Clearwater stand your ground shooting

[JohnKSa]

In all fairness, even racist jerks have the right to self-defense. It may not be intuitive, but even criminals can still retain their right to self-defense while actively engaged in crime--under certain circumstances.

The issue here is whether or not the circumstances of the situation justify deadly force. Not what kind of a person Drejka was, or McGlockton was, or McGlockton's girlfriend was.

 

[TDL]

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.

In my jurisdiction 911 is exactly who you call for a vehicle parked in a handicapped space. If you call 311 on that you will be directed to call 911.

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

What is "wildly" disparate and why would that be a test under the law? Is there some kind of case law that mandates differences in physical capability be "wildly" desperate?

Not sure why you're so hot to defend this guy anyway

Well you would not want anyone accusing you of "being so hot to defend" McGlockton's initiation of physical contract with a clear assault and serious violence by throwing a guy on concrete, which certainly could be seen as potential for grievous injury?

It is safe to say most reasonable people don't find either sympathetic.

This case is messy and it is why a trial is needed. None of us knows. The facts and the law have to be applied in a court.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Just as an information point. The Armed Society is a Polite Society quote comes from a Robert Heinlein book which postulates a very nasty culture which was a genetically determined caste system. People wore tatoos of their genetic status and there was a clearly discriminated against genetic underclass. The 'armed' part came from a dueling aspect of young toughs who bossed others around. Not a 'polite' society in our terms.

The hero of the book, in fact, thought the dueling aspect was stupid and was going to abandon being armed and wearing an arm band that announced he could not be challenged in a duel. The flip side was that he had to deter to the dueling culture toughs.
He was convinced by a member of the ruling class not to do that and for grins carried a 1911 instead of the usual ray guns. The latter made neat cauterized holes and usually survivable. His opponents were shocked by 45 ACP impact. Not so nice.

Thus, the mantra, if you know its origin, isn't what you think it is.

 

[Don P]

I'll put my .02 in. My opinion is a couple of wrongs are here. First off the shooter is NOT the handicap parking police. Did he have a right to say something? Of coarse he did. If he elected to go about his business and not say anything we wouldn't be having this discussion. Should the boyfriend have pushed the shooter? Maybe yes, maybe not. My opinion is this, not being there or being personally involved. Once the man on the ground pulled his gun it appears that the threat/attack stops. If the deceased had taken a step toward the man on the ground I would say he has every right to stop the continuing threat/attack. I would have a hard time finding the shooter not guilty seeing what has been presented so far.

 

[44 AMP]

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.

This is, for better or worse, the way our system has evolved. The reality is that if you know /have personal experience about the law, about the case, or about anything involved in the case (such as firearms), have been the victim of a crime, etc.. neither lawyer wants you on the jury. Their reasoning is that they don't want someone who might have a predisposition to be biased, due to their experience.

The reality is that neither lawyer wants anyone on the jury who might know something other than what the lawyers (and the judge) tell them. And, remember that while witnesses testifying are under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, neither the prosecutor, nor the defense attorney take that oath!!

 

[briandg]

The definition of belief should be examined, as well as the definition of reasonable belief. Note that 'belief" has absolutely no bearing on what is true and factual. Reasonable belief is a relative term, based on assessment by rational thought by rational people. belief may be based on fact, and in fact may be factual, as well as reasonable, but everyone is a closed system with limited abilities at finding and facts and truth. many people unreasonably believe that they can make no mistakes.

 

[pblanc]

Terms like "reasonable", "gross", and "wanton" are used in criminal and civil law all the time. There are no precise definitions for these terms.

It comes down to what the jury deems to be reasonable, gross, or wanton.

 

[JN01]

Without all the facts (not speculation) it is hard to be certain, but from what has been released, it APPEARS to me that the shooter was not justified in his actions.

I agree that as a gun carrier, one has to be ever more cautious about not instigating any confrontation that might escalate into a force encounter.

