Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[Drewbot]

Yes, it was an unprovoked attack. So what? That doesn't suffice. Seriously, that's not how legal self-defense works. There are multiple requirements, and this only provides one of them.

And given the absence of time travel or prescience, we're all stuck with after-the-fact analysis.

Remember that this isn't standard Self -Defense, this is Florida's Stand Your Ground, which is another level of protection for the person using force in a defense situation. It also provides another tier of protection against civil cases brought against the person claiming SYG.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I agree, I've given my opinion earlier in the thread, no-one seemed particularky interested but for the record it was that the shooter should be charged with voluntary manslaughter.

But I am surprised how many people are handwaving away the fact that the victim initiated a violent physical confrontation. You could count the number of times that I've agreed with TBD on the fingers of a bandsaw operator with myopia and ADD, but he is right to refer to it as an assault, he's right that being pushed like that could cause serious injuries or death, and referring to it in terms like 'schoolyard shove' trivialises it unfairly.

Now personally I can't stand people who park like inconsiderate ********, my experience is that if someone parks with no consideration for the rules or other people, they drive with no consideration for the rules or other people. I have no problem with someone saying "You're parked in a disabled spot, don't be a dick, move", I'd applaud someone for doing it, but then I do live in a country where the vast majority of us aren't walking around with lethal weapons. An argument about parking (which obviously wasn't scarey enough for the driver to lock her doors, roll up her window, or you know, stay in the car) doesn't justify assaulting someone.

The shooting was absolutely wrong, but all three people involved contributed to the situation and it's escalation.

It seems to be a modern thing that in any dispute one side must be absolutely morally pristine, or else criticism of the opposing side is somehow hypocritical. All conflicts are therefore between saints and demons, and the only question is which is which.

It's damn weird. I blame the rising popularity of stupidity.

 

[Drewbot]

It seems to be a modern thing that in any dispute one side must be absolutely morally pristine, or else criticism of the opposing side is somehow hypocritical. All conflicts are therefore between saints and demons, and the only question is which is which.

It's damn weird. I blame the rising popularity of stupidity.

There is no morally pristine on either side here.
However, I would rather the police officer make an arrest, or defer to the prosecutor, based on the evidence, and not based on whether the mob is going to be angry.

 

[Thermal]

I agree, I've given my opinion earlier in the thread, no-one seemed particularky interested but for the record it was that the shooter should be charged with voluntary manslaughter.

But I am surprised how many people are handwaving away the fact that the victim initiated a violent physical confrontation. You could count the number of times that I've agreed with TBD on the fingers of a bandsaw operator with myopia and ADD, but he is right to refer to it as an assault, he's right that being pushed like that could cause serious injuries or death, and referring to it in terms like 'schoolyard shove' trivialises it unfairly.

I hear you, any physical violence can get real serious real quick. But the day-in-day-out shovings don't normally do so. Consider what McGlocklin did. Upon seeing some whacko screaming at his partner, he stolls up slowly, not rushing or even trotting. One shove to get the harasser away from his partner and car, and no further aggressive action. That was a rebuke, not an attack. True, legally assault/battery, but the intent appears to be motivated by the schoolyard mentality of 'Get Back Jack', not to actually harm Drejka. There was no rushing up, no punch or even grab; it was a physical warning to knock it off, with absolutely no follow-up. The fairy tales about an imminent World Star stomping are fantasy, and not supported by the video evidence.

This is not to trivialize it; it is to put it in the 'imminent danger of death' context. A shove, with nothing more, is not deadly threatening. Have you ever, or seen another, been shoved hard on a schoolyard, bar, or parking lot? I have. You might think some scrapping is on the horizon if you don't play your cards right, but it does not herald the arrival of the Reaper.

Now personally I can't stand people who park like inconsiderate ********, my experience is that if someone parks with no consideration for the rules or other people, they drive with no consideration for the rules or other people. I have no problem with someone saying "You're parked in a disabled spot, don't be a dick, move", I'd applaud someone for doing it, but then I do live in a country where the vast majority of us aren't walking around with lethal weapons. An argument about parking (which obviously wasn't scarey enough for the driver to lock her doors, roll up her window, or you know, stay in the car) doesn't justify assaulting someone.

Some people do not back down from scary confrontations. Kind of where the whole SYG thing comes from. Should she have been obligated to retreat from a harasser? I see her at very minimal fault in this, except for the entitled parking choice (yes, very dickish). I forget Florida's assault laws, whether they criminalize based on contact with intent to harm or the candy-ass 'illegal touching' standard. Either way, McGlocklin was in the legal wrong, but I don't think his standalone shoving would earn him more than a fine. Certainly shouldn't earn him a bullet.

