Clearwater stand your ground shooting

[briandg]

John, I can't disagree with anything you said, because you have taken common legal standards and added them to societal standards, and opened the thing up to a very reasonable interpretation of the events as shown by video, and among other things come up with a very reasonable and probably true narrative for the event. Neither of the two thought that pulling in like that would have ended in killing. There may not have been any practical alternative to getting out of the car, if every station was taken and spot was full, and there was no other way of stopping the car. So, a 'reasonable person' would still go ahead and use the handicapped stall to go potty in, and would also pull into the handicapped space and occupy it for a minute or two.

It is NOT to be used to punish people who aren't adequately polite. It is NOT to be used to punish people for violently attacking someone. In fact, it's not to punish anyone for ANYTHING they have done, no matter how heinous.

This is pretty much what I have been trying to say all along, but couldn't find the right words. That wasn't defense, that was exactly what we are seeing in our worst world hot spots. People being killed for small offenses against armed hooligans. This guy was a killer. It was a parking lot altercation that ended in a gunfight, and only the smallest details allowed it to be thought of as a legitimate defensive killing.

Unless he can be proven to be in a damaged or diminished state of mind, what he did, as the camera shows, was to essentially backshoot a man, quite deliberately with obvious forethought. Two seconds is long enough.

We can go through and reframe and reinterpret every fragment of the event, but what was he charged for? This guy was a jackass, he endangered everyone in the area by choosing to pick on a woman with two kids over a matter too small to matter. The natural consequences of his act was that someone behaved illegally to punish him. Those are unrelated. The guy was finished. done and, over, call the cops, file charges.

He was charged because he shot a guy as he was in retreat, without any legal justification. Looking at the charges that were filed, at least the information that was released, that is the very end of the discussion.

Forget everything else. He shot the guy and killed him. The last few seconds when he made that decision are the only things to consider when filing a very simple charge based on a very simple entry in the criminal code that may take up only a paragraph.

Remember this, everyone. The charges are that he shot and killed a man in cold blood, when there was clearly not an ongoing threat. The fact is that the charges are correct, a five second span of video records prove his guilt.

Anyone who disagrees with that or doesn't understand it, and thinks that the law is just a big fuzzy sweater that we can pick through to find what we want is wrong. All of the debris is going to be flushed away by the prosecutor and the defense will even bring up the killer's childhood neglect if necessary. Did he shoot him or not? did the shooting meet the standards? was there any reason that the guy mistakenly believed that the shooting met the standard, and is that mistake acceptable to a jury?

I keep wondering if he bonked his noggin hard enough that it influenced his decision. If he can prove that he was incapacitated and can prove that the incapacitation led to the mistake, he may be found not guilty.

 

[K_Mac]

FITASC my wife IS handicapped. That does not give me the right to confront idiots in handicapped spots and it doesn't give me the right to use lethal force when confronting an idiot goes bad. As the video shows, ain't nothing good can come of it.

But that doesn't mean there are no lessons to be learned from it. Society abhors the kind of person who takes it upon himself (or herself) to try to enforce their own idea of what the law is or they think it should be, or even what it really is when it's not their job. And they REALLY hate it when people like that carry out their personal agenda while armed so that they can feel safer while they go about "poking people with sharp sticks".

John's above quote is compelling. If you want to go about "poking" folks, leave your weapons at home. Carrying a gun does not qualify or authorize anyone to enforce parking laws or to act as a defender of right and wrong. I believe it increases our responsibility to avoid potentially violent conflict when possible.

 

[briandg]

I believe that there can be a terribly large problem at the time of a shooting discerning the difference between

oh, crap! I gotta!

and

why, I aughta..!

Even this situation isn't acceptable. a man with a weapon has responsibilities. Chief among those responsibilities is to learn when to shoot Then the armed citizen must use a hell of a lot more smart than this guy did. As has been said before, I believe that he has been a fool from the time that he first picked up a gun and turned himself into whatever sort of hero that he believed himself to be.