However, I does seem like a sad commentary on society today when we are afraid to make even the most innocuous comment about rude, obnoxious, or otherwise socially unacceptable behavior for fear of provoking an assault on one's self.

 

[RC20]

One thing I am seeing is a whole lot of speculation and where is and ifs and what was and this maybe.

I think the stand your ground thing was a badly done law. It mucked up things as it became totally subjective. You should be threatened and not feel threatened.

Frankly you are justified in using force if someone else is threatened, but they darn well better have proof.

If you want to police parking spaces, then get a camera, record it and submit it to the police departments. In this case the individual was clearly looking to make it a confrontation and succeeded beyond what he thought (yelling at a woman that is below your in my opinion could be interpreted as stand your ground and she had a right to shoot him)

Getting into brandishing weapons is also a red haring. You can pull a gun and be in the defend yourself mode, but if that changes then you don't have to shoot. In this case, the sight of the gun clearly deescalated it, the shover backed off and was moving away.

I think despite the self created circumstance there was justification to pull the gun.

The nut case had ratcheted himself up tot he point that he was going to shoot the shover, he was just looking for an excuse (and was given it)

Armed Society are not peaceful, they are dangerous.

Trained Police often fail the test, non trained citizens?

WE all know responsible people, we all know dangerously out of control or on the edge people and all of them can have a gun. Just go to the range and watch the gun handling.

Some very nice people scare the be-jesus out of you.

 

[GarandTd]

Armed society are not peaceful, they are dangerous.

As an armed person, I take offense to that very general statement.
How about "Armed individuals might not be peaceful, they may be dangerous"
We(armed individuals) should not all be lumped into that same category.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

So, someone died because of being parked in the wrong parking space.

Regardless of the outcome of the court case, the moral of the story is clear here (and I've said it many times,and I'll say it again):

A concealed carry permit does not make you a policeman. Don't go looking for trouble. If you are assaulted or threatened, then deal with the threat. Otherwise, mind your own business and go home.

At the end of the day, someone died over a parking spot at a convience store. Justified or not, it's just stupid.

 

[44 AMP]

I think the stand your ground thing was a badly done law. It mucked up things as it became totally subjective.

The "stand your ground law(s)" changed NOTHING regarding the justified (lawful) use of deadly force. What mucked things up is people's misunderstanding of the law based on misleading media labels ("stand your ground"), and BS "expertise" found in bars, locker rooms, and I suppose, these days, on social media.

The entire "stand your ground" soundbyte is misleading. The law doesn't require you to stand your ground, it just removed the legal requirement to retreat (when physically possible) and the spurious prosecution via civil suits if you chose not to retreat. "Reasonable" people are still expected to retreat/de-escalate/de-fuze the situation if possible. All the stand your ground laws do is remove legal penalties if you don't.

Whether or not deadly force is justified, and when are still the same as they were before stand your ground, and is a separate matter under our legal system.

Armed Society are not peaceful, they are dangerous.

UNarmed societies are not peaceful, they are dangerous, as well.

So, someone died because of being parked in the wrong parking space.

I disagree. This is the same as saying someone died because they got out of bed in the morning. Someone died as a result of a violent attack. You can start the chain of events anywhere you wish, but I look at the event immediately preceding the shot, not the event before that, or further back in time.

 

[zukiphile]

Armed Society are not peaceful, they are dangerous.

UNarmed societies are not peaceful, they are dangerous, as well.

While true, whether a society is peaceful isn't the point of the observation. The threat of violence can buttress codes of good behavior, exactly as Heinlein's character explains. Early 19th century duelling etiquette had well recognized and socially enforced rules that discouraged casual offense amongst potential participants. Hamilton's death may not have been peaceful, but it wasn't a breach of etiquette.

One element of respect can be a recognition that another has the capacity to do harm, but chooses not to. A harmless person can't make that choice and may not gain the respect one gives a genuinely moral actor.

