Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[TurkeysGhost]

I guess you take what you can get, but I think they were lenient charging with Manslaughter. Good result though.

I wouldn't be so sure. State laws vary, so the definition of murder vs manslaughter is a bit wobbly. Using the term "manslaughter" in the colloquial way may lead to make certain conclusions that aren't specifically correct in this case. I'm no lawyer, but here is the relevant Florida statute;

https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2019/Chapter782/All

I don't see anything for "second degree" murder. My reading is that there is the most severe charge of "murder", which requires premeditation or killing during the commission of other felonies, and manslaughter. In this case, manslaughter is similar to how the general public might understand "second degree" murder, though the exact naming is different.

Going for Murder charges under that statute may have been an overreach.

According to teh statute, manslaughter is written to include:

 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Seems that manslaughter in Florida includes deliberate, non-premeditated homicide as well and negligent homicide.

Scratch all this, there is a provision for second degree murder.

I guess the prosecutors didn't want to risk a not guilty if they went for the bigger charge. This comes down to legal discretion and risk aversion of the prosecutor. It's hard to really tell whether they were being too lenient or were just being pragmatic to get a guilty conviction.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Scratch all this, there is a provision for second degree murder.

I guess the prosecutors didn't want to risk a not guilty if they went for the bigger charge. This comes down to legal discretion and risk aversion of the prosecutor. It's hard to really tell whether they were being too lenient or were just being pragmatic to get a guilty conviction.

The thing is that Florida does have the ability to charge higher and allow the Jury to determine is a lesser charge is applicable. So they could have charged as Murder 2 and allowed the Jury to consider Manslaughter had they decided that Murder 2 was not reached.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The thing is that Florida does have the ability to charge higher and allow the Jury to determine is a lesser charge is applicable. So they could have charged as Murder 2 and allowed the Jury to consider Manslaughter had they decided that Murder 2 was not reached.

I am usually reluctant to second-guess the decisions made by these prosecutors, because they are experts and the legal system is a complicated one. It may very well be that the approach they took was the best one that was viable, or maybe not. I don't have the expertise to really say so with any certainty.

There is certainly a fine history of prosecutors using discretion in bad faith to undermine or otherwise sabotage what could be winning cases. Such things as overcharging to get an acquittal are often cited. It points out why prosecutors are such an important office and ought to be emphasized much more heavily in local elections. There isn't really any good way to eliminate such sweeping discretion, and it is powerful, so the public must make sure it is being wielded appropriately.

 

[Blue Mountain]

I'm a bit surprised no-one's posted this yet.

Florida man sentenced to 20 years in parking lot shooting that ignited 'stand your ground' debate

A white Florida man who told detectives he was irritated by people who illegally park in handicapped spots has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man outside a convenience store.

Circuit Judge Joseph Bulone on Thursday called 49-year-old Michael Drejka a "wannabe" law enforcement officer and a self-appointed "handicapped parking space monitor."

Jurors found Drejka guilty of manslaughter in August.

The article said nothing about credit for time served, nor now long he has to wait before being able to apply for parole.

 

[This is The End]

Look at the video. The dead guy blindsides the shooter. Seems like a classic case of stand your ground, except that the shooter couldn't stand his ground, he had already been knocked over.

Oops... Keep on winning.

I can assure you that it is a very serious crime. In Florida, McGlockton's actions constitute simple battery, which would make him eligible for up to a year in prison and a fine of not more than $1000. That is, unless McGlockton had been previously convicted of battery, in which case the law allows for him to be charged with felony battery, which would open up the possibility for him to serve up to five years in prison plus a fine of up to $5000.

Shoving someone who is verbally assaulting your wife and young child is a "very serious crime"!! Only if you're black, of course.

 

[Babbylonian]

I'm a bit surprised no-one's posted this yet.

I'm not surprised. Most probably forgot that there were morons defending this guy who seemed to be looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

 

[Ziggurat]

Shoving someone who is verbally assaulting your wife and young child is a "very serious crime"!! Only if you're black, of course.

Shoving someone to the ground is assault. And yes, that's a serious crime. There is no crime of "verbal assault".

 

[johnny karate]

Shoving someone to the ground is assault. And yes, that's a serious crime.

And yet the guy who was supposedly the victim of this "serious crime" is going to prison for killing his alleged assaulter.

Maybe defending your loved ones from a potentially violent aggressor isn't a crime after all.

 

[Horatius]

Shoving someone to the ground is assault. And yes, that's a serious crime. There is no crime of "verbal assault".

An assault is the act of inflicting physical harm or unwanted physical contact upon a person or, in some specific legal definitions, a threat or attempt to commit such an action.[1] It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal and/or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and tort law.

