Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[Reactor drone]

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.

You don't see how he could be justifiably shot dead and yet you say that finger pointing and being abusive are signs of an imminent attack that warrant a violent response. Maybe a violent shove could be interpreted as a sign of an imminent attack.

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.

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

Raised voice? You admitted that you have no audio. What makes you think it was Drekja who had the raised voice? It could just as easily have been a person loudly defending their decision to park in a disabled spot and telling a busybody to **** off.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You don't see how he could be justifiably shot dead and yet you say that finger pointing and being abusive are signs of an imminent attack that warrant a violent response. Maybe a violent shove could be interpreted as a sign of an imminent attack.

The shove wasn't a sign of an imminent attack, it was an attack. Now you could say that it was sign that there was more to come, but that only justifies the drawing of the weapon.

The fact is that when the gun was draw, the attacker backed off and was moving away from the shooter when the shot was fired. The shooter paused between the draw and the firing, giving himself time to see that the attacker was backing off, but he shot him anyways.

This is where the issue is. Had he shot the guy as he was approaching, or taking a swing, no-one would be claiming he wasn't defending himself, he would have been on the ground with a guy who was clearly bigger then himself about to attack him again.

But that's not the situation. When the gun was drawn, it ended things, the attacker backed off, and the danger was no longer imminent. At that stage firing was nothing more than revenge for the shove, done in anger.

 

[The Big Dog]

Betcha a nickel the words "disrespect" and "dint" as in in "oh no you dint" were floated in the conversation with the handicapped parking spot squatter.

 

[Tippit]

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?

It seems likely to me that McGlockton was trying to defend his girlfriend, but instead of assessing the situation and speaking with the man, his first reaction was to shove him to the ground violently, a mistake that unfortunately proved to be fatal.

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?

I think that's pure speculation. If you're asking me whether a man whose first reaction to a another man arguing with his wife is to violently shove him to the ground would immediately disengage at that point, I would tend to think not, but that would also be speculation on my part. I think the presence of the firearm is what caused McGlockton to disengage, and I think Drejka probably fired his weapon out of anger.

 

[Tippit]

About that hilited...I don't think that falls under imminent threat of death/serious bodily injury.

The standard in the state of Florida for the justified use of lethal force is to prevent the imminent commission of death, great bodily harm, or a felony. Armed robbery is definitely a felony for which lethal force is justified in this state. The victim has no way of knowing what the perpetrators intentions are, or whether they intend to kill them so as to remove the possible sole witness. We also have something called "castle doctrine" which has been nearly as controversial as SYG, which states that a resident has certain immunities from prosecution for the use of force against intruders in their own home. Home invaders take their lives into their own hands each and every time they break into people's homes here, and I like it this way. The existence of the law and the presence of numerous firearms serves as a great deterrent, even benefiting people who hate guns and the concept of defending one's life. One of the notable instances in which you cannot shoot a criminal is if they have committed a property crime against you and are retreating. This is unlike Texas, where I believe deadly force is allowed even in the prevention of property crimes. I prefer the Texas standard, since I think criminals in fear is a good thing for everyone else.

So you would 'assume' that someone shoving you plans to kill you? And if they intend to rob you, same? There's no middle ground at all for a less grave assault? They literally do not exist? Your spectrum of self-defense response is to shoot someone, or threaten to do so? Do I have that right?

I would assume, rightly so, that someone shoving me to the ground has the intent to do me bodily harm, perhaps great bodily harm, and I would probably draw my weapon. This has never happened to me before, and if it did, I would take it very seriously.

The middle ground always exists, in reality. The trouble is making the risky assessment of the criminal's motive. The question is a philosophical one. Do you want to put the risk of the encounter solely on the victim's assessment of the benevolence of his attacker, or do you want the full risk to be born by the perpetrator? Do you want to coddle violent criminals, or do you want a clear message to be sent that violent criminals risk death? I prefer to side with victims, and prosecute hotheads like Drejka when they arise.

