Author Topic: "Stand Your Ground" Altercation (Read 6581 times)

RMc · « **on:** July 24, 2018, 07:25:11 pm »

Given the video and the sheriff's statements it seems inevitable that politics is involved.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/gunman-in-death-of-father-not-charged-based-on-florida-s-stand-your-ground-law-1283708995875

WeTheArmed.com

coelacanth · « **Reply #1 on:** July 24, 2018, 11:06:32 pm »

It's 2018. Politics is always involved. In everything.

Re: the video, it appears to me that only one shot was fired. Without any other evidence (audio evidence, witness statements, police report(s) ) its difficult to say whether the shooter should have been charged. I'm not sure whether I would have reacted the same way but sitting here typing this is completely different from being on the receiving end of whatever conversation took place followed by a violent shove.

booksmart · « **Reply #2 on:** July 25, 2018, 09:23:31 am »

This video speaks to why I don't like Stand Your Ground laws... it precludes a trial. The person who was shot was turning away, and was not advancing on the guy that he had shoved to the ground.

luke213(adamsholsters) · « **Reply #3 on:** July 25, 2018, 10:42:05 am »

That's the first time I've seen the whole video previously I kept seeing up to before the shot.

I don't think it's a stand your ground issue myself and I have zero issue with those laws. But this situation is bad all around, I don't think I'd have reacted the same way. I may have drawn I doubt I'd have fired unless it went further(which might have been worse legally). I also likely wouldn't have been confronting the person in the car for any reason. But at the end of the day I'm sitting behind a keyboard and without audio or someone standing there I'm not sure anything I can say really has much worth.

I think at the end of the day this could have likely gone a different way, I see this as a case perfect situation where a firearm could have diffused a situation but instead didn't. So I wish it could have gone differently but I wasn't in that guys shoes.

Luke

ynotaz · « **Reply #4 on:** July 25, 2018, 10:53:46 am »

I don't agree. That the Florida "stand your ground law” precludes a trial.

Every state that I can find that has a “stand your ground law” or a “castle doctrine law” includes the phrase “reasonably believes.” Stating that it has to be the belief of a reasonable person forces judgement into the equation. The fact that this sheriff misrepresented the Florida law or didn’t refer it to a state’s attorney, or a judge for a decision doesn’t make the law wrong.

In many states without such laws you can be charged with a crime for using or threatening to use deadly force if there is any avenue to escape. Public sentiment always favors the guy laying on the ground in a pool of blood so the argument always goes to: well you could have broken the window and jumped out. The worst that would have happened is you would have broken a bone, but here is poor Travon Miami Ripper Johnson dead, on the pavement and all he was doing is buying his son a bag of skittles and Bits.

The law is good. The sheriff, and the press are stupid.

cpaspr · « **Reply #5 on:** July 25, 2018, 02:01:10 pm »

There's another aspect we're not fully aware of, that may need to be considered. Watching the video, Mr. Drejka appears to be swaying slightly while he was talking to Britany Jacobs. He may have been confronting her because he needed the handicapped spot, and was entitled to use it, and she did not and was not. If so, as a handicapped person, already unstable on his feet, getting shoved to the ground is a much more traumatic event. That may be why the sheriff declined to arrest him.

Now, that said, I think the sheriff was wrong. Mr. McGlockton, while he should not have shoved Mr. Drejka, may have been surprised when he fell down. Whether he was or not though, he did not follow up on the shove beyond one or two steps, which could have been to simply regain his balance, and was in fact backing up and turning away when Mr. Drejka slowly pulled his firearm and fired.

Mr. Drejka was not in danger of further assault, and was not facing further attack. Mr. McGlockton was de-escalating (even though yes, he had previously escalated the situation). If Mr. McGlockton had continued toward Mr. Drejka after he was down, yes, probaly a righteous shoot. Otherwise, too much too late to justify the shooting.

booksmart · « **Reply #6 on:** July 25, 2018, 02:01:20 pm »

ynotaz - If the law were being used as intended, I would agree with you. But there are numerous instances (this one included) where it has been used by someone who has instigated the incident, and escalated, then shot the person after the incident has not gone in their favor.

Copied from Annette Evans - Beauty behind the Blast:

Quote

Regardless of the justice or not of our current Florida Man with Concealed Carry License not being charged, he's a prime example of a self-appointed rules enforcer who got himself sucked into confrontation, couldn't cash the check he wrote, and used a hammer to get out of deep end of pool. Ultimately, it doesn't matter who was right or wrong; someone ended up dead and that always matters even if it's justified. There are always consequences even if you aren't prosecuted.

