Florida stand your ground law
- Thread starter JimboBBN
- Start date
The exterminator dude murdered by the overzealous police officer who never should have been allowed near a gun in his life was trying to comply with conflicting, technically impossible, orders.
It doesn't matter what semantics you want to play here, a guy is dead over a ****ing parking spot altercation.
You can justify it saying he was within his rights according to the law, but that doesn't mean this isn't messed up. This is why it should be harder to get a gun. Too many idiots that get themselves into situations or "feel threatened" and end up taking someone else's life.
It's pathetic, that as a country we need to continually have these conversations about who was within their rights, if it was justified, bla bla bla. A dude is dead, over a parking spot.
It does happen now and then. There are cops that have no business being cops and people that are in no position to handle having that authority, just like in any other occupation. I'm talking about the other 98.9737546% of the time when people get shot by cops. They weren't being compliant which is why they got shot.
I didn't say he played zero role, but I don't think there is any way to justify him being killed for pushing a guy who was arguing with his gf/wife as he came out of the store.
Here we go about gun laws/rights again. Since you are a proponent of stricter laws, what would you propose? I am always interested to hear the reasoning from both sides.
Kevin. You are correct with your percentage, but people love to highlife the astronomically small percentage to prove you wrong. Also—-in this case, I’d say the dude ****ed up big time firing that gun and should by all counts, be put behind bars. That being said, actions have consequences...just and unjust.
Yeah, I certainly don't think the shooter is innocent either. A lot of things built up to the guy being shot. I'm just guessing that guy would have never been shot had he not initiated physical contact. He certainly got more than he bargained for, and that's why you have to think before you act. My favorite part of the article is when the author makes sure you know the victim was black and the shooter was white. Whether the shooting was racially motivated or not, the media will make sure you know that. They love to perpetuate hate whether it's real or not. Some people wonder why our country is so divided these days.
I'm not on any side, but it's clear this guy shouldn't have a gun. Especially if what the other poster said was true that he's brandished his weapon before at the same store, for the same parking lot situation.
Seriously, take politics out of it for a minute and tell me that this is not a clear example of someone who shouldn't own a gun. If you're threatening people over a parking spot, you have issues and should not be allowed to own a deadly weapon. But hey man, he felt threatened.
I think it is an example of someone who shouldn't have a gun. Pussies should never have guns.
Yeah, once I read about his past (if true) it really makes you think. Like he was looking for an "excuse" to use it. I am not sure you can impose a law that decides who can and can't have a gun though. It's got to be a case by case basis. Even most people that are effed up in the head would have no problem lying their way through a mental exam. That is my question. How do you determine who can and can't own and carry a firearm? Look at most of the crazy school shooters. They had no prior criminal history or documented mental illness. So they would've had no issues getting guns legally. On the other side of the coin, if someone wants a gun no law is going to stop them from having it and/or using it. Just like laws don't mean shit to illegal drug dealers/users. One thing is certain, the black market is salivating over the idea of stricter gun laws.
If you're in a store while your wife and kids are out in the car waiting for you and see a man arguing with your wife, are you going to come out calm about it?
Again, not saying he should have touched the guy at all but I don't think he deserved to die for pushing him. He could have swung on dude and probably knocked him out cold with one hit, but he pushed him away from his wife.
Now if he pushes guy down and starts wailing on him, sure the old man would be justified to shoot. But he gets pushed down, the other guy doesnt continue to pursue/assault, and then he shoots him, after a pause? That's murder. There was no imminent fear for his life at that point.
anon_0astpxev9h4gk
Well-Known Member
He doesn't continue to assault him because he pulled the gun out.
Research posturing and body language. Heck, just watch several street fight videos. After the push the guy was still moving close pulled up his pants, and was almost on top of him.
Until he pulled the gun out. Again, not saying he should have shot, but is not like it was a simple push and he walked away.
Research posturing and body language. Heck, just watch several street fight videos. After the push the guy was still moving close pulled up his pants, and was almost on top of him.
Until he pulled the gun out. Again, not saying he should have shot, but is not like it was a simple push and he walked away.
Yeah, he was still posturing for sure and so was his girlfriend. Like I said earlier ITT, she must have called him on his phone to come outside during this dispute because he left his kid in the store and immediately goes over and pushes the guy to the ground. Also, when the lady sees him coming out of the store she gets out of the car and closes the door behind her. What was she planning to do? Continue a cordial conversation? Pretty aggressive moves, IMO.
You just wrote two paragraphs justifying the push.
The best option would be telling the guy to fvck off and leave. He instead opted to escalate the situation and gave the old dude the right to take his life
Ehhh, I don't know about pushing him away from his wife. I very highly doubt that was the intent. The dude was several feet away from the driver side window when he was talking to her. You can see him pointing but there is nothing to indicate he was going to do anything physically. It's not like he was up in her face.
