lasted six seconds, and you are parsing out the moments after the victim got knocked on his ass? Ridiculous

 

[Thermal]

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.

Brandishing, absent an imminent lethal threat, is often its own crime, and potentially a more serious one.

What do you mean by it is 'impractical' to carry non lethal self defense provisions? Surely a ten dollar thingy of pepper spray that weighs a couple ounces is not such a burden, considering the graveness of the subject matter?

You and others are taking a pretty casual attitude towards taking a human life, which I admit perplexes me more than a little. Is it unreasonable for me to expect other alternatives to be available before resorting to this extreme?

 

[Dr. Keith]

You and others are taking a pretty casual attitude towards taking a human life, which I admit perplexes me more than a little. Is it unreasonable for me to expect other alternatives to be available before resorting to this extreme?

I think you'll find your issue may live in these two words.

Violent black person is no longer a human in many parts of this country. Not because of racism, but because of the brute's life choices, of course.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

You guys think you are so smart saying this on page fifteen. TBD had it sorted out on page six:

**Cough** I gave my opinion back on page 2 **Cough**

 

[Pope130]

Brandishing, absent an imminent lethal threat, is often its own crime, and potentially a more serious one.

What do you mean by it is 'impractical' to carry non lethal self defense provisions? Surely a ten dollar thingy of pepper spray that weighs a couple ounces is not such a burden, considering the graveness of the subject matter?

You and others are taking a pretty casual attitude towards taking a human life, which I admit perplexes me more than a little. Is it unreasonable for me to expect other alternatives to be available before resorting to this extreme?

The problem with available less-lethal weapons is that they are also less effective. They are either short range or contact weapons (mace, pepper spray, stun guns, batons or knives), such that they must succeed on the first try, since you are within reach. They all have an unacceptably low one shot stop history. Tasers give a somewhat longer range, but have an even higher failure rate.

Note as well that these are referred to as "less-lethal" weapons because they can all cause death, they are just less likely to. Using any of them you are accepting that you might kill your opponent.

 

[Dr. Keith]

**Cough** I gave my opinion back on page 2 **Cough**

Yes, but I trust you have tried to change it since then.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Which is what the guy should have done when he saw someone harassing his wife. If he had shot to defend his wife it would be nice and legal and he would still be alive. That was his mistake. Not going for lethal force.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Which is what the guy should have done when he saw someone harassing his wife. If he had shot to defend his wife it would be nice and legal and he would still be alive. That was his mistake. Not going for lethal force.

Is this a joke?

Shooting someone who was talking to his girlfriend, even in a belligerent manner, would not have been ground for any force, and certainly not lethal force. Short of explicitly threatening language, shoving him was a crime, and anything more severe would also have been a crime.

What he should have done was tell the old man to piss off, get in the car, and give him the bird while driving off. That is a proportionate and justifiable response to rude busybodies.

Side note, I tried to follow your whole tangent argument with TBD about the woman being his wife. Frankly, it was bizarre. They aren't married, she's his girlfriend. Unmarried people have children and live together, it doesn't make them married. Unless you have some evidence that they considered themselves common law married and presented themselves as husband and wife, it's total nonsense. I don't know why you insist on calling them husband and wife when they are not so.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think you'll find your issue may live in these two words.

Violent black person is no longer a human in many parts of this country. Not because of racism, but because of the brute's life choices, of course.

Fixed it for you.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is this a joke?

A darkly humorous observation on how things are best handled in Florida. He would still be alive and I am sure everyone would be signing his praises.

Florida has set it up well that shooting someone is often far safer legally than any other form of confrontation.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Brandishing, absent an imminent lethal threat, is often its own crime, and potentially a more serious one.

What do you mean by it is 'impractical' to carry non lethal self defense provisions? Surely a ten dollar thingy of pepper spray that weighs a couple ounces is not such a burden, considering the graveness of the subject matter?

You and others are taking a pretty casual attitude towards taking a human life, which I admit perplexes me more than a little. Is it unreasonable for me to expect other alternatives to be available before resorting to this extreme?

I would hope that for most people who carry, retreating would be the preferred option in cases where lethal weapons could not be justified. Someone with a carry license is not a cop and should not feel obligated to meet force with force in every conceivable condition. People who carry may wish to prepare themselves for the most dire self-defense scenarios, where the preferred option of fleeing is not available. At least, I would hope they would. Clearly this parking lot warrior did not share my philosophy.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

A darkly humorous observation on how things are best handled in Florida. He would still be alive and I am sure everyone would be signing his praises.