Ok. Pepper spray, being lighter, cheaper, less dangerous to bystanders, and generally non lethal, is not an option for you...because you have the option to shoot them instead?

In most self-defense situations, you have seconds or fractions of a second to react. If you decide to carry pepper spray in lieu of a firearm, then you have conceded to non-lethal force. This, when up against an attacker fully intent on using lethal force against you could prove to be fatal if the pepper spray has little to no effect.

Yours truly is a great fan of fighting back. Not a fan of killing, though.

Some people can't fight back, for a number of reasons. Sometimes you're outnumbered, out-sized, or out-gunned. Your preference is to spray them with pepper and hope for the best. My preference is to deter them with the threat of lethal force, and/or use that force if necessary.

Let me try it this way: Do you carry your gun 24/7? In the shower, sleep with it under your pillow, etc. Carry it where it may be prohibited? If not, and your concern is sincerely self-defense, what is your plan for the times when you cannot reach your gun?

I have multiple firearms that are secured and can be deployed in any number of situations. I have a combat shotgun and a semi-automatic rifle for home defense, for instance. The only places I'm not permitted to carry a concealed weapon by law are in government buildings, typically the post office, and there are private businesses who can prohibit firearms, but it's not "illegal" to have them there. They can ask you to leave, and have you arrested for trespassing if you return.

EDIT: Concealed weapons are also prohibited in bars, for obvious reasons.

It becomes painfully obvious why all of the victims of school shootings are so helpless when I have to disarm myself before I enter the post office - it's clear that anyone who doesn't respect the law has a virtual shooting gallery of targets who cannot fight back.

Say. for instance, you are suddenly accosted and do not have access to your gun, or it malfunctions, or is taken from you, or whatever. Since you have a legitimate and deep concern for self preservation, to the point of being willing to kill others, what efforts and preparations have you made for those eventualities? Something at least comparable to the expense of a firearm, permits, range time, etc? This is your life we are talking about, so what other efforts have you made to defend it?

I have a lot of range time, and some tactical training. I think you worry too much about legitimate gun owners and legitimate self defense situations, and too little about actual violent criminals and psychopaths. I would rather take my chances with average people being armed and acting like Drejka, unfortunately, than having everyone disarmed and helpless but the criminals.

 

[Tippit]

I'm not clear what you mean. We didn't see Jacobs before she got out of the car, and she didn't even open the door until she could see her boyfriend coming back.

Also I hadn't noticed till now that their kid gets out of the back seat and goes into the store with his dad. That made me wonder: are handicapped spaces in Florida typically handicapped only? I ask because it's very common here for such spaces to be designated for disabled and for parent and toddler parking.

They're for people with handicapped placards only, which are issued on a temporary or permanent basis by doctors. In practice, i see them used mostly by otherwise healthy looking elderly people who seem to get preferred parking, and I don't like it. As an apparently evil "conservative", I would rescind the Federal handicapped parking mandate. I don't think handicapped people need to be coddled, and if I were handicapped, I doubt my opinion would change. In some cases there are large government buildings where the preponderance of reasonably close parking spaces are all placard-only, and they are often unused.

So they appear to me to not only prevent average people from convenient parking, to enabling a privileged class of "parkers". It's not a huge issue of course, just something I find mildly annoying.

 

[This is The End]

It wasn't justified.

First of all, I disagree. But the point was that in situations where it IS justified it is not illegal. Remember, I was responding to someone claiming that a push was always battery.

 

[This is The End]

It is amazing the range of posters who are able to agree on this basic concept.

Agreed. And the people who don't, they really stand out.

 

[This is The End]

Betcha a nickel the words "disrespect" and "dint" as in in "oh no you dint" were floated in the conversation with the handicapped parking spot squatter.

Just when I thought we had reached maximum racism.