Whether the fellow in the video reasonably believed that he was subject to great bodily harm or a continuing felonious assault isn't resolved by a silent video. One would need more information to reasonably conclude that the shooter deserves to be ruined, and it should not be the object of a criminal justice system to ruin a person without respect to guilt.

 

[Don P]

I think the stand your ground thing was a badly done law. It mucked up things as it became totally subjective. You should be threatened and not feel threatened.

Prior to "stand your ground" becoming law in Florida as CCWP holder you were "required by law" worded as "duty to retreat" whenever possible to do so safely.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Stand your ground has nothing to do with this, and the official claiming otherwise is grossly ignorant of the law or deliberately misstating it to serve some agenda.

As for the shooter, if you are an armed person and you shoot an unarmed one with not so much as a scratch on you, there are going to be consequences. You should expect to go to jail, lose your job, lose all your money and most of your possessions, and probably lose some close personal relationships as well. I’m not saying that is just; but you should expect it because it certainly happens in a lot of those cases.

That’s why your threshhold should be “Do I have to shoot now in order to stop my immediate death or serious bodily injury?” Even if it was justified, you might still spend some time in jail and have to spend everything you have and everything you and your family can borrow.

Frank Ettin used to have a list of people who were acquitted in self-defense shootings but lost everything. We’ve probably seen a dozen more since the last time the list was posted. One thing they all have in common: armed person shooting unarmed person. If you can avoid that scenario, you should.

 

[FITASC]

And when the unarmed assailant is twice your size and one punch could kill you? Then what?

 

[spacemanspiff]

I think some people want 'Stand Your Ground' to legitimize dumping a mag into anyone who looks at them sideways.

Seriously. I'll take my chances with a big giant that might kill me with one punch. I am not going to draw down on someone just because they are bigger than me.

If you want to shoot anyone that gets aggressive to you or pushes you to the ground, go for it. Good luck in court.

 

[Sharkbite]

And when the unarmed assailant is twice your size and one punch could kill you? Then what?

Guys, you need to consider the “totality of the circumstances”, and apply the “reasonable man doctrine”.

There is a principle of defense for disparity of force scenarios. You just need to be able to convince the DA and possible jury, that it was a reasonable and necessary use of force based on what you knew at the time of the incident.

A 20 year difference in age ALONE may not be enough to convince a jury that lethal force was necessary. Bigger, stronger, younger, being aggressive against an older, weaker, frail and health challenged defender= a better chance to convince a jury it was reasonable.

Lets not forget any time you (as a CCW carrier) are involved in a physical fight, there is a gun involved. It may be in your holster now, but that could change in an instant. Weapon retention is a real problem in these events.

 

[L2R]

My "paid for" lawyer has said that if you find someone standing in your house, tell them to crawl back out the window you came in and hope they do. Call 911 and give them a description. Just get a clear understanding of where your bail goes and you will understand why he said that.

My 'guess' is that when he was attacked and pushed to the ground, he went into a state of shock. We don't know what he was thinking when he pulled the trigger and frankly, he may not either. He might of made a decision to save himself when he pulled the gun out and never processed what happened in the next seconds or the next few minutes.

Saying only he knows what he was thinking is also an assumption. Not defending him, I don't know either but someone is going to take their best guess, weigh it to how much flack they are going to take in delivering the verdict and then we will see what happened in this instance. I say it's a coin toss, and that might be the most accurate thing I said here.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

And when the unarmed assailant is twice your size and one punch could kill you? Then what?

If you think spending the rest of your life in prison is better than being punched, then shoot him.*

FYI: There is a documented case of a 130lb woman killing a grown adult male with a single punch to the head. This is one reason why most law enforcement policy generally prohibits deliberate strikes to the head. Pretty much any physically capable adult has the potential to kill you unarmed.

*I realize that isn’t a comforting answer but it is one that reflects the real world. A police officer in Texas was fired for shooting a naked, unarmed man advancing on him after multiple warnings to stop. It was all recorded. That officer is only out of a job and had police unions and a lot of support at his back.