Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[Nessie]

Without the ability to see into the future how do you determine what is a less than lethal assault on your person?

Hospital admissions and cause of death statistics. Even without doing any research we know being shot is a high risk compared to being pushed backwards onto the ground.

Then there are obvious factors such as age, size, strength whereby we know a large male poses a much greater risk than an old lady.

That means initially Drejka was at minimal risk of death or serious injury, since he was subject a very low risk act of being pushed and he was a pretty good match with McGlockton when it came to the other factors.

Then Drejka knew he had a massive advantage, he had a gun. His knowledge he had the most deadly form of weapon should be factored in to how he determines if he is at risk of death and serious injury.

Everything about this screams Drejka was at very low risk of death and serious injury.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This guy has not been brought up on hate crime yet? Send for the Feds, oops, the feds are some of the "good people" on both sides. The trump admin might give the guy a medal.

I thought SYG meant if you had superior fire power, aka gun vs shove, you were to retreat and save your ammo for a real attack.

SYG means you never need to retreat, that is its whole purpose.

 

[Meadmaker]

I thought that's what the tape showed?

Well, Mr. Drejka's defenders seem to think that he believed he was in imminent danger of attack. In other words, it was fear that drove his response.

However, another possibility is that he had no fear of further attack, but that the first attack angered him, and so the killing was done out of anger.


I can't look at the tape and decide which of those emotions was driving his response.

If it was anger, then clearly the shooting was not justified. If it was fear, then you have to ask whether it was reasonable fear, and it would seem to me, and to most people, it wasn't.

 

[Thermal]

Well, Mr. Drejka's defenders seem to think that he believed he was in imminent danger of attack. In other words, it was fear that drove his response.

However, another possibility is that he had no fear of further attack, but that the first attack angered him, and so the killing was done out of anger.


I can't look at the tape and decide which of those emotions was driving his response.

If it was anger, then clearly the shooting was not justified. If it was fear, then you have to ask whether it was reasonable fear, and it would seem to me, and to most people, it wasn't.

Yeah, I get the distinction. I was being facetious.

What about option 3: unbridled glee (accompanied by a sore butt)? This of course assumes he holstered up and headed out to pick a fight, or he is on his toes for any convenient excuse to fire.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, Mr. Drejka's defenders seem to think that he believed he was in imminent danger of attack. In other words, it was fear that drove his response.

However, another possibility is that he had no fear of further attack, but that the first attack angered him, and so the killing was done out of anger.


I can't look at the tape and decide which of those emotions was driving his response.

If it was anger, then clearly the shooting was not justified. If it was fear, then you have to ask whether it was reasonable fear, and it would seem to me, and to most people, it wasn't.

He WAS attacked, there is no question about that. The response from the shover's fans is the the initial victim should have realized that the attacked had ceased, which is totally inconsistent with how people naturally respond to attacks like this.

 

[Thermal]

He WAS attacked, there is no question about that. The response from the shover's fans is the the initial victim should have realized that the attacked had ceased, which is totally inconsistent with how people naturally respond to attacks like this.

Have you seriously never been shoved? At a bar or party or wherever? I've had drunks swing at me more than a few times, and its just not life or death ( or reasonably in fear of imminent serious bodily injury, to satisfy the anal retentiveamong us).

I guess it would fall on deaf ears to remind you of a parable involving turning the other cheek?

 

[The Big Dog]

Have you seriously never been shoved? At a bar or party or wherever? I've had drunks swing at me more than a few times, and its just not life or death ( or reasonably in fear of imminent serious bodily injury, to satisfy the anal retentiveamong us).

I guess it would fall on deaf ears to remind you of a parable involving turning the other cheek?

Our correspondent has had drunks swing at him. Super cool story.

This was a blind side attacks that left the victim sprawled on the concrete. Not a bar, not a party, not a drunk.

Blown away how people refuse to deal with the facts.

 

[Thermal]

Our correspondent has had drunks swing at him. Super cool story.

This was a blind side attacks that left the victim sprawled on the concrete. Not a bar, not a party, not a drunk.

Blown away how people refuse to deal with the facts.

Comparable situations. Speaking of facts, you now claim to know the shooting victim's blood alcohol content?

 

[3point14]

Our correspondent has had drunks swing at him. Super cool story.

This was a blind side attacks that left the victim sprawled on the concrete. Not a bar, not a party, not a drunk.

If it were at a bar or a party or if the shover were drunk, would your opinion of the interaction be any different?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Our correspondent has had drunks swing at him. Super cool story.

This was a blind side attacks that left the victim sprawled on the concrete. Not a bar, not a party, not a drunk.

Blown away how people refuse to deal with the facts.