But again, wash away this entire nearly five decade history of his life and decide. Did his actions fit within the law as shown below? Consider yourself on a jury, sworn to uphold the law, bound by the laws of society to be true to the law.

Actual florida state laws.

(1) 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. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary

There you have it. Simple and in half a sentence. if he or she reasonably believes. I am required, as a jury member, to decide whether his belief is "reasonable". Believing in his own flawed perception of that level of danger isn't good enough.

This has to be incorporated into the minds of every person who carries a gun. It's not enough to be knocked to the ground and think 'oh no, he might come back and hit me again and maybe this time he's going to decide to kill me.'

The only qualifier is that we can seperate the threatened use of force from the actual use of force. It's perfectly legal, as well as reasonable to threaten, even in cases such as this.

 

[FITASC]

I never said it gave you or anyone the right to use lethal force. Mine had trouble walking, especially over the slightest uneven ground; it was always frustrating to see someone parking - like in this instance - where the handicapped person never left the vehicle so the other person should have parked in a regular spot and walked to the store.

Of course I usually get on the the jerk who brings a full cart into the 10 items or less lane and ask them nicely if they failed first grade math.

 

[briandg]

A guy who I used to be acquainted with loved to remind everyone that he was 6'5', almost 250 pounds, give or take, and he carried a .45. he was one one of the most obnoxious, pushy, aggressive men I've known. During discussions about carrying in public, he frequently pointed out that when at a bar or restaurant he 'tried to be a little less mouthy' so he wouldn't put himself in the situation of getting in trouble with his gun on his person, or for example, shooting his way out of a brawl that he started by mouthing off.

 

[pblanc]

The fundamental point is that he -- the shooter -- did not have ANY conflict with the deceased thug. McGlockton didn't have time to even find out what was transpiring between the shooter and the woman. He came out of the store, saw his woman getting in some white dude's face, and immediately went into [sneak] attack mode. The shooter had NO interaction with McGlockton until the moment when McGlockton attacked him"

We have no idea what McGlockton might have seen through the shop window, or heard through the door as others entered, or heard second-hand from others who had witnessed what was going on in the parking lot.

And one does not require to have had any conflict with an individual under Florida law to use either non-lethal or lethal force to protect another individual from what they reasonably perceive to constitute a threat of imminent use of unlawful force.

"Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes, a person is justified in the use of non-deadly force in self-defense where the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force."

"Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law), a person is justified in using deadly force (and does not have a duty to retreat) if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony or to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another."

There have been many recent incidents in which a bystander or bystanders came to the assistance of police officers or citizens whom they perceived to be in immediate danger. In none of them did the good Samaritan(s) have prior interaction with the assailants.

 

[briandg]

a lot of larger municipalities and some states allow online reporting, and that is better than nothing. It will not result in personal violence.


https://www.parkingmobility.com/

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/parking-mobility/id337141354?mt=8

 

[44 AMP]

leaving aside, for the moment, everything else...

Shooting an unarmed man at greater than contact distance is a tough sell to justify. Even tougher if there is clear evidence that they were NOT moving into contact distance.

Within his "range" an unarmed man absolutely is a deadly threat. But outside that, he's not.

Its not really that simple in our legal system today, but it ought to be.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

There you have it. Simple and in half a sentence. if he or she reasonably believes. I am required, as a jury member, to decide whether his belief is "reasonable". Believing in his own flawed perception of that level of danger isn't good enough.

This has to be incorporated into the minds of every person who carries a gun. It's not enough to be knocked to the ground and think 'oh no, he might come back and hit me again and maybe this time he's going to decide to kill me.'

Quite the contrary. The law is based entirely on the shooter's belief. It may be "flawed," but that doesn't automatically make it unreasonable. In this case, the shooter had just been violently shoved to the ground by a sneak attack. Following the shove, the assailant then advanced toward him and towered over him. The shooter was undoubtedly somewhat shocked and dazed. Whether or not the assailant intended to follow up the shove with more violence is speculation, but the question is whether the guy lying dazed on the ground was "reasonably" in fear of incurring "imminent death or great bodily harm to himself."