Traditionally, common law legal systems had separate definitions for assault and battery. When this distinction is observed, battery refers to the actual bodily contact, whereas assault refers to a credible threat or attempt to cause battery.

An armed man going out of his way to scream at a woman and her children is a credible threat.

Thank you for playing you score zero points.

 

[Mumbles]

An armed man going out of his way to scream at a woman and her children is a credible threat.

Thank you for playing you score zero points.

As I said before, the folks I know who legally own guns, and are not required to do so, seem to fall into one of two categories.

1) people who don't like Maryland's restrictive gun laws, but own guns for hunting/target shooting/clay pigeon shooting/etc.

2) the "I wish a ************ would" crowd, who are happy to tell you all about how they'll blast anyone who breaks into their home, harms their daughter, blah blah blah. To put it bluntly, these "I had to stand muh ground" white dudes that make the news seem to fall firmly into this category. Flying off the handle, starting fights, shooting people over a parking spot, or imaginary shotguns, or walking home, and terrified of the seemingly magical powers of black men. This fellow very clearly falls into this latter group, and the truth is the only real difference between them and the black brutes"thugs" they imagine every black guy to be, is money.

(For those of you who whine about how "toxic masculinity" is an attack on all men - no, it's specifically talking about these violent idiots)

 

[Max_mang]

Originally Posted by CBC news, from the Associated Press
A white Florida man who told detectives he was irritated by people who illegally park in handicapped spots has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man who had just physically assaulted him outside a convenience store.

Circuit Judge Joseph Bulone on Thursday called 49-year-old Michael Drejka a "wannabe" law enforcement officer and a self-appointed "handicapped parking space monitor."

Jurors found Drejka guilty of manslaughter in August.

I wonder why they left the bolded part out?

That said, I have no problem w/ the verdict at all, but I do get frustrated with bad journalism and straight up lying (omission in this case).

 

[dudalb]

Thanks for that. I was reading an essay by George Orwell recently, where he talked about his school years. It seemed like he was using 'public school' the way an American would use 'private'. In context I assumed that they were equivalent, but I could not rule out the possibilities that I was stupid or drunk. Thanks for the proper clarification.

Bottom line
Public School in UK usage is what in the US would be called an incredibly expensive and exclusive Private School. Eton is a good example.
Why it is called that is a long story going back to the 1600's.

 

[Ziggurat]

And yet the guy who was supposedly the victim of this "serious crime" is going to prison for killing his alleged assaulter.

What do you mean, "and yet"? That doesn't make any sense. Both parties to a conflict can be guilty of crimes. It isn't always one or the other.

ETA: In case this isn't obvious, which it may not be if you're unfamiliar with self defense law, if you are assaulted and the perpetrator flees, you cannot shoot them while they are fleeing. Getting convicted for doing so is not an indication that the initial assault on you was not criminal.

Maybe defending your loved ones from a potentially violent aggressor isn't a crime after all.

It absolutely can be.

 

[Ziggurat]

An armed man going out of his way to scream at a woman and her children is a credible threat.

There is no indication that McGlockton knew Drejka was armed. He wasn't open carrying. Chances are things would have played out differently if McGlockton did know. Did you stop to think for even a moment about that? Seriously, if you know someone is armed and you think they're dangerous and unstable, do you assault them in a manner that lets them retaliate? No. You either try to de-escalate or you try to neutralize. A shove to the ground escalates without neutralizing. Almost nobody is that stupid. If McGlockton thought that Drejka was a threat, it wasn't because of his gun.

And "credible threat" isn't sufficient. Imminence is required as well, and that wasn't present when McGlockton shoved Drejka.

And that lack of imminence is part of what got the shooter convicted as well, and rightly so. McGlockton proved himself a threat to Drejka with the shove, but once Drejka drew his weapon and McGlockton started to retreat, that threat was no longer imminent, and the use of deadly force was unjustified.

Thank you for playing you score zero points.

Yeah, I don't think you're qualified to judge this.

 

[johnny karate]

What do you mean, "and yet"? That doesn't make any sense. Both parties to a conflict can be guilty of crimes. It isn't always one or the other.

ETA: In case this isn't obvious, which it may not be if you're unfamiliar with self defense law, if you are assaulted and the perpetrator flees, you cannot shoot them while they are fleeing. Getting convicted for doing so is not an indication that the initial assault on you was not criminal.

It absolutely can be.

Cool. But I don’t see the utility in discussing hypotheticals.

Here’s the Florida statute on self-defense relevant to McGlockton‘s actions:

A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that 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.

Looks like a pretty clear cut case of legal self-defense.