Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[Checkmite]

Then Drejka appears in his vehicle, gets out and walks around the parked car. At 1.27 (in the video timing he approaches the passenger and the argument starts between Jacobs and Drejka. We do not know exactly who is more aggressive or what, but as others appear they all look over to Drejka and the car. At 2.07 the lady who walks out the shop looks over twice. Just after a male gets out his car and keeps on looking as he holds the shop door open for another female (around 2.28).

Indeed; it's obvious by the reactions of basically everyone who approaches the store after he initiates the confrontation that Drejka along with his openly aggressive posturing is being quite loud. I suspect that McGlockton probably heard the confrontation from inside the store and only emerged when he was informed that the target of the abuse was his girlfriend.

Coincidentally, I think Jacobs hypothetically would've had a stand-your-ground excuse to shoot Drejka if she was armed, once Drejka began pointing his weapon at her after shooting McGlockton.

 

[Thermal]

Indeed; it's obvious by the reactions of basically everyone who approaches the store after he initiates the confrontation that Drejka along with his openly aggressive posturing is being quite loud. I suspect that McGlockton probably heard the confrontation from inside the store and only emerged when he was informed that the target of the abuse was his girlfriend.

Coincidentally, I think Jacobs hypothetically would've had a stand-your-ground excuse to shoot Drejka if she was armed, once Drejka began pointing his weapon at her after shooting McGlockton.

I think McGlocklin and Jacobs could have legitimately drawn and fired once Drejkas gun was in view

 

[Foolmewunz]

1. the attack had not ended,
2. the attacker was coming in for stomping time,
3. and was stopped only because the gun was drawn, he aimed for center mass, pulled the trigger.

For clarity, I deleted the lies.

 

[Foolmewunz]

“Because.”

Pure self defense, pure stand your ground.

The thing we can all agree with is Captain Blindside would still be alive if he did not attack the victim.

The thing we can also all agree on is that the victim would still be alive if Quickdraw hadn't shot him.

And we can all agree that if Quickdraw hadn't been doing his Zimmerman Vigilante Duty the victim would still be alive.

And we can all agree that the Bears suck, but that might be for a different thread.

 

[This is The End]

I'd say more likely than not, given that McGlockton is the kind of guy who so quickly and unneccesarily escalated to violence. (That is the little I know about him, so going off that)

I'm just not understanding where you people are getting this from.



First and foremost, and this is very important, as I have repeatedly tried to explain in this thread he did NOT have the information we have now about why the man was yelling at his spouse. That is the part it appears that some of you just don't have the ability to comprehend . You cannot separate "it is about a handicap spot" from "unknown".

Secondly, he had his life partner*, a toddler, and a newborn outside in his vehicle.

*(Using the phrase "life partner" so the religious defense of sacred space faerie marriage ***** ****** don't have a conniption fit if I say "spouse".)

And finally, someone came inside and said that a man was outside accosting a woman.

He then, within a few seconds, removed the man from his family with a push.

For all he knew it was a hold up or an attempted kidnapping.

Knowing what he knew at the time there are no circumstances where the push was not reasonable. Just because it was probably a misdemeanor does not mean it wasn't a reasonable thing to do to protect his family.


Also, the shooter started the "unnecessary violence" by yelling at the woman. I have a feeling some of you are the same people who do not think yelling at a spouse is abuse. That only physical abuse is "real abuse" and that people suffering verbal abuse should just "man up".

 

[This is The End]

I agree that it was a no-joke strike/shove. Not playground caliber by any means.

I think you are overselling how much we can tell from the video. Especially considering the shooter could be doing some overselling of his own. I swear some of you have never seen an NBA basketball game.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I'm just not understanding where you people are getting this from.



First and foremost, and this is very important, as I have repeatedly tried to explain in this thread he did NOT have the information we have now about why the man was yelling at his spouse. That is the part it appears that some of you just don't have the ability to comprehend . You cannot separate "it is about a handicap spot" from "unknown".

