Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[Nessie]

No, that is absurd

Why?

This time please answer my question, you have ignored the rest.

 

[TJM]

I agree that it was a no-joke strike/shove. Not playground caliber by any means. Also agreed that it was so hard he bled off a couple steps. But if a stomping was on tap, why not go in while he was down? Instead, he coasted to a stop and shuffled back.

He stopped coming at Drejka because he reached for his holster.

*shakes head*

 

[Nessie]

First of all, Drejka already was attacked. And, if I understand correctly, SYG doesn't require a "deadly attack".

And why would McGlockton assume his partner is about to be attacked if she get out of the car to confront him?

Because she has got out the car, which puts her at a greater risk and we do not know what the other male who was watching and went into the shop had said to McGlockton.

For all we know he said, get out there, there is an aggressive male at your lady's car.

 

[Thermal]

He stopped coming at Drejka because he reached for his holster.

*shakes head*

You know, I think its too fine a call to make. Just not enough info. Could've been over, could've been warming up. Fair?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Because she has got out the car, which puts her at a greater risk and we do not know what the other male who was watching and went into the shop had said to McGlockton.

For all we know he said, get out there, there is an aggressive male at your lady's car.

From my limited understanding of SYG I believe doesn't apply if you've deliberately exposed yourself to greater risk.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

You know, I think its too fine a call to make. Just not enough info. Could've been over, could've been warming up. Fair?

IMHO that's fair. Either way I think it was over once he reached for his gun. Whether Drejka thought it was is impossible to know, whether it was reasonable for him to have thought it wasn't over should have been decided by a jury with access to all the facts/witnesses.

 

[Nessie]

You know, I think its too fine a call to make. Just not enough info. Could've been over, could've been warming up. Fair?

Indeed, we do not know what was said and what people were thinking.

Which is why we should also consider McGlockton thought he was defending Jacobs and preventing an attack by Drejka.

 

[Nessie]

From my limited understanding of SYG I believe doesn't apply if you've deliberately exposed yourself to greater risk.

Florida law states (776.041)

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

"The justification described in the preceding sections (self defence, SYG) of this chapter is not available to a person who:
....
(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself..."

Then, the law goes onto say self defence is also not available when;

"(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant..."

Which definitely happened when the gun was drawn. McGlockton definitely stepped back and started to turn.

 

[TJM]

You know, I think its too fine a call to make. Just not enough info. Could've been over, could've been warming up. Fair?

Deal.

And I’ll put this out there for kicks and giggles -

None of this happens if Drejka isn’t a busybody twat and minds his own business. Furthermore, even if McGlockton approached the situation rationally, I believe Drejka STILL would’ve wound up shooting him anyway. It’s clear to me
McGlockton‘s only winning move was to not play at all.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Florida law states (776.041)

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

"The justification described in the preceding sections (self defence, SYG) of this chapter is not available to a person who:
....
(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself..."

Then, the law goes onto say self defence is also not available when;

"(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant..."

Which definitely happened when the gun was drawn. McGlockton definitely stepped back and started to turn.

The post I quoted was (unless I misunderstood, in which case apologies), regarding your suggestion that McGlockton could have shot Drejka when he left the store on the grounds that Jacobs was under threat and then claimed SYG. At that point the gun had not been drawn. This was your own hypothetical scenario.

I think I've been perfectly clear (how many times do I have to post it FFS) that I do not think the shooting was justified and I think Drejka should be facing charges.

 

[Babbylonian]

Deal.

And I’ll put this out there for kicks and giggles -

None of this happens if Drejka isn’t a busybody twat and minds his own business. Furthermore, even if McGlockton approached the situation rationally, I believe Drejka STILL would’ve wound up shooting him anyway. It’s clear to me
McGlockton‘s only winning move was to not play at all.

I agree. If he'd pushed the guy back a few feet with no fall, standing stock still afterward, Drejka probably still would have gone for his gun. Again, I think that having the gun is why he thought he could act out his cop fantasies and confront horrible criminals who park illegally.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

None of this happens if Drejka isn’t a busybody twat and minds his own business. Furthermore, even if McGlockton approached the situation rationally, I believe Drejka STILL would’ve wound up shooting him anyway.

I agree with the first sentence, but am highly skeptical of the second.

I'm defining "approaching the situation rationally" as getting in the car and leaving, and even maybe saying "*** off!" as you do.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I agree with the first sentence, but am highly skeptical of the second.

I'm defining "approaching the situation rationally" as getting in the car and leaving, and even maybe saying "*** off!" as you do.

Agreed.

But, I would define "approaching the situation rationally" as complaining to the store that a patron has parked in the handicap spot.