One of the things John Murphy of FPF Training talked a lot about this past weekend in the joint class with Dr. William Aprill that I hosted/attended, is that for those assaults that don't come via the violent criminal actor, the ones that are driven by social friction, there are ways we can avoid being part of those interactions. Off-ramps, if you will, from the super-highway to physical conflict.

Let's look at some of the failures here:

- Creating an unnecessary confrontation. You know how your mother told you if you didn't have anything nice to say, don't say it? Among strangers, following Mom's advice is a great way to not get someone offended...and giving offense in a respect-based culture is a good way to get hurt. It doesn't matter whether YOU think you're being respectful or not (or whether or not you care), but it DOES matter to the person on the other end.

- Paying so much attention to the confrontation in front of him that he failed to take into account who else might get involved. Even without a boyfriend involved, a complete stranger to both parties could decide to interject, and violently. You know how a white knight can come riding to the rescue from "our" side? Yeah, white knights aren't confined to one "side" or another. Sometimes they DO think like you.

- Failing to disengage from a confrontation. You know what can be a great tool? "Sorry, man. It was nothing and I overreacted. My bad." It might not work...but it might.

- Responding with a hammer. If you only have one solution to every problem, then you will only exercise one solution without thought to circumstance and additional options. Guns can come out without being shot. Intermediate force tools like pepper spray exist. Having force-on-force experience can heighten your shock threshold so that being thrown to the ground is less disorienting, less scary, and less likely to keep you from thinking about a spectrum appropriate responses.

---

One of the most important lessons that Murph teaches is this: "Gun on; ego off." If you carry a gun, every interaction you have can end up like this news story. Having the right knowledge, skills, attributes, and training (KSATs) can help you avoid being the Facebook topic du jour.

A lot of guys on here would get offended if someone were yelling at their significant other, parked in a car. Some might go so far as to shove the yelling person away from their car.

I'll point out again: the guy that was shot was pulling back and turning away when he was shot. He was disengaging.

sqlbullet · « **Reply #7 on:** July 25, 2018, 02:48:52 pm »

I don't think the sheriff used his words very well in stating that the Florida "Stand your Ground" laws exonerated Mr. Drejka.

I think Florida's use of force laws do however.

I make this statement using two factors as my barometer.

First, had Mr. Drejka been a sworn law enforcement officer, we would not be having this conversation. Push a cop to the ground in anger and you should expect he will probably give you a copper ornament. Or two or three. I don't think it would have mattered if the officer was uniformed or plain clothes, on duty or off.

Second, I just read Florida's use of deadly force/stand your ground laws. It states you have the right to use deadly force if you reasonably believe that using such force is necessary to prevent ... the imminent commission of a[n] [aggravated assault]. Under Florida law aggravated assault has four elements: Threat of violence, ability to carry out the threat, a well founded fear the violence was about to take place and either the use of a deadly weapon or a conscioud intent to commit a felony.

I think we can all agree that Mr. McGlockton's actions fulfill the first three elements. In fact, all we are missing here is some aggravated to go along with simple assault. And all the is needed to make this aggravated some serious bodily injury.

And while I think the video shows Mr. McGlockton disengaging, were I the man that had just been assaulted by him, and were laying on the ground unable to make a hasty retreat and widen that space, it becomes very reasonable to interpret his body language as a precursor to a kick or two. And a kick or two suddenly would make this assault aggravated.

In general I think stand your ground laws are bunk. Either you are justified in the use of force or not. It should not be a sliding scale depending on your location (unless you have unlawfully entered a location).

ynotaz · « **Reply #8 on:** July 25, 2018, 03:25:13 pm »

Quote from: booksmart on July 25, 2018, 02:01:20 pm

ynotaz - If the law were being used as intended

If we had common sense in any part of "the law" I would agree that it is not needed. But what I see; draconian zero tolerance laws and rules due to entire classes of people incapable of making common sense judgements, minimum sentencing rules due to liberal judges who dished out probation for child molestation or worse, criminals winning civil suits against their victims because they were injured during the commission of the crime, entire cities voting in their government bodies to violate federal law in protection of criminals; in that light I can't bring myself to criticize a law meant to help protect the real victim of a crime.

Now application of that law gets us back to the common sense question that caused the need for the law in the first place.

AltRight Vanguard · « **Reply #9 on:** July 26, 2018, 12:23:52 am »

Quote from: booksmart on July 25, 2018, 02:01:20 pm

A lot of guys on here would get offended if someone were yelling at their significant other, parked in a car. Some might go so far as to shove the yelling person away from their car.

I'll point out again: the guy that was shot was pulling back and turning away when he was shot. He was disengaging.