Yet you have yet to accept that being shoved to the ground is not sufficient to justify the use of lethal force. A single shove is not what a reasonable person would consider imminent threat of loss of life or serious injury.

Here is the facts given the video. McGlockton shoved Drejka to the ground. Drejka drew his pistol and shot McGlockton, despite McGlockton having taken multiple steps back and being outside of any reasonable striking distance of the grounded Drejka. McGlockton was not an imminent danger to Drejka when Drejka fired.

 

[The Big Dog]

Comparable situations. Speaking of facts, you now claim to know the shooting victim's blood alcohol content?

wait, wait, wait....

Are you seriously claiming that the shover was drunk? Holy crap.

First of all there would have been zero reason for the victim to know he was drunk.

Second, if he was drunk that simply adds credence to the claim that the shover was out of control.

Zoinks, what a magnificent self own.

 

[Thermal]

wait, wait, wait....

Are you seriously claiming that the shover was drunk? Holy crap.

First of all there would have been zero reason for the victim to know he was drunk.

Second, if he was drunk that simply adds credence to the claim that the shover was out of control.

Zoinks, what a magnificent self own.

Oh, stop lying. I pointed out a common and similar experience of assault that many would be familiar with. You, and only you, specifically made a state of McGlocklins sobriety claim.

Bearing false witness. Tsk, tsk.

 

[crescent]

The response from the shover's fans is the the initial victim should have realized that the attacked had ceased, which is totally inconsistent with how people naturally respond to attacks like this.

This is a very strong, very effective argument against carrying guns for self protection. Good job!

Suppose it is as, as you suggest: Drejka responded the way most people in said situation would have responded. From the video we can see that McGlockton was backing away from Drejka and no longer threatening him at the point in time when Drejka fired.

Your argument suggests that the normal human reaction in such an event is to kill the person who is no longer a threat, provided one has the gun to implement such a course of action.

Under no other scenario does McGlockton die, only when the gun is present.

 

[Thermal]

This is a very strong, very effective argument against carrying guns for self protection. Good job!

Suppose it is as, as you suggest: Drejka responded the way most people in said situation would have responded. From the video we can see that McGlockton was backing away from Drejka and no longer threatening him at the point in time when Drejka fired.

Your argument suggests that the normal human reaction in such an event is to kill the person who is no longer a threat, provided one has the gun to implement such a course of action.

Under no other scenario does McGlockton die, only when the gun is present.

I'm not sure TBD is presenting a pro gun argument, so much as a 'certain people deserve to be killed' argument. That distinction is more significant to some than others.

 

[Dr. Keith]

He WAS attacked, there is no question about that.

I think most reasonable people agree.

The response from the shover's fans is the the initial victim should have realized that the attacked had ceased, which is totally inconsistent with how people naturally respond to attacks like this.

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

The two underlined passages seem to layout the whole case. The natural response to being shoved was pure anger. Even though the attacker was retreating the shooter was mad so he naturally shot the retreating party.

So natural. Maybe we shouldn't let people carry deadly weapons if they can't control those natural urges.

 

[Thermal]

I think most reasonable people agree.





The two underlined passages seem to layout the whole case. The natural response to being shoved was pure anger. Even though the attacker was retreating the shooter was mad so he naturally shot the retreating party.

So natural. Maybe we shouldn't let people carry deadly weapons if they can't control those natural urges.

I've had a natural reaction to want intimate relations with attractive young women who I have not had the pleasure of making acquantance with. Perhaps TBD is green lighting acting on those as well, or are we restricted to violence against the World Star Hip Hop kind of guy?

 

[The Big Dog]

I think most reasonable people agree.

The two underlined passages seem to layout the whole case. The natural response to being shoved was pure anger. Even though the attacker was retreating the shooter was mad so he naturally shot the retreating party.

So natural. Maybe we shouldn't let people carry deadly weapons if they can't control those natural urges.

The natural reaction, as expertly explained by me is fight or flight.

He was sprawled on the ground, he had just been attacked, the flight option was gone, further attacks were likely.

Aim for mass
Shoot
End threat.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The natural reaction, as expertly explained by me is fight or flight.

He was sprawled on the ground, he had just been attacked, the flight option was gone, further attacks were likely.

Aim for mass
Shoot
End threat.

Just skip over the fact that the attack was stopped and the man was retreating between steps 1 and 2. Nice job of ignoring the law.

 

[Thermal]

Fight or flight =/= peeing your pants in irrational fear

What if your fight or flight kicks in during an argument with your SO? Cleared to knock some teeth out? No self control required?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think most reasonable people agree.

The issue is of course if those reasonable people think he had a reasonable fear for his life. And there is reasonable reasonable and florida reasonable. By florida reasonable he was entirely in the right to kill the guy for parking in the wrong spot.