Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[P.J. Denyer]

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.[...]

Yes, I was arguing against that suggestion, all be it on slightly different grounds.

 

[The Big Dog]

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".

Hoo boy.

Anyway, if we take this line of reasoning and apply it to the person who got pushed to the ground, there are no circumstances where the shot was not reasonable.

Except my scenario actually makes sense, because it does not rely on the incredibly silly yellingis physical abuse concept.

 

[Thermal]

Y'alls gunna need some scuba gear iffn ya stays on that sinking ship much longer

 

[Thermal]

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.

A football tackle can be rough, too, but during a game it's expected. For a sudden parking lot altercation, it was pretty powerful.

Also, both you and Nessie mentioned McGlocklin having at least the moral, if debatably the legal, right to defend his family with the initial shove. I agree, even if it would be a misdemeanor. I guess it would depend on how aggressive Drejka was.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

A football tackle can be rough, too, but during a game it's expected. For a sudden parking lot altercation, it was pretty powerful.

Also, both you and Nessie mentioned McGlocklin having at least the moral, if debatably the legal, right to defend his family with the initial shove. I agree, even if it would be a misdemeanor. I guess it would depend on how aggressive Drejka was.

I don't see McGlockton having any moral, and certainly not any legal, grounds to batter Drejka. Unless what Drejka saying was explicitly threatening to the point of being a crime (not just unpleasant, but an actual threat of violence), no physical force used can be legal. It is not a crime to be a rude ******* and speak rudely to other people in public. It is not a crime to berate someone for parking in a handicap spot. McGlockton chose poorly, and had he not been killed by this lunatic, would rightfully be facing some form of criminal action for his shove. He had plenty of lawful options for confronting Drejka. Verbally haranguing him for being a weird, belligerent man would have been perfectly appropriate and lawful. Escalating to violence was not legally or morally justified.

McGlockton can no more shove Drejka for what he might do than Drejka can shoot McGlockton for what he might do. Self defense laws are based on reasonable fear of imminent injury, not protecting yourself from feared potential attacks.

None of this is to be construed as justifying Drejka's criminal use of deadly force. I find him to be, by far, the most amoral and criminal element of this entire scenario.

 

[Thermal]

I don't see McGlockton having any moral, and certainly not any legal, grounds to batter Drejka. Unless what Drejka saying was explicitly threatening to the point of being a crime (not just unpleasant, but an actual threat of violence), no physical force used can be legal. It is not a crime to be a rude ******* and speak rudely to other people in public. It is not a crime to berate someone for parking in a handicap spot.

McGlockton can no more shove Drejka for what he might do than Drejka can shoot McGlockton for what he might do. Self defense laws are based on reasonable fear of imminent injury, not protecting yourself from feared potential attacks.

Yeah, whether he had the moral right would rely entirely on the specifics that, like on so many threads, we simply don't have. For my part, I have no issue going over the legal line a little. Not comparable with killing, but misdemeanor infractions with moral justification don't cause a lot of lost sleep.

 

[Disbelief]

I don't see McGlockton having any moral, and certainly not any legal, grounds to batter Drejka. Unless what Drejka saying was explicitly threatening to the point of being a crime (not just unpleasant, but an actual threat of violence), no physical force used can be legal. It is not a crime to be a rude ******* and speak rudely to other people in public. It is not a crime to berate someone for parking in a handicap spot. McGlockton chose poorly, and had he not been killed by this lunatic, would rightfully be facing some form of criminal action for his shove. He had plenty of lawful options for confronting Drejka. Verbally haranguing him for being a weird, belligerent man would have been perfectly appropriate and lawful. Escalating to violence was not legally or morally justified.

McGlockton can no more shove Drejka for what he might do than Drejka can shoot McGlockton for what he might do. Self defense laws are based on reasonable fear of imminent injury, not protecting yourself from feared potential attacks.

None of this is to be construed as justifying Drejka's criminal use of deadly force. I find him to be, by far, the most amoral and criminal element of this entire scenario.

Bolding mine.