 

[Nessie]

You don't see how he could be justifiably shot dead and yet you say that finger pointing and being abusive are signs of an imminent attack that warrant a violent response. Maybe a violent shove could be interpreted as a sign of an imminent attack.

No I do not see how he could justifiably shot dead. The finger pointing and abuse do not warrant a violent response.

McGlockton's shove had gone beyond imminent attack, it was an attack. The issue is to what extent would the attack continue and would it be deadly or not? The answers are we don't know and it is unlikely.

Raised voice? You admitted that you have no audio. What makes you think it was Drekja who had the raised voice? It could just as easily have been a person loudly defending their decision to park in a disabled spot and telling a busybody to **** off.

I say voices were raised because we see a lady leave the shop who looks over twice to see what is happening as she walks away to her car. Then another car pulls in and the male who gets out immediately starts to watch what is happening. Another car pulls in and a female gets out. She is head down with a brief glance and she is let into the shop by the male, who has held the shop door open for her for a long time, so he can keep watching from behind the door.

There were clearly raised voices and from the news reports, it was Drejka and not maybe also Jacobs.

 

[Nessie]

The shove wasn't a sign of an imminent attack, it was an attack. Now you could say that it was sign that there was more to come, but that only justifies the drawing of the weapon.

The fact is that when the gun was draw, the attacker backed off and was moving away from the shooter when the shot was fired. The shooter paused between the draw and the firing, giving himself time to see that the attacker was backing off, but he shot him anyways.

This is where the issue is. Had he shot the guy as he was approaching, or taking a swing, no-one would be claiming he wasn't defending himself, he would have been on the ground with a guy who was clearly bigger then himself about to attack him again.

But that's not the situation. When the gun was drawn, it ended things, the attacker backed off, and the danger was no longer imminent. At that stage firing was nothing more than revenge for the shove, done in anger.

Exactly and why the Sheriff was wrong and Drejka should be prosecuted.

 

[Nessie]

It seems likely to me that McGlockton was trying to defend his girlfriend, but instead of assessing the situation and speaking with the man, his first reaction was to shove him to the ground violently, a mistake that unfortunately proved to be fatal.



I think that's pure speculation. If you're asking me whether a man whose first reaction to a another man arguing with his wife is to violently shove him to the ground would immediately disengage at that point, I would tend to think not, but that would also be speculation on my part. I think the presence of the firearm is what caused McGlockton to disengage, and I think Drejka probably fired his weapon out of anger.

I think we have pretty much reached a consensus. This was a build up of events, where in time order Jacobs, Drejka, McGlockton and then Drejka again were wrong and each escalated what happened to a death. But Drejka caused the death and he shot someone who had disengaged, which according to Florida law, means he cannot claim self defence.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

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.

Acceptable only in the context of a culture that sees the death penalty as a common, casual solution. That is the core ill.

 

[Thermal]

The standard in the state of Florida for the justified use of lethal force is to prevent the imminent commission of death, great bodily harm, or a felony. Armed robbery is definitely a felony for which lethal force is justified in this state.

You didn't say 'armed' earlier. That's a very different crime. You initially said you would draw on someone trying to rob you. That drawing which you advocated would be a crime in your state, yes?

The victim has no way of knowing what the perpetrators intentions are, or whether they intend to kill them so as to remove the possible sole witness.

I think it doesn't matter. The standard is reasonable belief, correct? Possible intentions are no part of the standard.

We also have something called "castle doctrine" which has been nearly as controversial as SYG, which states that a resident has certain immunities from prosecution for the use of force against intruders in their own home.

Castle doctrine is pretty universal in the states, and I don't think there is tremendous debate about it. Its the Make My Dayers on the street that are the issue, I think.

Home invaders take their lives into their own hands each and every time they break into people's homes here, and I like it this way. The existence of the law and the presence of numerous firearms serves as a great deterrent, even benefiting people who hate guns and the concept of defending one's life. One of the notable instances in which you cannot shoot a criminal is if they have committed a property crime against you and are retreating. This is unlike Texas, where I believe deadly force is allowed even in the prevention of property crimes. I prefer the Texas standard, since I think criminals in fear is a good thing for everyone else.