I think such a belief was reasonable under the circumstances. You and others in this discussion don't think so. None of us are on the jury, so we'll have to wait for it to play out in court.

[Edit to add} If you have never been violently assaulted, I respectfully submit that you are not qualified to dismiss the possibility that the shooter did "reasonably" fear for his life. Unfortunately, I have been violently assaulted, so I have some knowledge and recollection of exactly how the body reacts to an assault, and how totally skewed things like the passage of time become during the fractions of a second that may pass on an objective clock.

 

[pblanc]

It depends on whether the jury deems the shooter's belief that he was in imminent danger was "reasonable" or not.

You don't just get to say "I thought I was in imminent danger so I shot and killed him" and everyone gets up and goes home.

Drejka may have really, really believed he was in immediate danger at the instant he fired, but if the jury unanimously concludes that belief was unreasonable, he will be convicted of manslaughter.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It will come down (Like I know) to reasonable doubt, IMHO. Is there a reasonable fear of continuing grievous bodily harm.

As far as the shooter, he will be ruined personally and it is well deserved. I don't buy that going up to a car window and yelling or 'politely discussing' something is the world's best plan. Would he have done it to a car full of males? Doubt it. Also, someone coming up to my car window and 'discussing' is close to being threatening to me. I would probably call the law and think about various options.

 

[spacemanspiff]

To anyone who thinks that this shooter was justified in pulling the trigger for being shoved and falling to the ground, I do have a few comments. Maybe they were already voiced, I read thru half the comments only.

It really doesn't take much to shove someone to the ground. It might not even be called a 'violent' shove. Someones caught off guard and loses their balance, they will fall down. Simple as that. Even a two handed shove might not be enough to be called 'violent'.
Now you might be asking yourself, how does spacemanspiff know this? What life experience might he have to lead him to say something like that?
I spent 10 years working part time as a bouncer. I've been shoved by plenty a drunk, and done my fair share of shoving drunks, or sometimes just plain ol obnoxious jerks who were sober but combative and aggressive. I've done such in the presence of police officers doing walk throughs of the bar. I've had customers that tried to complain about being forcibly removed, in which they did fall to the ground after I shoved them out the door.

If you believe that being shoved to the ground by someone who is NOT DISPLAYING ANY WEAPON justifies the use of deadly force, you are pretty much saying that any person I have removed from the bar, or stepped in and broken up a fight between patrons, you are saying that the vast majority of those people would have been justified in shooting me and any other bouncer I have worked with.

By the letter of the law, being shoved to the ground constitutes an assault. However, in my years spent as a bouncer I learned that if I wanted to press charges against a person who laid hands on me, I needed to be able to show evidence that their contact with me caused me bodily harm. Long gone are the days where you can get someone thrown in jail for just touching you.

Now, it was my job as bar security to do all that. Police recognized that, and so did bar management. But lets go back to the original topic here. Did the shooter in this story have any job he was performing to even mouth off to the woman who parked in a handicapped spot? No. Was he justified in mouthing off? No. Did he know for a 100% fact that it was not a legitimately used handicapped space? No.

Even though she committed the first wrong, the shooters confronting her was also in the wrong. No one won anything except stupid prizes that day.

 

[Roamin_Wade]

The only reason that the threat stopped was because of the victim had the gun. If he hadn't produced it, the assault would have continued. If everyone just obeyed the law, this wouldn't have happened. I would have called 911 on the illegally parked car. He very well may have been looking for a fight and he found one. It didn't warrent dying but the first offense was not respecting handicapped laws.

 

[Rangerrich99]

The only reason that the threat stopped was because of the victim had the gun. If he hadn't produced it, the assault would have continued. If everyone just obeyed the law, this wouldn't have happened. I would have called 911 on the illegally parked car. He very well may have been looking for a fight and he found one. It didn't warrent dying but the first offense was not respecting handicapped laws.

