Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[Jack by the hedge]

If she was actually scared of Drejka, why would she get out of the car at all? I think she wouldn't. I think she got out of the car because she wasn't scared of Drejka.

That could be true, but you could interpret her action as anything on a sliding scale from being so distressed at being yelled at she wants to flee to her boyfriend for protection right up to her seeing the blind fury on his face and rushing to intercept him before he does anything reckless.

I really would like to hear both sides version of what was said.

If I were to guess, I'd say she was too scared to get out and deal face to face with the man alone, but felt emboldened when she saw her boyfriend coming back.

Yes.

Your link takes me to "Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries..." but "Yes" seems clear enough: Not allowed for parents with small children. Thanks.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You are incorrect. If it is found to be justifiable defense then there are no charges whatsoever for pushing, or even killing someone.

I doubt that you would call a 50 year old white man pushing a 25 year old black male with a gun pointed at someone "battery"... Therefore you do understand that in cases of justifiable defense it is not battery.

A person may not use force to defend the honor of another. Being annoyed by an unhinged, annoying person in public is not grounds for a self defense claim. This is very well established in the US. There are plenty examples of the law protecting people engaged in very rude and very hostile, but not explicitly threatening, speech in public. Westboro baptist church can viciously insult the dead at their own funeral. Paparazzi can hassle celebrities as they go about their lives. The KKK can march down main street. All of these people are protected by the law from being battered by their targets.

You could literally dress up as the SS, go into an orthodox jewish neighborhood, and inform passerby's that the Final Solution was a good idea and no-one would be legally justified in attacking you and claiming self-defense.

I am 100% willing to believe that McGlockton's girlfriend was very uncomfortable and worried by the seemingly insane man shouting at her from outside the window. Who knows what such a nutcase is capable of? Unless Drejka was making explicit threats of violence, his speech does not justify her using force to stop such speech, and, by extension, justify a third party to do so on her behalf. McGlockton could have been reasonably worried about this strange man accosting his girlfriend. That worry is not enough to justify attacking him. There must be reasonable fear of an imminent danger, not just the reasonable fear of potential danger. Speech is not violence. Violence is violence.

 

[Nessie]

Do you accept that if Jacobs had moved her car when it was pointed out that she was in a disabled parking spot that that would have been the end of it?

Yes, more than likely it would have been the end of it.

 

[Nessie]

Jacobs did not act like she was scared of Drejka. And pointing a finger isn't a threat.

I agree her getting out of the car is not the action of someone who feels threatened. She may have seen McGlockton approaching, so she now felt safe to get out the car.

Finger pointing can be threatening behaviour. It can signify someone is out to get out. It is often used as a warning to desist.

 

[Nessie]

read the thread....

You have made a claim and cannot back it up with any evidence. If you are going to claim anyone said something, quote at least an example.

 

[Nessie]

Yeah, there's no whiteknight exemption to the crime of battery. Shoving someone to protect the dignity of your ladyfriend being verbally harangued is still battery. Drejka could have unleashed a 30 minute, rabidly derogatory and misogynistic diatribe at the woman in the car and even then the shove would not be justified. Unless he was explicitly threatening her with violence or some other crime, there is no justification for the shove.

McGlockton had many legal options to confront Drejka that would still have satisfied any perceived insult to his girlfriend. He chose an unlawful one. We don't have to paint him as a saint to correctly conclude that Drejka still likely used unlawful deadly force.

The law does not define how to identify an imminent attack. Someone being abusive and finger pointing is the actions of people who are imminently about to attack. Many arguments result in fights.

I think that McGlockton's actions, whilst excessive, were understandable and not entirely unreasonable.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The law does not define how to identify an imminent attack. Someone being abusive and finger pointing is the actions of people who are imminently about to attack. Many arguments result in fights.

I think that McGlockton's actions, whilst excessive, were understandable and not entirely unreasonable.

I can assure you that there is plenty of legal precedent concerning the difference between threatening and lawful speech.

I also find McGlockton's actions understandable. Some people are begging for a beating. Doesn't make it legal. I can take personal joy in seeing the neo-nazi Spencer get socked in the mouth, but I can't honestly say that it is legal to do so. Part of living in a society is overriding our base impulses.

 

[Babbylonian]

I can assure you that there is plenty of legal precedent concerning the difference between threatening and lawful speech.

I also find McGlockton's actions understandable. Some people are begging for a beating. Doesn't make it legal. I can take personal joy in seeing the neo-nazi Spencer get socked in the mouth, but I can't honestly say that it is legal to do so. Part of living in a society is overriding our base impulses.

If only the conspiracy nut who got punched by Buzz Aldrin had a gun. I'm sure there would be people here defending him if he had shot and killed the second man who [supposedly] walked on the moon.

 

[Nessie]

I can assure you that there is plenty of legal precedent concerning the difference between threatening and lawful speech.

That Drejka was attracting the attention of passers-by going in and out of the shop, tells me he was more towards the threatening. Add in his body language and I would say it was clear he was being threatening.

I also find McGlockton's actions understandable. Some people are begging for a beating. Doesn't make it legal. I can take personal joy in seeing the neo-nazi Spencer get socked in the mouth, but I can't honestly say that it is legal to do so. Part of living in a society is overriding our base impulses.

Indeed and I wish the law (in Scotland at least) was better at recognising provocation and instances where people are basically out for trouble, then act all surprised when it happens.

As well as Stand Your Ground, there should be an You Were Asking for Trouble law.

 

[The Big Dog]

The law does not define how to identify an imminent attack. Someone being abusive and finger pointing is the actions of people who are imminently about to attack. Many arguments result in fights.

I think that McGlockton's actions, whilst excessive, were understandable and not entirely unreasonable.