Guns are permitted in all homes in the US, and Castle Doctrine all but universally accepted. Criminals do not appear to be in the fear you assert. Do you know of any municipalities where a criminal would have no reason to expect armed resistance?

I would assume, rightly so, that someone shoving me to the ground has the intent to do me bodily harm, perhaps[/hilite[ great bodily harm, and I would probably draw my weapon. This has never happened to me before, and if it did, I would take it very seriously.

'Perhaps' is the standard now? If not, you are advocating commiting a weapons offence, no?

The middle ground always exists, in reality. The trouble is making the risky assessment of the criminal's motive. The question is a philosophical one. Do you want to put the risk of the encounter solely on the victim's assessment of the benevolence of his attacker, or do you want the full risk to be born by the perpetrator? Do you want to coddle violent criminals, or do you want a clear message to be sent that violent criminals risk death?

That straw man portrayal is not a philosophical question, nor is the false dichotomy you end with. The question I am asking you is straightforward: do you concern yourself with self defense (a perfectly laudible endeavor), or just with someone Making Your Day?

I prefer to side with victims, and prosecute hotheads like Drejka when they arise.

Holy ****. Drejka wasn't just a hothead, he was a killer, and you have agreed it was wrongful. Do you get that your statement reads that you are okay with some wrongful killing, as long as Making Your Day is still available? That is what you are repeatedly saying, in different ways.

In most self-defense situations, you have seconds or fractions of a second to react.

Down to brass tacks. Fractions of a second, you say? I agree. Are you Quick Draw McGraw? I doubt it. I think there are many, many situations where an attacker will not give you opportunity to unholster and aim your weapon. So I ask again: if you are sincerely interested in self defense, you would absolutely have to have preparations for this eventuality. If you do not, why not? If your interest in self defense goes no farther than being able to shoot someone, it is Make My Day you are advocating, not self defense.

If you decide to carry pepper spray in lieu of a firearm, then you have conceded to non-lethal force. This, when up against an attacker fully intent on using lethal force against you could prove to be fatal if the pepper spray has little to no effect.

I didn't ask you about in lieu of. I asked you about in addition to. You're moving the goalposts again. A simple example, and one u have come across, as have many: a drunk in a crowded area is looking for a fight. Firing in a tight crowded area puts bystanders at risk. He is unarmed. Being drunk, he may not even see a brandished gun clearly. Might it make more sense to use pepper spray or actually any alternative to a firearm? This is a legitimate self defense question.

Some people can't fight back, for a number of reasons. Sometimes you're outnumbered, out-sized, or out-gunned. Your preference is to spray them with pepper and hope for the best. My preference is to deter them with the threat of lethal force, and/or use that force if necessary.

You are strawmanning again. I am not saying pepper spray is the alternative. I am asking why, if you are genuinely interested in self defense, you disregard its value as a supplement in favor of the lethal alternative. I don't carry the stuff, BTW.

I have multiple firearms that are secured and can be deployed in any number of situations. I have a combat shotgun and a semi-automatic rifle for home defense, for instance. The only places I'm not permitted to carry a concealed weapon by law are in government buildings, typically the post office, and there are private businesses who can prohibit firearms, but it's not "illegal" to have them there. They can ask you to leave, and have you arrested for trespassing if you return. EDIT: Concealed weapons are also prohibited in bars, for obvious reasons. It becomes painfully obvious why all of the victims of school shootings are so helpless when I have to disarm myself before I enter the post office - it's clear that anyone who doesn't respect the law has a virtual shooting gallery of targets who cannot fight back.

In my state, we have a different approach. No one carries. When I get back on laptop, I'll dig up who has more shootings.