Also, much was made over their age differences. Drejka was no doddering old man. He is 47. That's younger than I, and I still pack a punch.

The shooting was absolutely wrong, but all three people involved contributed to the situation and it's escalation.

True, but one contributed dramatically more than the other two. The one who picked a fight in a parking lot, knowing he was armed, and shot dead the guy who shoved him away from the woman he was screaming at.

 

[pgwenthold]

I hear you, any physical violence can get real serious real quick. But the day-in-day-out shovings don't normally do so. Consider what McGlocklin did. Upon seeing some whacko screaming at his partner, he stolls up slowly, not rushing or even trotting. One shove to get the harasser away from his partner and car, and no further aggressive action. That was a rebuke, not an attack. True, legally assault/battery, but the intent appears to be motivated by the schoolyard mentality of 'Get Back Jack', not to actually harm Drejka. There was no rushing up, no punch or even grab; it was a physical warning to knock it off, with absolutely no follow-up.

What if McGlocklin had shot the guy, as he was harassing the girlfriend? He wouldn't be able to use SYG for himself, but could he say he felt that her life was in danger? Given that Drejka had a gun on him, how could you say he was wrong?

Yeah, I know the difference is black and white, but we've seen cops shoot with far less justification and get defended. As I said, this is a case where the guy actually had a gun, even if he hadn't shown it yet.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

[..]That was a rebuke, not an attack. [..] Have you ever, or seen another, been shoved hard on a schoolyard, bar, or parking lot? I have. You might think some scrapping is on the horizon if you don't play your cards right, but it does not herald the arrival of the Reaper.


[..]He is 47. That's younger than I, and I still pack a punch.



[..]The one who picked a fight in a parking lot, knowing he was armed, and shot dead the guy who shoved him away from the woman he was screaming at.

I've cut a lot out just to concentrate on a couple of points because this is where I see things differently to you, firstly, without audio we don't know if anyone was screaming, or even that he was was screaming at her rather than the other way around.

Secondly, if I came out of a shop and my wife was having a stand up row with someone my response would be shouting 'Hey, what the **** is going on here?' that is a rebuke. Not, I'll walk up while they're concentrating on each other and push this guy off his feet. That is an attack. Arguing with someone about parking is 'arguing', physically pushing someone off their feet is a hell of a lot more picking a fight than arguing with someone.

I'm forty seven, I've been pushed over, tripped, thrown (often with my consent doing martial arts), fallen off motorbikes, skateboards, out of trees and most recently off a mountain board at reasonably high speed, you know what, it was a damn sight easier getting back up again when I was in the schoolyard. If I got knocked over unexpectedly like that in a parking lot today I think I would be hurt, disoriented, feel very vulnerable and might very well over estimate the threat I was under.

Once again, I think the shooter should be charged, he acted stupidly and irresponsibly and took someone's life, but he wasn't the only one to act like an ******* that day and all three of them escalated the situation.

I'd still be interested to know why he seems to have had a particular thing about disabled spaces.

 

[The Big Dog]

The trivialization of the initial attack, the victim blaming, the false appeals to emotion, the deliberate misrepresentations.

"But the day-in-day-out shovings don't normally do so."

Not sure what that is supposed to mean, but to splay out a guy on the concrete like that a'n't no "day to day" "shovings."

 

[angrysoba]

The trivialization of the initial attack, the victim blaming, the false appeals to emotion, the deliberate misrepresentations.

"But the day-in-day-out shovings don't normally do so."

Not sure what that is supposed to mean, but to splay out a guy on the concrete like that a'n't no "day to day" "shovings."

None of that is even relevant to the case for self-defence. You keep wanting us to return our attention to the initial attack. Fine, it can be as bad as you want to describe it and it can be as bad as your imagination allows you to believe it would have turned out.

However, the severity of the initial attack, and the power of your imagination are rendered meaningless by the fact that the attack had stopped. Even you agree to this!

As the attack had stopped there was no self-defence justification.

Now, let me guess, your response to this is to say that the sheriff didn't think so, or that the initial attack was really, really, really bad, or that on World Star there are some terrible things, but all of those miss the legal point.

 

[The Big Dog]

However, the severity of the initial attack, and the power of your imagination are rendered meaningless by the fact that the attack had stopped.

