Clearwater stand your ground shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fl_rich

New member
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/video/news/video-no-arrest-in-clearwater-shooting-death-sheriff-says-stand-your-ground-applies/77-8196907

I was just reading the thread and being discussed was the point that if you pull a gun in self defence that you have already established that a threat exists and you should shoot till the threat is over.

Personally I believe that in the attached link the victim had the right to shoot. Just because the criminal hesitated does not mean the threat was over. The allegation that he was looking for a gunfight might sway me if true.

Currently the state is prosecuting the victim.

Any thoughts?
 
I think it may be difficult to convince a jury that being pushed down (for behaving like an idiot) justified the use of deadly force. I would not want to be in his shoes.
 
The video in those news articles doesn't show the whole encounter--one needs to see the entire video up until the deceased runs away after being shot to get the proper picture of what happened after the shooter was pushed to the ground.

This article has the full video.

https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/

Being pushed down might justify deadly force if the attacker tried to press his advantage against a person on the ground.

Once the attacker backs off and turns away it becomes very difficult to justify deadly force.

There are several very good morals to this story.
  1. There are people out there who are paid to enforce parking laws and unless you are one of them, leave it alone. People who demonstrate by their actions that they don't care about the law or common courtesy are unlikely to see the light because you tell them they're out of line.
  2. If you are the kind of person who thinks that it makes sense to solve everyday problems with violence (e.g. shoving someone to the ground for being impolite to your girlfriend), you life will be a lot harder than it needs to be, and potentially shorter than it would otherwise be.
  3. Being justified in drawing a gun doesn't automatically mean you are justified in using it. The shooter was definitely justified in drawing the gun to prevent the attacker from continuing the attack and would likely have been justified in using it had the attack continued. But once the attacker backed off and turned away, the situation changed.
  4. Apparently, NOBODY knows what "Stand Your Ground" laws actually protect. They certainly don't have anything to do with a case where the shooter is on the ground and can't retreat.
 
I could have sworn we already had a discussion going on this, but I can't find it so it must have been on another forum.

That said, the decedent violently assaulted the shooter. That was more than a "push" -- that was a violent assault, and after the "push" the boyfriend was advancing on the shooter, until he saw the gun. Even then, he didn't turn tail and run away, he was still within striking distance and therefore he was still a threat.

Going further: Please take note of how the young lady set up the shooter. She was safely IN her car, with the shooter more than arm's length away, exchanging pleasantries right up until the boyfriend came out of the store and was heading toward the car. THEN, and only then, the woman got out of the car and got in the shooter's face. I am of the opinion that this was done intentionally for the purpose of distracting the shooter's attention from the approaching threat of the younger, larger boyfriend so that he could blind-side the shooter. Which he did, with such violent force that the shooter, an adult male, wasn't just pushed back, he was thrown to the ground several feet away.

Then remember that such cases are decided on the basis of the "reasonable man" test: What would a hypothetical, reasonable man do at that moment under the same circumstances and knowing the same thing as the defendant?

So put yourself in the shooter's shoes. You're arguing with a woman who is illegally parked in a handicapped parking space. No, you're not the handicapped space police, but you have a legal right to inform her that she's breaking the law. Rather than apologizing and moving her car, she gets mouthy. Other than the illegal parking, still no laws have been broken.

So far, it's a purely verbal argument between you [the shooter] and the woman. Your attention is on her. Suddenly she gets out of the car and in your face. Now your attention is REALLY focused on her. And then, with no warning, you are violently assaulted and thrown to the ground. You looks up and you see a large young man bearing down on you.

So you only know that you have been suddenly attacked by a person you don't know, and that the assailant is advancing toward you in a threatening manner. What's going through your mind? My guess is "Man, I gotta get my gun out and stop this dude or I'm dead meat." And once the mind sets that train in motion, it's not like you can switch it off in a nanosecond.

The entire incident was unfortunate and unnecessary, but IMHO the deceased assailant had no reason to lay hands on the shooter, and the shooter had every right to defend himself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...Even then, he didn't turn tail and run away, he was still within striking distance and therefore he was still a threat.
Click to expand...
Actually, if you watch the whole video in the link I provided, he definitely did back off and turn away when the gun was presented and before the shot was fired.
 
JohnKSa said:
Once the attacker backs off and turns away it becomes very difficult to justify deadly force.
Click to expand...
Never EVER think that this won't be the case.

"Young man, let me remind you that this is a court of law and not a court of justice."
 
John, a very good assessment of the parts of the scene.

AB, my god, that's a whole lot of reframing and interpretation to support the shooter.

This thing is going to play out in the court of racial injustice forever.

W see only video, and we don't see it very well.

According to what I see, the guy parked like a jerk. A guy came up and committed simple assault by yelling at the woman. The dead guy came out and battered the shooter, THEN HE ENDED HIS THREATENING AND DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR. I assume that he was still talking, maybe even yelling, but not physically showing aggression.

It is perfectly correct to draw a gun believing that your life is at risk, but not to kill. To shoot and kill your life must be in clear danger, not possible danger. the shooter was apparently not in imminent danger, there is absolutely no indication that the guy was going to do anything more than just knock him down.

What I take away from this is that a bunch of bad behaviors led to this shooting, people who couldn't interact properly within society used force. The shooter had a more powerful position and he abused the trust that society gave to him.

It is apparent in retrospect that the shooter was a bad man, a troublemaker, who should have had his weapon revoked before that incident.


what I am seeing here was a simple revenge motivated shooting. the guy was knocked down and he figured that it was okay to shoot the guy who pushed him. So he did. I don't believe that at any point he actually was in fear of death but obviously I might be wrong.