There is no need to seperate "it is about a handicap spot" from "unknown" because in neither case should he have escalated to physical violence. What he should have done is left the store, assessed the situation, and then acted reasonably. Step two (assessing the situation) is important before you decide to physically assault someone.

He then, within a few seconds, removed the man from his family with a push.

For all he knew it was a hold up or an attempted kidnapping.

Well, he should have taken the time to get acquainted with what was going on. You can't just assume it might be an attempted kidnapping and therefore you're good to go with assault.

Knowing what he knew at the time there are no circumstances where the push was not reasonable.

I'd say it exactly the opposite; knowing what he knew at the time (not much) there are no circumstances where the push was reasonable.

I have a feeling some of you are the same people who do not think yelling at a spouse is abuse. That only physical abuse is "real abuse" and that people suffering verbal abuse should just "man up".

I don't hold any of these beliefs, but I do think there is a distinction legally between verbal and physical abuse. In addition, a victim of verbal abuse can always retreat.

 

[Checkmite]

In addition, a victim of verbal abuse can always retreat.

If you're implying that Jacobs could somehow have "retreated" from Drejka's attack I think you're being disingenuous. He was in her face and clearly intended to camp there for a while. From McGlocklin's visual POV it may have even appeared there was physicality on Drejka's part.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

If you're implying that Jacobs could somehow have "retreated" from Drejka's attack I think you're being disingenuous.

I'll do more than imply that Jacobs could somehow have retreated from Drejka's attack, I'll state it outright. Jacobs could have retreated easily from (or ignored) Drejka's attack.

From McGlocklin's visual POV it may have even appeared there was physicality on Drejka's part.

He had plenty of time to assess the situation and determine there was not.

 

[Babbylonian]

He had plenty of time to assess the situation and determine there was not.

Plenty of time to watch someone verbally abuse his girlfriend, a situation that had already been happening before he arrived, and something which often enough escalates to physical violence? Definitely disingenuous, especially when the implication includes approval of the verbal abuser then shooting him.

 

[Checkmite]

He had plenty of time to assess the situation and determine there was not.

Drejka had plenty of time to assess the situation and determine that the shove was both the beginning and the end of McGlocklin's "attack".

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Plenty of time to watch someone verbally abuse his girlfriend, a situation that had already been happening before he arrived, and something which often enough escalates to physical violence?

Sure. Plenty of time to see the guy (which he had already heard about) verbally abusing his girlfriend. Sure, verbal abuse often escalates into physical violence. It escalated into violence this time on McGlockin's behalf.

Drejka had plenty of time to assess the situation and determine that the shove was both the beginning and the end of McGlocklin's "attack".

Sure he did. What bearing does this have on whether or not McGlocklin had time to determine that Drejka was not physically assaulting his girlfriend before deciding to commit assault?

 

[Checkmite]

Sure he did. What bearing does this have on whether or not McGlocklin had time to determine that Drejka was not physically assaulting his girlfriend before deciding to commit assault?

Only one of these mistakes directly resulted in a man's murder.

 

[Nessie]

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.

I do not think McGlockton could have justified shooting Drejka. I do think he could justify (under Florida's law) pushing Drejka to the ground. He saw Drejka as potential physical threat to Jacobs and with the actions of the other male, he may have just been told inside the shop, you better get out there, there is trouble. That is why he left at speed with no shopping.

 

[Nessie]

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.

Since so many people carry guns and there is a general agreement Drejka was likely emboldened to confront people because he has a gun, is it not unreasonable to assume he is a deadly threat?

Is McGlockton not acting reasonably by pushing Drejka to the ground away from Jacobs to protect her? He has not used deadly force, it is one push against someone who may be (and turns out to be) a deadly threat.