Lets break it down, shall we because there is something big missing:

"However, the severity of the initial attack, and the power of your imagination {ed. Note the irony} are rendered meaningless by the fact that in my opinion the attack had stopped."

Fixed that for you.

Weird how many folks think their opinions are facts in connection with this assault.

The stomping was prevented by a guy with a gun.

 

[Ziggurat]

Lets break it down, shall we because there is something big missing:

"However, the severity of the initial attack, and the power of your imagination {ed. Note the irony} are rendered meaningless by the fact that in my opinion the attack had stopped."

Fixed that for you.

Weird how many folks think their opinions are facts in connection with this assault.

The stomping was prevented by a guy with a gun.

Sure. The attack was stopped by the guy with the gun. But it was stopped before he fired the gun. Seriously, it's not just a matter of opinion, it's right there on the video. You can see the target moving away from the shooter before he fires the gun. Showing the gun was sufficient. Firing the gun at that point was disproportionate to the threat he faced at the moment he fired. Threats he faced previously don't matter.

 

[Ziggurat]

The trivialization of the initial attack

I haven't trivialized it. I've explicitly said that it was assault. Furthermore, we could even posit that McGlockton was explicitly trying to kill Drejka with that initial push, and that he had a high probability of succeeding, and it STILL wouldn't change my conclusion. The law doesn't allow you to defend against past threats.

the victim blaming

I have never blamed Drejka for getting pushed.

the false appeals to emotion

I have never appealed to emotion here.

the deliberate misrepresentations.

I haven't misrepresented anything, deliberately or otherwise.

Not sure what that is supposed to mean, but to splay out a guy on the concrete like that a'n't no "day to day" "shovings."

Sure. Like I said, we could even posit that McGlockton attempted to murder Drejka with that push and almost succeeded. It still wouldn't make Drejka's shooting justified.

For a more extreme example of why that's the case, here's another example where claims of self defense fail:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/07/self-defense-claim-lost-when-defender-becomes-aggressor/
Sumpter was assaulted by three other people. He stabbed one of them, and claimed self defense. But he was convicted for the stabbing. Why? Because his attackers disengaged, and he chased them down. Legally speaking, that creates a second fight, one in which he was the aggressor. And that's when the stabbing took place.

 

[Thermal]

Lets break it down, shall we because there is something big missing:

"However, the severity of the initial attack, and the power of your imagination {ed. Note the irony} are rendered meaningless by the fact that in my opinion the attack had stopped."

Fixed that for you.

Weird how many folks think their opinions are facts in connection with this assault.
The stomping was prevented by a guy with a gun.

Dear god, its so beautiful. Look how the second sentence follows the first without an iota of self-reflection...I mean, the vacuity, the glassy-eyed doublethink...it's magnificent...

 

[Ziggurat]

Remember that this isn't standard Self -Defense, this is Florida's Stand Your Ground, which is another level of protection for the person using force in a defense situation.

This doesn't have anything to do with Stand Your Ground. Drejka doesn't need SYG to absolve him of a duty to retreat because he didn't have the ability to retreat, since he had been knocked to the ground. The issue here has nothing to do with his duty to retreat, but with proportionality. The force he used was not proportional to the threat he faced at the moment that he used that force.

 

[The Big Dog]

Dear god, its so beautiful. Look how the second sentence follows the first without an iota of self-reflection...I mean, the vacuity, the glassy-eyed doublethink...it's magnificent...

Well, except for the whole part about the fact that I acknowledge it is my opinion. Sure my opinion is carefully crafted based on painstaking analysis of the facts and is consistent with the views of law enforcement, but all the same it is just that.

Now, where it gets good is that we take what you just wrote ... "the vacuity, the glassy-eyed doublethink...it's magnificent..." and apply it to those who are declaring that it is fact that the attack had ended and openly marvel at the self-own.

"it is like stars....."

 

[Matthew Best]

Now, where it gets good is that we take what you just wrote ... "the vacuity, the glassy-eyed doublethink...it's magnificent..." and apply it to those who are declaring that it is fact that the attack had ended and openly marvel at the self-own.

But isn't that what you have claimed yourself? You know, when you said the attack "was stopped only because the gun was drawn".

 

[Thermal]

I've cut a lot out just to concentrate on a couple of points because this is where I see things differently to you, firstly, without audio we don't know if anyone was screaming, or even that he was was screaming at her rather than the other way around.