I think it's rather sad commentary that his shove his clearly seen as an illegal action, yet his being shot is not clearly seen as illegal. This really needs to be prosecuted and go before a jury.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yeah, whether he had the moral right would rely entirely on the specifics that, like on so many threads, we simply don't have. For my part, I have no issue going over the legal line a little. Not comparable with killing, but misdemeanor infractions with moral justification don't cause a lot of lost sleep.

Sure. In an alternative universe where no gun becomes involved, the police might not even bother following up on a criminal complaint from Drejka getting shoved down after running his mouth. Some stuff is just too petty to worry about.

Bolding mine.

I think it's rather sad commentary that his shove his clearly seen as an illegal action, yet his being shot is not clearly seen as illegal. This really needs to be prosecuted and go before a jury.

The sheriff's "My hands are tied" stance is as baffling as it is idiotic. Not sure if he's just an idiot or up to some game.

 

[Thermal]

Sure. In an alternative universe where no gun becomes involved, the police might not even bother following up on a criminal complaint from Drejka getting shoved down after running his mouth. Some stuff is just too petty to worry about.

Huh? What kind of OK Corral is Boston nowadays? I live in a no-carry state, so maybe my judgment is biased, but I've seen dozens of petty fights and no bang bang. Can't remember police being called for any one on one fighting, either.

The sheriff's "My hands are tied" stance is as baffling as it is idiotic. Not sure if he's just an idiot or up to some game.

Doubt he's that dumb. I'd guess he likes dropping the occasional World Star Hip Hop Stomper, too

 

[The Big Dog]

Bolding mine.

I think it's rather sad commentary that his shove his clearly seen as an illegal action, yet his being shot is not clearly seen as illegal. This really needs to be prosecuted and go before a jury.

The shove CLEARLY was illegal, notwithstanding the desperate appeals to emotion that the victim was "abusing" the girlfriend by telling her not to park in the handicapped spot.

She was in a 2000 pound metal cage, all she had to do was put the ******* thing in reverse or, you know, not park in the spot in the first place.

 

[Thermal]

That's some shiny brass on the Titanic yo

 

[The Big Dog]

That's some shiny brass on the Titanic yo

'k.

 

[Fudbucker]

The shove CLEARLY was illegal, notwithstanding the desperate appeals to emotion that the victim was "abusing" the girlfriend by telling her not to park in the handicapped spot.

She was in a 2000 pound metal cage, all she had to do was put the ******* thing in reverse or, you know, not park in the spot in the first place.

Is it really this hard to admit you're wrong?

 

[The Big Dog]

Is it really this hard to admit you're wrong?

One usually expects that when one claims one is wrong one goes to the effort of showing how one is wrong.

Tuck in! The proving "wrong" must be easy!

 

[Thermal]

*glances at preceding 20 pages*

 

[Disbelief]

The shove CLEARLY was illegal, notwithstanding the desperate appeals to emotion that the victim was "abusing" the girlfriend by telling her not to park in the handicapped spot.

She was in a 2000 pound metal cage, all she had to do was put the ******* thing in reverse or, you know, not park in the spot in the first place.

Or she's trapped inside the vehicle and he could shoot through the window. Maybe she wanted out so she didn't feel cornered.

 

[Nessie]

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.

The law states

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

"...the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force."

Having been probably been told Jacobs was being confronted by a male, having walked out and seen that is what was happening, is McGlockton not entitled to assume imminent use of force by Drejka?

 

[Nessie]

One usually expects that when one claims one is wrong one goes to the effort of showing how one is wrong.

Tuck in! The proving "wrong" must be easy!

I am still waiting for various answers to my questions, with effort to show you are right.

 

[Babbylonian]

The sheriff's "My hands are tied" stance is as baffling as it is idiotic. Not sure if he's just an idiot or up to some game.

US sheriffs are politicians with badges. Like most politicians, their main priority is reelection. Every public statement a sheriff in the US makes is going to be less about facts and almost entirely about playing to their crowd.

 

[Tippit]

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

What does that mean in reality? That I should allow attackers to beat me unconscious before deciding that they're a threat and defending myself? The standard we should all be held to is the law, and in this case I think it was a bad shoot. But as always, it seems to be turning into a defense of the ability to defend yourself and specifically, SYG laws.