I have a lot of range time, and some tactical training. I think you worry too much about legitimate gun owners and legitimate self defense situations, and too little about actual violent criminals and psychopaths. I would rather take my chances with average people being armed and acting like Drejka, unfortunately, than having everyone disarmed and helpless but the criminals.

Drejka was a legal gun owner. Ask Jacobs or her fatherless children why it is a problem to arm any yahoo on the street. I am not so much worried about gun owners or criminals, even. What interests me is the MMD crowd, and their obsession with power and threats, while having little to no demonstrable interest in self defense. There are guys and gals I have sparred with who also have loaded guns all over their houses. Paranoia is not a crime. But they are interested in all aspects of self defense, not just the Make My Day variety.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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".

Black America 101 always held to much higher standards.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Just when I thought we had reached maximum racism.

We have the technology. Rock bottom is theoretical, we can always go deeper.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Betcha a nickel the words "disrespect" and "dint" as in in "oh no you dint" were floated in the conversation with the handicapped parking spot squatter.

If you throw in an ask being pronounced as axe, then I think the poor fellow could be blamed for not shooting more of them, really.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't understand why people feel so comfortable confronting others in any way over minor parking infractions,

Why it helps to have a real solid source of confidence in the form of a gun.

 

[Tippit]

I think we have pretty much reached a consensus. This was a build up of events, where in time order Jacobs, Drejka, McGlockton and then Drejka again were wrong and each escalated what happened to a death. But Drejka caused the death and he shot someone who had disengaged, which according to Florida law, means he cannot claim self defence.

I agree. Not only did Drejka cause the death, he caused the chain of events which led to McGlockton's attack, and subsequent death.

As a permit holder myself, I firmly recognize that I am not a police officer, and I am certainly not interested in haranguing people over minor parking infractions regarding handicapped spaces that I personally don't think should exist in the first place. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't intervene to help someone else who was being attacked, but it does mean that I have no business policing anyone.

 

[Tippit]

You didn't say 'armed' earlier. That's a very different crime. You initially said you would draw on someone trying to rob you. That drawing which you advocated would be a crime in your state, yes?

Strongarmed robbery (ie: What Michael Brown was allegedly involved a few days prior to being shot by police) is a felony. If someone is trying to rob you on the street with or without weapons, then it justifies the use of force, even lethal force.

I think it doesn't matter. The standard is reasonable belief, correct? Possible intentions are no part of the standard.

The standard is reasonable fear of death, great bodily harm, or felony.

Guns are permitted in all homes in the US, and Castle Doctrine all but universally accepted. Criminals do not appear to be in the fear you assert. Do you know of any municipalities where a criminal would have no reason to expect armed resistance?

I am not certain, but I don't believe California, New York, New Jersey, or Illinois have castle doctrine laws. Much like the UK, the government protects the perpetrators in these states and not the victims. If you defend yourself against an intruder in your own home, you had better have strong evidence that your life was in danger or you face becoming the "perpetrator" in the eyes of the law.

That straw man portrayal is not a philosophical question, nor is the false dichotomy you end with. The question I am asking you is straightforward: do you concern yourself with self defense (a perfectly laudible endeavor), or just with someone Making Your Day?

I've made it clear in this thread that I don't have the intent or the desire to hurt anyone. On the other hand, I'm prepared to kill violent attackers, if it comes down to them, or me. You're free to characterize that any way you want.

Holy ****. Drejka wasn't just a hothead, he was a killer, and you have agreed it was wrongful. Do you get that your statement reads that you are okay with some wrongful killing, as long as Making Your Day is still available? That is what you are repeatedly saying, in different ways.

The killing was wrongful, but it was inevitably the result of a violent shove which was also wrongful, which was inevitably the result of Drejka confronting the victim's friend. I'm saying, specifically, if your first resort is violence in this state, then don't be surprised if violence is what you get in response, far more than what is justified in some cases. Drejka probably knew this when he got his weapons permit, yet decided to act the way he did anyway. McGlockton probably realized this the split second before he died.

