Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[Tippit]

That's actually what I'm asking you. You claim to have a provision in place to defend against imminent threat to your life. Well and good. What are your provisions for less than lethal assaults? Do nothing, or brandish the weapon as a threat (illigal in many cases)? You agree that the OP is not a clean kill, as most posters conclude. In a similar situation, not that you would instigate as Drejka did, what would be your response to the non lethal assault? Would you brandish, possibly violating law and becoming the more felonious criminal in doing so?

Since I live in Florida and have a weapons permit, I don't need to speculate on when it is or is not illegal to display my firearm. "Brandishing" or improper exhibition of a firearm is illegal, but self-defense situations are exceptional. I also disagree that the assault was necessarily "non-lethal". As I said earlier, being violently shoved to the ground can be lethal in a number of circumstances. We also don't know Glockton's motives, or what would have happened had Drejka not drawn his gun. Also, as I said before, I am not in the business of harassing people for parking infractions, so I wouldn't be in that position to begin with. If, on the other hand, someone shoved me violently to the ground, I would have drawn my firearm and pointed it at them. If they disengaged, I would then try to gather my wits and get to a safe position. If not, I would open fire and stop firing when I was no longer threatened. I would assume by default that anyone violently shoving me out of the blue is planning to kill or rob me, and act accordingly.

 

[Tippit]

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?

Because any situation for which I'm willing to use pepper spray, I am willing to draw my gun and then re-assess the situation. Obviously if someone attacks me even with a gun drawn on them, then they were probably intent on killing/harming me anyway.

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?

Not at all. I respect all people's lives, starting with my own, and I conduct myself accordingly. You won't find me assaulting people or shoving them to the ground. Maybe you're the one who has a lack of respect for all of the victims of violent crimes who either didn't or couldn't fight back.

 

[Tippit]

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.

Nope, it wouldn't. Nice try though. His wife wasn't assaulted, therefore if Glockton shot Drejka he would have been just as guilty of murder as Drejka should have been.

 

[Dr. Keith]

*glances at preceding 20 pages*

Heck, he had it figured out by page 6.

 

[Nessie]

....We also don't know Glockton's motives....

It appears a male went into the shop, said something to McGlockton about what he saw outside and McGlockton went to deal with what he regarded as a threat to his partner.

 

[Tippit]

I'm really glad I don't live where you do so I don't really have to think about these sort of things.

It must be exhausting.

It's not, really. I'm a nice person, and the vast majority of people that I meet are also nice people. Even the people who aren't nice aren't likely to start trouble with me anyway. I am muscular, athletic, and I keep my head on a swivel.

I grew up in Miami, which has a reputation for violence, yet I never really saw any of it. Carrying a firearm for me is second nature, like carrying my wallet. Hopefully I will never need to use it, ever, and hopefully I will have the sense to be able to avoid any situation which might result in harm coming to me or anyone else.

 

[Tippit]

It appears a male went into the shop, said something to McGlockton about what he saw outside and McGlockton went to deal with what he regarded as a threat to his partner.

Yes, what I mean is, we don't know what Glockton would have done had there never been a firearm at all. Clearly we know that he backed off when the gun was displayed, and was shot unjustifiably anyway. What we don't know is what would have happened had Drejka remained on the ground, unarmed. The fact that Drejka decided to pull the trigger as opposed to maintaining his cool while simultaneously defending himself with a drawn weapon, is why I think he belongs in prison.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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?

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that you need to let yourself be beaten before defending yourself, but if you're going to shoot an unarmed person and claim that they were an imminent threat, then it would seem that at a bare minimum that person should at least be advancing on you, not retreating. (which you would seem to agree on given your posts.)

 

[The Big Dog]

Weird how so many posters are claiming that the shover was correct in violence in response to a verbal argument,while loudly disclaiming that the person who was actually in reality physically attacked without question and without speculations, was incorrect because the original attacker might have ceased his attack momentarily.

Cleanest case of self defense I ever saw, thanks iskepers for making that clear as day.

 

[Tippit]

Weird how so many posters are claiming that the shover was correct in violence in response to a verbal argument,while loudly disclaiming that the person who was actually in reality physically attacked without question and without speculations, was incorrect because the original attacker might have ceased his attack momentarily.

Cleanest case of self defense I ever saw, thanks iskepers for making that clear as day.

You don't understand the law. The law (at least in Florida), states clearly that the use of lethal force must stop when the threat stops (or, in this case it should never have started). If you want, I can look it up and cite it for you. It was a one-on-one encounter with an armed man who began the incident by harassing another man's girlfriend. There is also another law which states that you cannot provoke a person into attacking you for the purpose of using lethal self-defense. I can look that up and cite it for you as well, if you'd like.