1) 911 is for EMERGENCIES only. Someone parked illegally is not an emergency, period. It is also not an issue that an ordinary citizen should stick his/her nose into. Should've simply went inside and made the owner/manager of the store aware of the allegedly illegally parked car.

This incident reminds me of the woman who took a couple shots at a guy for stealing someone else's groceries.

Stealing groceries is not justification for shooting someone.

Being shoved is not grounds for killing someone, regardless of any "stand your ground" law. If you think it is, then you really shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.

 

[44 AMP]

Being shoved is not grounds for killing someone, regardless of any "stand your ground" law. If you think it is, then you really shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but I'd say it depends on additional factors unique to the shoving. And little things like getting your skull cracked against the pavement do kind of matter. There is also the disparity of force issue. A couple of guys in reasonable health and somewhere well below middle age, not a lot of disparity of force, which is one legal reason shooting to stop a bar fight isn't a common approach.

mid 20s youth vs 60-70-80+ year old? Much different. If the shove isn't fatal, the very next blow could well be. If ALL it is, is a shove and nothing else, I'd say shooting isn't justified. ANYTHING else that could be interpreted as hostile changes the equation.

And, every single incident is different enough in particulars that matter, so blanket statements don't cover well.

Simply put, if you intentionally shoot someone you don't have to, you should go to jail. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

If you honestly believe you have to, then you believe you have to. If the jury agrees, you'll go free. If they don't, you'll go to jail.

 

[Rangerrich99]

Just playing devil's advocate here, but I'd say it depends on additional factors unique to the shoving. And little things like getting your skull cracked against the pavement do kind of matter. There is also the disparity of force issue. A couple of guys in reasonable health and somewhere well below middle age, not a lot of disparity of force, which is one legal reason shooting to stop a bar fight isn't a common approach.

mid 20s youth vs 60-70-80+ year old? Much different. If the shove isn't fatal, the very next blow could well be. If ALL it is, is a shove and nothing else, I'd say shooting isn't justified. ANYTHING else that could be interpreted as hostile changes the equation.

And, every single incident is different enough in particulars that matter, so blanket statements don't cover well.

Simply put, if you intentionally shoot someone you don't have to, you should go to jail. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

If you honestly believe you have to, then you believe you have to. If the jury agrees, you'll go free. If they don't, you'll go to jail.

I agree with your argument regarding disparity of force, naturally. If the subject was a 100 lb. girl, or a 70 year old (just picked those numbers out of the air), then the disparity of force would be great enough to possibly warrant drawing your gun, and maybe taking the shot. I was speaking to the incident at hand, where we have two adult males of close to the same age group.

I also agree that every incident is different, and there could be all kinds of mitigating factors that could change the actions and legal outcomes of this type of situation. My argument was aimed at just this situation however.

It's possible that let my initial emotional reaction shade my response here. I just get annoyed by these incidents because they make the rest of us lawful CCs look like idiots. And I hate having to explain to my pro-gun control friends that not everyone who carries thinks this guy and those like him did the right thing.

Anyway, 44AMP, you're right and I agree with your points. But in this particular incidence, this guy didn't do the rest of us any favors.

 

[briandg]

There have been any number of cases during which big, tough, unarmed children have beaten little old men half to death. If it had stopped before that first punch, before the aggressive actions became an attack, these people laying in hospitals in comas would be safe.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I was speaking to the incident at hand, where we have two adult males of close to the same age group.

Close to the same age group?

McGlockton was 28 -- Drejka is 47. That's not my idea of the same age group, unless you just classify "adult" as an age group.

 

[JohnKSa]

If the person going in was not handicapped, it is a $250 fine in FL.

Very interesting. I was not aware of that. Good information.

I never said it gave you or anyone the right to use lethal force. Mine had trouble walking, especially over the slightest uneven ground; it was always frustrating to see someone parking - like in this instance - where the handicapped person never left the vehicle so the other person should have parked in a regular spot and walked to the store.