Don't shoot because you can, shoot when you can't avoid it.
Don't start fights.
Don't misbehave, that makes you into a target.

These things were all ignored.
 
One more thing, and I'm going to leave this alone.

If we, as a country, would pull our heads out of our flasholes and consider our attitudes, morals, and actions, we would be hearing these stories less frequently.

The first commandment can be paraphrased to say, "don't mess around with other people, and you bloody well know what I mean." If any one of these people involved had just asked themselves "am I doing the right thing?" the incident would not have happened.
 
when you provoke a fight and get your butt handed to you, shooting the man that bested you is not generally justified when all he did was push your punk butt down. he went looking for a fight, got it, lost it and now tries to claim innocent.
 
I agree with JohnKSa. At least three people made bad decisions here. If any had behaved differently, this tragedy would not have happened.

Based on the video only, which is all we have to go on at this point, I think the shooter is going to have a hard time justifying his actions.

His defense is going to depend on convincing the jury that he plausibly considered McGlockton to constitute an immediate threat at the instant he fired.
 
Yeah, I would not have shot. Someone here said he should have just pulled the gun but not shot. That would constitute brandishing. Never show your gun unless you plan to use it. The use of deadly force should be considered the very last option, never the first. Clearly the shooter in this case used his gun to end an altercation that he was at least partly responsible for starting.
 
I don't believe that is the legal standard.
Click to expand...



Maybe I can re-state that.

"I believe that I am in such serious danger that I must shoot to save myself" is the standard that I read.

It's not the same as "i believe that I may be at risk of being in serious danger, and I am allowed to shoot to prevent that possibility."

I don't think that this guy sincerely believed that he was in mortal danger. Lord knows what his true motivation was, but I don't think that it was genuine fear of death or dismemberment.
 
JohnKSa said:
Actually, if you watch the whole video in the link I provided, he definitely did back off and turn away when the gun was presented and before the shot was fired.
Click to expand...
I had previously watched the entire video, multiple times, because in one discussion there was a question of how many shots were fired. I watched it enough times to settle that in my own mind. Yes, the assailant did back up a couple of steps. No, he did not turn away before the first shot was fired. He turned after he was hit by the first shot.
 
Here in Tx if there is a handicap space it must not only be marked on the parking lot but also on the side of the building or a standing sign or else it is NOT a legally marked spot. You cannot tell from the video if this is the case and who knows what the law is in this state.

If the shooter had of just minded his own business we would have never seen this video. I wonder how much better this world would be if everyone just minded their own damn business. This shooting should have never happened. And as far as I am concerned he was wrong. The parking lot Nazi started the fight.

I am glad he was charged with manslaughter. I hope he loses his bank account and spends several years in jail and is sued to no end by the shootee's family. He makes all CCW carriers look like jerks.

If he wasn't armed I wonder if he would have been willing to get in someone else's face over a parking space? I bet not.
 
The whole time the gun was being drawn and as the gun was being aimed the attacker was backing up. After watching the video numerous times I don't see a solid self defense claim. However it's easy to Monday morning quarterback the situation and watch video a couple times and then make an assessment.

Both parties over reacted the one with a gun lived.
 
briandg said:
It is perfectly correct to draw a gun believing that your life is at risk, but not to kill. To shoot and kill your life must be in clear danger, not possible danger. the shooter was apparently not in imminent danger, there is absolutely no indication that the guy was going to do anything more than just knock him down.
Click to expand...
I don't have the energy to search out the Florida statute, so this is general (as is your statement), and I may be wrong with respect to Florida. In general, in many states (including mine, as I understand it), simply showing a firearm is "use of deadly force," and from that perspective is exactly the same whether or not you pull the trigger.

Secondly, I fail to see a distinction between your "clear danger" and "possible danger." That said, the laws of just about all states (and I'm pretty sure this includes Florida) do not limit permission to use deadly force to when your life is in "clear" danger. These laws [generally] say that you may employ deadly force when you believe (not "know") that you are in "imminent" fear of death or serious bodily injury.

Watching a video, with no audio, with all the clarity of armchair quarterbacking, you perceive that the shooter was not in any more danger. That's your perception, and you are entitled to it. Having been in confrontations more than once in my life (mercifully, none ending in having to use a gun, but a couple where I wished that I did have a gun), I know that things aren't so crystal clear in the heat of the moment. And please remember that the "reasonable man" standard does not say the hypothetical reasonable man gets to decide based on watching a video ten or twenty or 100 times. The reasonable man standard is: What would a reasonable man do if in the defendant's shoes at that moment in time, knowing only what the defendant knew and not what might have been learned afterwards.

I'm not saying this was a 100 percent great shoot, but I do believe that it was a legal shoot.

More than one of you have said that the shooter initated the confrontation. Not true. He initiated a verbal exchange with a woman, who was safely in her car for most of the duration. All she had to do was close the window and lock the door. There is no indication that the shooter was acting aggressively toward her other than words.

The deceased was NOT PART OF THE DISCUSSION. From the shooter's perspective, McGlockton came -- literally -- out of nowhere. McGlockton didn't say, "Hey Buddy, stop hasslin' my woman." Instead, he sauntered up and violently assaulted the shooter. This is not an escalation of a dispute -- this was an entirely new attack, by a person who was not involved in the initial dispute. From the shooter's perspective, it was unprovoked, violent, and dangerous.
 
Last edited:
I think briandg has it pretty well said.

The flip side though is how do you take a gun from someone?

If that happens then the screaming starts on abuse of powers.

A convicted Felon can't have a gun (but then many do) much like a drunken driver with his license revoked and driving.

All parties were wrong, but the worst of by far was shooting. But then an angry man with a gun is going to do what?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top