Florida has set it up well that shooting someone is often far safer legally than any other form of confrontation.

There is no place in this country where the scenario you describe would not be considered murder. If he had walked up and shot Drejka instead of shoving him, he would be in jail now facing a murder charge. Even if you concede that Drejka was engaged in some form of criminal harassment or menacing, lethal force would not be lawful.

There is reasonable position to be made in opposition to concealed carry and the self-defense laws of Florida. Your absurd hyperbole fails to make one.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I would hope that for most people who carry, retreating would be the preferred option in cases where lethal weapons could not be justified. Someone with a carry license is not a cop and should not feel obligated to meet force with force in every conceivable condition. People who carry may wish to prepare themselves for the most dire self-defense scenarios, where the preferred option of fleeing is not available. At least, I would hope they would. Clearly this parking lot warrior did not share my philosophy.

While I think the law is written to coincide with your philosophy, we will see how it is applied.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

While I think the law is written to coincide with your philosophy, we will see how it is applied.

I previously supported stand your ground as a law in the past, despite having some reservations based on how certain people view conflict resolution. If this shooting is an indication of how slack-jawed law-enforcement agents are going to apply it, I don't think I can stand by that support.

I never assumed it was going to be cover for thin-skinned tough guys to go around shooting people over petty transgressions. I suppose I was a bit naive.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I would hope that for most people who carry, retreating would be the preferred option in cases where lethal weapons could not be justified. Someone with a carry license is not a cop and should not feel obligated to meet force with force in every conceivable condition.

Please cops are not obligated to do anything they are perfectly fine to ignore the dead bodies at their feet.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I previously supported stand your ground as a law in the past, despite having some reservations based on how certain people view conflict resolution. If this shooting is an indication of how slack-jawed law-enforcement agents are going to apply it, I don't think I can stand by that support.

I never assumed it was going to be cover for thin-skinned tough guys to go around shooting people over petty transgressions. I suppose I was a bit naive.

But that is what it was for. Otherwise they would be covered by more normal self defense laws and seeking to deescalate and other sissy avoiding violence crap.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I previously supported stand your ground as a law in the past, despite having some reservations based on how certain people view conflict resolution. If this shooting is an indication of how slack-jawed law-enforcement agents are going to apply it, I don't think I can stand by that support.

I never assumed it was going to be cover for thin-skinned tough guys to go around shooting people over petty transgressions. I suppose I was a bit naive.

I'm sorry you had to learn about it like this.

Now, do we need to talk about "religious freedom" laws and how they have nothing to do with either religion or freedom?

 

[Nessie]

Shoving a person to the ground can be deadly force....

It is so rare, when it does happen it often hits the news;

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-charged-manslaughter-after-woman-12302978

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-19888250

http://kwbe.com/abc_national/fiftee...rious-assault-in-massachusetts-abcid36093410/

https://youtu.be/HECMVdl-9SQ

Like the deaths caused by one punch. It can happen, but it is so rare it cannot be justified to use deadly force in self defence.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Yes, but I trust you have tried to change it since then.

Which bit? That I think all three of them contributed to a bad situation? That I think the shooter should be charged with a crime? Or that with my imperfect understanding of American Law 'voluntarily manslaughter' seems the safest bet?

 

[crescent]

Which is what the guy should have done when he saw someone harassing his wife. If he had shot to defend his wife it would be nice and legal and he would still be alive. That was his mistake. Not going for lethal force.

Is this a joke?

A darkly humorous observation on how things are best handled in Florida. He would still be alive and I am sure everyone would be signing his praises.

Florida has set it up well that shooting someone is often far safer legally than any other form of confrontation.

The sad truth is that it really WOULD have been considered appropriate by many people for McGlockton to have brandished a weapon to deter Drejka. Drejka was shouting at McGlockton's partner in the presence of children, that seems an appropriate time to need some deterrence.

Which could lead to the same outcome. One or the other feels that they are in fear of their life. If Drejka then goes for his gun (because he feels his life is in danger), then whoever shoots first wins.

Sometimes it is less about the law as it is about the enthusiasm of the people who look for ways to implement that law. We risk giving deadly license to hotheads.