 

[Nessie]

Indeed; it's obvious by the reactions of basically everyone who approaches the store after he initiates the confrontation that Drejka along with his openly aggressive posturing is being quite loud. I suspect that McGlockton probably heard the confrontation from inside the store and only emerged when he was informed that the target of the abuse was his girlfriend.

Coincidentally, I think Jacobs hypothetically would've had a stand-your-ground excuse to shoot Drejka if she was armed, once Drejka began pointing his weapon at her after shooting McGlockton.

I think the actions of the other male have not been studied enough. He parks up and from the start he is watching to confrontation at the parked car. He stands a long while to hold a door open for another female, giving him a reason to keep watching.

He then goes inside the shop and a few seconds later McGlockton appears, with no shopping, closely followed by the male.

It appears to me that the male likely said something to McGlockton that has made him fear what is happening outside. When he goes out Jacobs has just got out the car. She is not as safe as she was inside the car.

McGlockton has been warned about a male who is now standing next to Jacobs and that has to be reason to fear for her safety.

Hence he walks very quickly towards Drejka and without any hesitation shoves him to the ground. It is as if McGlockton has decided on this course of action as he left the shop and saw what he saw.

 

[Nessie]

Sure. Plenty of time to see the guy (which he had already heard about) verbally abusing his girlfriend. Sure, verbal abuse often escalates into physical violence. It escalated into violence this time on McGlockin's behalf.




Sure he did. What bearing does this have on whether or not McGlocklin had time to determine that Drejka was not physically assaulting his girlfriend before deciding to commit assault?

The law does not require an attack to start before it can be defended against. It allows for self defence against what is expected as an imminent attack.

There is reason why McGlockton would think an attack on Jacobs was imminent. Those reasons may not be very good and could well be wrong, but they surely existed.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

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.

Sorry, my post was in response to a hypothetical suggestion that McGlockton could have claimed SYG because Drejka was 'threatening' Jacobs and that she was vulnerable because she was out of her car. This is prior to the shove or Drejka drawing his gun.

 

[cmikes]

Since so many people carry guns and there is a general agreement Drejka was likely emboldened to confront people because he has a gun, is it not unreasonable to assume he is a deadly threat?

Is McGlockton not acting reasonably by pushing Drejka to the ground away from Jacobs to protect her? He has not used deadly force, it is one push against someone who may be (and turns out to be) a deadly threat.

Sorry, my post was in response to a hypothetical suggestion that McGlockton could have claimed SYG because Drejka was 'threatening' Jacobs and that she was vulnerable because she was out of her car. This is prior to the shove or Drejka drawing his gun.

Again, not according to the law. This is my own layman's reading of the law, but as far as a I can tell, you can't claim self-defense if you attack someone because of a verbal confrontation. The standard for self-defense is you have to be in fear of death or grievous bodily harm to you or others. Which is pretty much impossible in a verbal argument, unless you're dealing with Black Bolt or Black Canary.

Now McGlockton could have claimed self-defense in the likely assault case that would have followed if Drejka wouldn't have shot him, but I doubt that "I had to attack him because he was verbally giving my partner **** about illegally parking in a handicapped spot" would have met the reasonable person standard.

I think everyone can agree that Drejka was being a complete ****, but it was McGlockton that started the physical confrontation, which negates any claims of self-defense, SYG or otherwise.

I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong, but I don't know of any successful claims of self-defense where the person claiming self-defense started the fight unless the other person was waving around a gun or knife or something. But just standing there arguing? I've never heard of it, but again I'm open to corrections.

 

[Reactor drone]

The video.


Then Drejka appears in his vehicle, gets out and walks around the parked car. At 1.27 (in the video timing he approaches the passenger and the argument starts between Jacobs and Drejka. We do not know exactly who is more aggressive or what, but as others appear they all look over to Drejka and the car. At 2.07 the lady who walks out the shop looks over twice. Just after a male gets out his car and keeps on looking as he holds the shop door open for another female (around 2.28).

The driver. American cars are left hand drive.