As I stated before, my sympathy for McGlocton is mitigated by the fact that I saw what he did in that video. That doesn't change the fact that Drejka broke the law and should be prosecuted. We both agree that perpetrators of manslaughter need to be held accountable under the law. But what about the perpetrators of violent attacks that don't necessarily end this way? What if Drejka was unarmed, and was beaten severely? What if the encounter ended with the shove? Would that be ok too, or should McGlockton be held accountable by law?

If you're looking for sympathy from me for anyone in this case, from the parking violator to the committer of manslaughter, you won't find it. I hope Drejka is convicted of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder, and I hope people stop shoving people to the ground violently.

Down to brass tacks. Fractions of a second, you say? I agree. Are you Quick Draw McGraw? I doubt it. I think there are many, many situations where an attacker will not give you opportunity to unholster and aim your weapon. So I ask again: if you are sincerely interested in self defense, you would absolutely have to have preparations for this eventuality. If you do not, why not? If your interest in self defense goes no farther than being able to shoot someone, it is Make My Day you are advocating, not self defense.

The possibility that I won't be able to tactically defend myself in all situations has zero to do with whether lethal force is justified in some situations or not. I'm not sure why you're conflating these concepts. If I am in a situation where I can't immediately draw my firearm, then I probably can't draw pepper spray either. What does this have to do with anything? If you want to call justified lethal self defense "make my day", then yes, I am advocating "make my day". If you don't agree with that, then we can agree to disagree.

A simple example, and one u have come across, as have many: a drunk in a crowded area is looking for a fight. Firing in a tight crowded area puts bystanders at risk. He is unarmed. Being drunk, he may not even see a brandished gun clearly. Might it make more sense to use pepper spray or actually any alternative to a firearm? This is a legitimate self defense question.

It would make sense to vacate the premises, in lieu of the protections granted by SYG laws. This takes nothing away from the potentiality of drunken brawlers to be lethal, but it seems likely that most drunks don't have lethal intent. On the other hand, being drunk isn't an excuse to bludgeon someone to death. If some would be drunken-brawler batters the wrong person and winds up dead, I will have about as much sympathy for him as I do McGlockton, which is, not much. Don't get drunk and batter people. It's simple. If you do, then accept the risk that you might get killed. You don't deserve any guarantees in life if you impair yourself and then go around committing violence. None.

You are strawmanning again. I am not saying pepper spray is the alternative. I am asking why, if you are genuinely interested in self defense, you disregard its value as a supplement in favor of the lethal alternative. I don't carry the stuff, BTW.

I already explained why I disregard it. I'll type it again, maybe you can read it this time. If I deploy pepper spray against someone with lethal intent and it fails, then I run the risk of dying. I'm not willing to take that risk.

In my state, we have a different approach. No one carries. When I get back on laptop, I'll dig up who has more shootings.

That's irrelevant. I'm not interested in preventing shootings, but preventing crime, and most importantly, defending myself. Your statistics are unlikely to account for the myriad of factors accounting for crimes across different states.

Drejka was a legal gun owner. Ask Jacobs or her fatherless children why it is a problem to arm any yahoo on the street.

Ask McGlockton why he feels it's ok to just shove people violently to the ground as a first response to resolving a minor dispute. It's pretty likely that Drejka wasn't planning on shooting someone over a handicapped parking space. McGlockton started it, and Drejka was unjustified in using lethal defense. End of story.

I am not so much worried about gun owners or criminals, even. What interests me is the MMD crowd, and their obsession with power and threats, while having little to no demonstrable interest in self defense. There are guys and gals I have sparred with who also have loaded guns all over their houses. Paranoia is not a crime. But they are interested in all aspects of self defense, not just the Make My Day variety.

I don't know who the "MMD crowd" is. My advice would be to not attack them on the street or break into their homes. If and when they break the law, they should get prosecuted and receive justice just like any other criminal, which is what I'm advocating here for Drejka.