It was a bad shoot. I'm a gun owner who firmly believes in both the 2nd amendment, and SYG laws, and it was a bad shoot. It makes me and other rational law-abiding gun owners look bad. If you can't rationally assess a situation and/or control your anger to the point at which you end up murdering someone, then you deserve to be held accountable as this man should be.

Having said all of that, I think it's likely that the attack would have continued had the man not drawn his gun. The problem was that Drejka decided to pull the trigger on a retreating man. We don't get to be judge, jury and executioner just because we get shoved on the street, in spite of the people on this thread who have absolutely zero sympathy for the victims of violence, and those who would defend themselves. Drejka should suffer the consequences of his actions.

 

[This is The End]

Well, he should have taken the time to get acquainted with what was going on.

Okay so the white guy can react immediately because of "feels" but the black guy needs to "take time to get acquainted with what is going on".

You can't just assume it might be an attempted kidnapping and therefore you're good to go with assault.

It's still loaded no matter how many times you use the words "attack" and "assault".

Reasonable defense is NOT an attack. Nor is it an assault.

 

[This is The End]

but as far as a I can tell, you can't claim self-defense if you attack someone because of a verbal confrontation.

That is incorrect. There are many instances of verbal confrontation that you are allowed to use self-defense in. Like a hold up (give me all of your money!!). Or an attempted kidnapping (get into my car!!).

McGlockton DID NOT KNOW if the accosting was one that required defense. And he only had a few seconds to react. Therefore the one push was justified. If he guessed wrong and it later ended up being a misdemeanor or getting him sued, so be it. It does not make it not justified assuming the information he knew at the time.

 

[This is The End]

I don't see McGlockton having any moral, and certainly not any legal, grounds to batter Drejka.

First of all, you are wrong on both counts. Secondly, you defenders of racism sure love to add loaded words to try and help yourselves sleep at night.

In no first world country is one push to defend a spouse, toddler, and a newborn considered "battery".

 

[This is The End]

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.

Make no mistake, it is racism.

If the couple were 50 year old white people and the shooter was the 25 year old black male these posters would be singing a different tune.

They would be saying that the push was clearly necessary to defend his spouse from being World Star Stomped by the clearly drugged black male or some such nonsense.

You have to remember, the USA a country where 43 million people knowingly voted for a racist for president.

 

[This is The End]

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.

First highlight: nope. Second highlight: that is information he did not have at the time.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Okay so the white guy can react immediately because of "feels" but the black guy needs to "take time to get acquainted with what is going on".

It's the same for anyone regardless of whether they're black or white.

It's still loaded no matter how many times you use the words "attack" and "assault".

Reasonable defense is NOT an attack. Nor is it an assault.

McGlockin's attack was not reasonable defense.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I can't believe this is a thing. There is also a Volume #2. And note that this is the "best of" Handicap Parking Confrontations. You won't find any B material here!

 

[Ziggurat]

In no first world country is one push to defend a spouse, toddler, and a newborn considered "battery".

You're as wrong as TBD on this, and for basically the same reason. First off, the definition of the crime:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime)

Battery was defined at common law as "any unlawful and or unwanted touching of the person of another by the aggressor, or by a substance put in motion by him."​

So first, a push can absolutely qualify as battery, it doesn't have to rise to the level of deadly force. Second, while force is justifiable in defense, 1) it doesn't matter who you are defending, so the whole "spouse, toddler, and a newborn" is just as much an attempt to appeal to emotion as TBD's insistence on not calling her a spouse (and no, I'm not saying she isn't, I'm saying it's irrelevant). Third, you can't use force, even non-deadly force, against the "threat" of someone saying not nice things, even in a loud voice.

 

[Nessie]

Yes, what I mean is, we don't know what Glockton would have done had there never been a firearm at all. Clearly we know that he backed off when the gun was displayed, and was shot unjustifiably anyway. What we don't know is what would have happened had Drejka remained on the ground, unarmed. The fact that Drejka decided to pull the trigger as opposed to maintaining his cool while simultaneously defending himself with a drawn weapon, is why I think he belongs in prison.

Do you accept we have a very good idea what McGlockton was thinking and in his mind he was defending his partner from an aggressive male?

Do you accept the push may have been the only physical act and if Drejka had no gun and had just got up and left that could have been it?

 

[Nessie]

Weird how so many posters are claiming that the shover was correct in violence in response to a verbal argument,while loudly disclaiming that the person who was actually in reality physically attacked without question and without speculations, was incorrect because the original attacker might have ceased his attack momentarily.

Cleanest case of self defense I ever saw, thanks iskepers for making that clear as day.

Not that you have answered any of my questions so far, but...

please quote anyone who stated the shove was the correct response to the verbal argument.