I don't believe your comments could be misinterpreted in that manner. You noted that incorrect information was provided and posted the correct information to set things straight. That's how these discussions are supposed to work.

I commented that he might not have been...

The word "might" is indicative of speculation. The statement is identical to saying "I speculated he was not..."

But whatever, arguing about what might have or might not have taken place (whether you call it speculation or not) isn't necessary. We can see what DID happen and that's enough to assess the situation accurately.

What you describe is illegal in my state and under the ADA.

Yup, it appears to be illegal under FL state law as well. I was incorrect and I appreciate posters providing correct information to set me straight.

However, as you pointed out initially, it's not relevant to the shooting.

The law is based entirely on the shooter's belief.

That is incorrect. It is based on the shooter's REASONABLE belief.

"A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes..."

It doesn't matter what a defender believes if that belief is unreasonable. A person who genuinely believes that an unarmed attacker is a deadly danger even while a distance away doesn't hold a REASONABLE belief and therefore the justification isn't there.

Following the shove, the assailant then advanced toward him and towered over him. The shooter was undoubtedly somewhat shocked and dazed. Whether or not the assailant intended to follow up the shove with more violence is speculation, but the question is whether the guy lying dazed on the ground was "reasonably" in fear of incurring "imminent death or great bodily harm to himself."

I think that this would all be "reasonable" IF the attacker had continued to stand over the man on the ground or had pressed the attack.

But that's not what happened. The attacker immediately began to back off when the man on the ground reached for his gun, before he could even see what the man was reaching for. And he continued to back off, even turning away before he was finally shot.

If you have never been violently assaulted, I respectfully submit that you are not qualified to dismiss the possibility that the shooter did "reasonably" fear for his life.

Realistically, that's exactly the opposite of how this case will be decided. In all likelihood, the way the system works, it will be determined that people who HAVE been violently assaulted will be deemed unqualified to sit on the jury. Guilt or innocence will most certainly not be determined by a panel of people who have been violently assaulted.

The defense lawyer will likely try to make the point that a violent assault can be very disorienting and, depending on his/her ability and on the validity of the point and the presence of evidence, may convince the jury.

I'm not trying to get into the details of how juries are seated, but it's important to understand that it's not reasonable to expect that a jury in a case like this will be composed of, or even include any members who have been violently assaulted.

The only reason that the threat stopped was because of the victim had the gun. If he hadn't produced it, the assault would have continued.

Even if that were true--and there's no way to know for certain that it is--it wouldn't make any difference. What does make a difference is what DID happen--that is what will decide the case. Not what we think might have happened or what we speculate could have happened.

What did happen was that the attack was immediately halted and the attacker immediately began to retreat.

...I'd say it depends on additional factors unique to the shoving. And little things like getting your skull cracked against the pavement do kind of matter. There is also the disparity of force issue.

Correct. It will depend on the circumstances of the case and how the jury views them. Does a shove always justify deadly force? No. Could it? It could depending on the circumstances.

McGlockton was 28 -- Drejka is 47. That's not my idea of the same age group, unless you just classify "adult" as an age group.

The size and age differences combined are enough to give a reasonable person pause. Particularly once the smaller and older person is on the ground. A person standing up has a significant advantage over a person on the ground even if they are otherwise fairly evenly matched.

 

[Rangerrich99]

Close to the same age group?

McGlockton was 28 -- Drejka is 47. That's not my idea of the same age group, unless you just classify "adult" as an age group.

One guy is in his late 20s, the other mid-to-late 40s, not what I'd call wildly disparate.

Not sure why you're so hot to defend this guy anyway. He (Drejka) has a history of not only verbally threatening people, and brandishing his weapon at unarmed people (apparently over that same handicapped parking space, which is just idiotic), but also a history of using racial slurs while doing so. In other words, he's the kind of racist nitwit we should all be trying to avoid and avoid being like in any way, shape or form.