That's it....just leave. At the very most engage the guy verbally. You can't just go around shoving people. Sometimes I just wanna do hood rat stuff too, but I don't.
The law specifically states:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using 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. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that 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; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
--
The emboldened text is the key to this thing, here. When we watch the video, what can we see? What can we objectively visualize in the video? Admittedly, the aggressor to the situation assaulted the man. This law specifically states that a person is justified in using force, EXCEPT deadly force, against another when and to the extent a person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary. Had this man stood up and fought, or even grabbed a rock or something and fought back, he would likely get a pass here.
The aggressor to the situation though completely relented. He did not continue to assault, or even advance towards the man on the ground after shoving him, a full FOUR SECONDS (which is a very long time in these situations) passed after the shove, and the aggressor even went as far as backing away from the man who pulled his firearm. That generally means that a person is backing down, but despite that, the man wounded and eventually killed the victim (and yes, he is a homicide victim).
The keyword in this law (and mostly in the entire field of law) is whether he reasonably believed that he can justify killing a man who shoved him to the ground, relented, showed no signs of possessing a weapon, and made no moves that would lead a reasonable individual to fear for their life.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using 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. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that 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; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
--
The emboldened text is the key to this thing, here. When we watch the video, what can we see? What can we objectively visualize in the video? Admittedly, the aggressor to the situation assaulted the man. This law specifically states that a person is justified in using force, EXCEPT deadly force, against another when and to the extent a person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary. Had this man stood up and fought, or even grabbed a rock or something and fought back, he would likely get a pass here.
The aggressor to the situation though completely relented. He did not continue to assault, or even advance towards the man on the ground after shoving him, a full FOUR SECONDS (which is a very long time in these situations) passed after the shove, and the aggressor even went as far as backing away from the man who pulled his firearm. That generally means that a person is backing down, but despite that, the man wounded and eventually killed the victim (and yes, he is a homicide victim).
The keyword in this law (and mostly in the entire field of law) is whether he reasonably believed that he can justify killing a man who shoved him to the ground, relented, showed no signs of possessing a weapon, and made no moves that would lead a reasonable individual to fear for their life.
What this sh!t teaches more than anything is people are crazy. No verbal or physcial altercation is worth not going home at the end of the day.
Nothing wrong with the law, only the interpetation of it in this case
Bet that dude wouldn't even have berated that woman had he not had a gun.
With his history of gun events (if true), old dude was basically lying in wait. Itching to finally "get" to use his piece.
Sure had she not parked there...
Sure had the young man not shoved him...
Sure sure, but someday, somebody was gonna die via this "old" dude.
There wasn't ever an If, only a When.
With his history of gun events (if true), old dude was basically lying in wait. Itching to finally "get" to use his piece.
Sure had she not parked there...
Sure had the young man not shoved him...
Sure sure, but someday, somebody was gonna die via this "old" dude.
There wasn't ever an If, only a When.
anon_0astpxev9h4gk
Well-Known Member
Man will be charged with manslaughter. I still say there is enough for 2nd murder. But Florida prosecutors would fck that up anyways.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/1...ur-ground-case-arrested-for-manslaughter.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/1...ur-ground-case-arrested-for-manslaughter.html
The complaint stated that detectives recorded the crime scene with a 3D scanner showing that the distance between Drejka and McGlockton at the time of the shooting was about 12 feet.
It also stated that the findings of the autopsy were consistent with the video footage of the shooting in which McGlockton appeared to be turning away from Drejka when he was shot.
In addition, the complaint said that in 2012 Drejka displayed a gun during two separate road rage incidents in which he was never charged.
At least he's charged with something.
Florida guidelines to 2nd murder.
-The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s.775.084.
Do you feel like this qualifies?
https://www.tampabay.com/news/publi...in-stand-your-ground-shooter-s-past_170719109
Guy should be charged with murder
Guy should be charged with murder
I said at least he'd charged with something. I hope he gets charged with everything.
Not sure, but I think he deserves some type of punishment. And I hope they take a look at the actual law and see if it needs to change.
Didn't mean to come off as challenging. I agree.
Well, it appears that this will not fall under the stand your ground law. Which it never should have. But when situations like this are even considered, I agree. Time to rethink the law.
No doubt. I was on my way to the golf course a few weeks ago and some dude pulls up and honks and without even waiting for me to possibly let him pull through traffic just jerks right out in from of me almost hitting me and the vehicle in front of me. So he is now waiting to turn the opposite way and intentionally not going to be a prick. So I motion for him to go and he starts ranting and raving and cursing at me. So I really want to get out and give him a piece of my mind while holding a four iron but know it just isn't worth it. Although I'm not sure he could have even opened his door without hitting the front of my car anyway. I do laugh though, couldn't help it since the dude was being so absurd, but thankfully he eventually drives off. Just never know about people and I enjoy living. Just not worth it.