Having done this myself on many occasions I can attest that it rarely will lead to fisticuffs, much less shooting.

In fact, I remember spending the good part of a night sitting on a patio with a friend drinking pitchers of margaritas and complaining to the manager every five minutes as someone pulled into the handicap spot. The manager was initially annoyed but after he realized that we were likely going to be his best customers that night he got into it. Not many 2 tops would spend over $100 at Two Pesos back in the nineties. And none of the people who were asked to move their cars failed to return.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Agreed.

But, I would define "approaching the situation rationally" as complaining to the store that a patron has parked in the handicap spot.

Having done this myself on many occasions I can attest that it rarely will lead to fisticuffs, much less shooting.

In fact, I remember spending the good part of a night sitting on a patio with a friend drinking pitchers of margaritas and complaining to the manager every five minutes as someone pulled into the handicap spot. The manager was initially annoyed but after he realized that we were likely going to be his best customers that night he got into it. Not many 2 tops would spend over $100 at Two Pesos back in the nineties. And none of the people who were asked to move their cars failed to return.

That being said I have on occasion told people who were being selfish dicks that they were being selfish dicks. Parking or otherwise. Of course I don't have a gun and neither has anyone ever started a fight with me over it.

 

[TJM]

I agree with the first sentence, but am highly skeptical of the second.

I'm defining "approaching the situation rationally" as getting in the car and leaving, and even maybe saying "*** off!" as you do.

Get in his car and leaving was the winning move I was referring to.

If he had engaged Drejka any other way, the end result would’ve been the same. Drejka is basically a pussy with a CCL who’s been itching to shoot somebody. If not McGlockton that day, it surely would’ve been somebody else.

 

[Thermal]

Deal.

And I’ll put this out there for kicks and giggles -

None of this happens if Drejka isn’t a busybody twat and minds his own business. Furthermore, even if McGlockton approached the situation rationally, I believe Drejka STILL would’ve wound up shooting him anyway. It’s clear to me
McGlockton‘s only winning move was to not play at all.

Cool. Buy you a buttercake next time I'm in Cali

 

[This is The End]

I agree. On the other hand, one can argue that shoving someone - even hard - in response to such a fear is at least within the realm of proportionality. Shooting someone in response to a shove - even a hard shove - is not in any way a proportional response.

Exactly.

I also think it's reasonable to think that Drejka felt emboldened to aggressively confront people parking illegally in handicapped spots because he was carrying a gun. It's very possible that in the absence of the weapon he would at most yell at the person and keep moving.

I have no doubt you are correct.

 

[cmikes]

Since Drejka is entitled to kill McGlockton for fear of his life, is McGlockton not also entitled to kill Drejka for fear of his partners life?

No. It's comes down to the reasonable person rule in self-defense cases. The question is "Would a reasonable person be in fear for his or his partners life if a random man confronted them verbally about illegally parking in a handicapped spot?"

Now if Drejka had approached her with his gun already out and threatening to shoot her over illegally parking, that would be a different situation and I think then that McGlockton might have been justified to use deadly force, but that's not what happened. I think we can all agree that Drejka was being a ****, but it was McGlockton that started the physical altercation.

That being said, my opinion is that it was an unjustified shooting, and Drejka should be charged. McGlockton clearly stops the assault and backs away as soon as Drejka unholsters his gun. At that point the physical confrontation is over and, again in my opinion, the "reasonable person" would not be in fear of his life and have no reason to shoot. I'm not a lawyer or any sort of expert, but that's my reading of situation, for what its worth.

 

[cmikes]

I also think it's reasonable to think that Drejka felt emboldened to aggressively confront people parking illegally in handicapped spots because he was carrying a gun. It's very possible that in the absence of the weapon he would at most yell at the person and keep moving.

How do we know that he wouldn't have done exactly that if he wasn't violently knocked to the ground? There's no way to be be sure, of course, but there's nothing in the video that indicates that Drejka was looking to start any sort of physical confrontation. He doesn't make a move for his gun until after he's been blindsided by McGlockton.

 

[cmikes]

From my limited understanding of SYG I believe doesn't apply if you've deliberately exposed yourself to greater risk.

It doesn't really matter since it's not a Stand Your Ground case anyways. Even in states that have a "duty to retreat" it's codified that you have to retreat if you can do so in safety. Looking at the video there's no way for Drejka to retreat in safety with McGlockton standing over him while Drejka's flat on his ass from being violently shoved to the ground.

At that point, Drejka is within his rights to defend himself. As I said in my other post, however, that fact that Drejka shoots after McGlockton has stopped the assault and backed away makes it an unjustified shooting, at least in my opinion.