You've made this claim before. Where did you find surveillance video with audio, or are you just making it up?

McGlockton's actions were idiotic

 

[Nessie]

You've made this claim before. Where did you find surveillance video with audio, or are you just making it up?

McGlockton's actions were idiotic

There is no audio. I am going by news reports and what can be seen.

I agree McGlockton was an idiot. But not such an idiot that he could be justifiably shot dead.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You've made this claim before. Where did you find surveillance video with audio, or are you just making it up?

McGlockton's actions were idiotic

Legal implications aside, any thoughts on Drejka's character? I mean, he only manufactured a confrontation that resulted in him killing a man. If McGlockton's overreaction makes him an idiot, what is Drejka in your eyes?

 

[The Big Dog]

Legal implications aside, any thoughts on Drejka's character? I mean, he only manufactured a confrontation that resulted in him killing a man. If McGlockton's overreaction makes him an idiot, what is Drejka in your eyes?

He wasn’t parking in the handicapped spot

 

[TheGoldcountry]

He wasn’t parking in the handicapped spot

No. He was just waiting for someone to do so, in order to be a vigilante with a gun.

Congrats on stating the obvious.

 

[Ziggurat]

Finger pointing can be threatening behaviour. It can signify someone is out to get out. It is often used as a warning to desist.

No. Finger pointing can accompany a threat. But it is not a threat by itself. And not all threats are illegal or justify the use of force. For example, if Drejka threatened to call the police, McGlockton could not legally use force against that threat.

 

[Nessie]

No. Finger pointing can accompany a threat. But it is not a threat by itself. And not all threats are illegal or justify the use of force. For example, if Drejka threatened to call the police, McGlockton could not legally use force against that threat.

That was my point. The whole circumstance, Drejka's approach, the body language, the finger pointing, the raised voice, was threatening.

 

[TomB]

To me, this is a case where there are no innocents. Well, except for the kid.

Woman parks in handicapped spot? Bad.

Dude pulls up and makes a show of looking at license plates on vehicle parked in space. Then confronts person in car for an extended period of time. Bad (Seriously, I could get behind pointing out her error and walking away.)

Either the woman or the person berating her could have disengaged from the argument in multiple ways. Neither did. That's on both of them.

Dude comes out to defend his partner, fine. But instead of involving himself or interjecting himself beween them, he goes straight for the push. Bad. (Let's not minimize this. While it's understandable it was not the correct thing to do. Although, depending on what was being said verbally it's possible that a case could have been made of defense of another. But we don't have that information.)

After the shove, he moves forward a step or two. I didn't interpret this as coming in for the beatdown. I interpreted it as stepping up to issue a verbal warning to leave the woman alone or get lost or something to that effect. Both interpretations are speculation.

Guy draws gun. Fine.

Pusher retreats several steps and turns back towards store. Fine. (Though should also have been accompanied by a verbal retreat as well. It may have been. Don't have that information.)

Pushee pulls trigger after holding gun on retreating pusher for a couple seconds. Bad.

Seems like everyone involved screwed up and was in the wrong or used poor judgement at some point in the encounter. Minimizing or understanding the shove does not make the shooting worse. Exaggerating the shove and speculating about intent to do further harm does not make it more justified. Regardless of the initial intentions of the deceased, drawing the gun had provided the necessary defense and resulted in a retreat.

As to why she got out of the car....and this is speculation...it was an attempt to equalize power. I see it as a sign that the argument was heating up. One feels less threatened in a standing position than a sitting position. If your opponent is berating you from above, you feel more vulnerable. Even from within a vehicle. Unless you are in a big truck where you may be looking down on your opponent.

 

[Dr. Keith]

(Seriously, I could get behind pointing out her error and walking away.)

I was once idling in a fire lane waiting for my wife to pop into a shop while it was pouring rain. There was no parking nearby and there was no traffic, although I was likely doing something that I could get a ticket for.

A lady walking by yelled at me that I shouldn't park there. I acknowledged her and said "Thank you". Apparently, she misheard me and yelled back "No! **** you!"

Luckily my mother-in-law was in the car with me because I would have reached for my gun otherwise never convinced my wife that this had actually happened.

 

[Babbylonian]

I was once idling in a fire lane waiting for my wife to pop into a shop while it was pouring rain. There was no parking nearby and there was no traffic, although I was likely doing something that I could get a ticket for.

A lady walking by yelled at me that I shouldn't park there. I acknowledged her and said "Thank you". Apparently, she misheard me and yelled back "No! **** you!"

Luckily my mother-in-law was in the car with me because I would have reached for my gun otherwise never convinced my wife that this had actually happened.

I don't understand why people feel so comfortable confronting others in any way over minor parking infractions, or even over observed moving violations. Unless they're actually in need of a particular parking space or they've been injured or sustained car damage, what's the point? The violators know what they're doing is illegal and they have their reasons (good or bad) for doing it.

I sometimes feel like a crazy person for yelling at people driving cars who are actually endangering or impeding me as a pedestrian (I don't drive). Clearly, I need to give myself a break because at least I'm not going after people who are not affecting me in any way whatsoever.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I don't understand why people feel so comfortable confronting others in any way over minor parking infractions, or even over observed moving violations. Unless they're actually in need of a particular parking space or they've been injured or sustained car damage, what's the point? The violators know what they're doing is illegal and they have their reasons (good or bad) for doing it.

I sometimes feel like a crazy person for yelling at people driving cars who are actually endangering or impeding me as a pedestrian (I don't drive). Clearly, I need to give myself a break because at least I'm not going after people who are not affecting me in any way whatsoever.

I used to get more upset about such things until I had kids. Knowing that my kids would mirror my actions later in life I drive very carefully when they are in the car. So much so that my daughter couldn't understand how I ever got a speeding ticket.