Fair enough, actual screaming is not in evidence. The witness who reported to the clerk that there was a guy harassing a woman in the lot is seem on video. He looks to be about 20 or so feet away, but seems alarmed. This seems to suggest that it was more than a conversation. Would you agree that it was likely pretty loud and heated to draw this attention and reporting?

Secondly, if I came out of a shop and my wife was having a stand up row with someone my response would be shouting 'Hey, what the **** is going on here?' that is a rebuke. Not, I'll walk up while they're concentrating on each other and push this guy off his feet. That is an attack. Arguing with someone about parking is 'arguing', physically pushing someone off their feet is a hell of a lot more picking a fight than arguing with someone.

I'm not suggesting McGlocklin made a smart move, and your response is of course the preferable and more civilized. But if you were to pick a fight with a woman in a car (with her infants inside) out of the blue, and the father comes up and pushes you away, can you see how that is not exactly an attack? Far closer to over-protectiveness in my book, while again not excusing it.

I'm forty seven, I've been pushed over, tripped, thrown (often with my consent doing martial arts), fallen off motorbikes, skateboards, out of trees and most recently off a mountain board at reasonably high speed, you know what, it was a damn sight easier getting back up again when I was in the schoolyard. If I got knocked over unexpectedly like that in a parking lot today I think I would be hurt, disoriented, feel very vulnerable and might very well over estimate the threat I was under.

That's fair, kids bounce back. But same scenario: you walk up and pick a fight with a woman and her infants with a gun in your waistband (Drejka is reported to have picked the same fight with others at this same location, and the Sheriff says he was reported to have brandished his gun in an earlier road rage incident). This guy was ready and prepared for serious confrontation. That he went ahead and initiated.

Once again, I think the shooter should be charged, he acted stupidly and irresponsibly and took someone's life, but he wasn't the only one to act like an ******* that day and all three of them escalated the situation.

I'd still be interested to know why he seems to have had a particular thing about disabled spaces.

Illegal parking is a great way to pick a fight. People that do so tend to be arrogant and entitled, making them great candidates to get rowdy with. Or you just get high and mighty and give them a lecture or browbeating. I doubt it had any real significance other than a convenient justification.

 

[Thermal]

Well, except for the whole part about the fact that I acknowledge it is my opinion. Sure my opinion is carefully crafted based on painstaking analysis of the facts and is consistent with the views of law enforcement, but all the same it is just that.

Now, where it gets good is that we take what you just wrote ... "the vacuity, the glassy-eyed doublethink...it's magnificent..." and apply it to those who are declaring that it is fact that the attack had ended and openly marvel at the self-own.

"it is like stars....."

Ok. Present your evidence thay convinces you of the inevitable World Star Hip Hop stomping. The video shows the shove....then nothing. What else makes you state so confidently that more was to come?

 

[Thermal]

What if McGlocklin had shot the guy, as he was harassing the girlfriend? He wouldn't be able to use SYG for himself, but could he say he felt that her life was in danger? Given that Drejka had a gun on him, how could you say he was wrong?

I don't think some guy screaming passed the reasonable person standard for fear of imminent death, so McGlocklin couldn't have relief on that. If both were armed, whoever drew first would likely be the prime escalator, no?

Yeah, I know the difference is black and white, but we've seen cops shoot with far less justification and get defended. As I said, this is a case where the guy actually had a gun, even if he hadn't shown it yet.

Well, cops are a different problem. They have sworn duties and stuff that afford them the benefit of the doubt in the eyes of many courts. And yes, cops mowing down civilians is a separate and severe problem in its own right.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

"However, the severity of the initial attack, and the power of your imagination {ed. Note the irony} are rendered meaningless by the fact that in my opinion the attack had stopped."

Fixed that for you.

Weird how many folks think their opinions are facts in connection with this assault.

The stomping was prevented by a guy with a gun.

The "stomping" is in your mind. You talk about others' "opinions," then invent things for yourself.

Another poster dismissed me by strawmanning my statement of being shoved. I DO NOT DISMISS THE FACT THAT SHOVING IS VIOLENT AND CAN RESULT IN SERIOUS INJURY.

The point is, there was no reason to shoot another person dead.

 

[The Big Dog]

The point is, there was no reason to shoot another person dead.

The actual point was that there was no reason to violently shove that person to the ground.

The shover created a highly chaotic situation, triggering a basic fight or flight reaction.

lots of things he could have done to deescalate the situation, he chose to escalate an argument to a physical attack, and paid the price.

He chose poorly.