Let's be clear here: The guy was 100% in the wrong to physically assault the shooter. And if he had not been shot, he should have been jailed for assault. If the shooter had immediately drawn and fired upon falling, I would call a clean shoot... But... He didn't. He drew, thought for a second, then fired. During that crucial second, the assailant (what he was) stopped his attack. So from my perspective, a legally bad shoot.

AltRight Vanguard · « **Reply #10 on:** July 26, 2018, 12:43:10 am »

Quote from: sqlbullet on July 25, 2018, 02:48:52 pm

And while I think the video shows Mr. McGlockton disengaging, were I the man that had just been assaulted by him, and were laying on the ground unable to make a hasty retreat and widen that space, it becomes very reasonable to interpret his body language as a precursor to a kick or two. And a kick or two suddenly would make this assault aggravated.

Sort of. I mean, yes, you are right, but at what point does Intent factor in. We can interrupt a burglar with a lead pipe, and tell him to drop it, at gun point. So he moves his arm slightly toward the ground... BAM! "I'm sorry occifer, I thought for sure he was winding up for an uppercut stroke. I was in Fear for my Life."

At a certain point, for the SYG laws (and I truly am a fan) to work as intended, they require a population that is going to use them in good faith. Not abuse them, or act carelessly because their ass is covered.

sqlbullet · « **Reply #11 on:** July 26, 2018, 09:49:34 am »

Quote from: AltRight Vanguard on July 26, 2018, 12:43:10 am

Sort of. I mean, yes, you are right, but at what point does Intent factor in. We can interrupt a burglar with a lead pipe, and tell him to drop it, at gun point. So he moves his arm slightly toward the ground... BAM! "I'm sorry occifer, I thought for sure he was winding up for an uppercut stroke. I was in Fear for my Life."

At a certain point, for the SYG laws (and I truly am a fan) to work as intended, they require a population that is going to use them in good faith. Not abuse them, or act carelessly because their ass is covered.

But that is the problem.

We get to look at this through the lens the media is portraying and camera angles that give us a completely different perspective on intent. And we get to think about it for as long as we want and we get to re-watch it as much as we want while making that decision.

Mr. Drejka had just been violently shoved to the ground. He was in pain and in a body position that denied him the ability to flee without turning his back on his attacker. And while in that situation, he had a split second to determine if Mr. McGlockton's body language was intent to move away, or intent to get some space to swing a shoe like a weapon.

And here is why this is not a stand your ground case. Mr. Drejka was no longer standing. And I don't mean that as a punchline. If he had been shoved back, but was on his feet, I would no longer call this a clean shoot. In that situation, with Mr. McGlockton's movement back, Mr. Drejka could also have retreated, creating space and giving him more time to evaluate the situation. Absent Mr. McGlockton presenting a weapon, Mr. Drejka could no longer make the case that he was in immediate danger of serious bodily injury, since he could move out of kick range.

But he wasn't standing. He was awkwardly sitting due to Mr. McGlockton's violent actions. This placed his head in easy kick range, e.g in imminent threat of serious bodily injury.

I reserve the right to change my mind if/when we actually see the complete video and/or get audio of the altercation. There is a bunch about this we don't know. And the words that were spoken could go a long way to informing Mr. Drejka's state of mind. Or damning his actions.

AltRight Vanguard · « **Reply #12 on:** July 26, 2018, 11:08:41 am »

Quote from: sqlbullet on July 26, 2018, 09:49:34 am

Mr. Drejka had just been violently shoved to the ground. He was in pain and in a body position that denied him the ability to flee without turning his back on his attacker. And while in that situation, he had a split second to determine if Mr. McGlockton's body language was intent to move away, or intent to get some space to swing a shoe like a weapon.

All of this notwithstanding, I like to hope I would have held the firing position just a hair longer, so I could be sure of his intent. Monday morning quarterbacking, but still.

AltRight Vanguard · « **Reply #13 on:** July 26, 2018, 11:12:01 am »

Quote from: sqlbullet on July 26, 2018, 09:49:34 am

And here is why this is not a stand your ground case. Mr. Drejka was no longer standing. And I don't mean that as a punchline. If he had been shoved back, but was on his feet, I would no longer call this a clean shoot. In that situation, with Mr. McGlockton's movement back, Mr. Drejka could also have retreated, creating space and giving him more time to evaluate the situation. Absent Mr. McGlockton presenting a weapon, Mr. Drejka could no longer make the case that he was in immediate danger of serious bodily injury, since he could move out of kick range.

But he wasn't standing. He was awkwardly sitting due to Mr. McGlockton's violent actions. This placed his head in easy kick range, e.g in imminent threat of serious bodily injury.

This, however, is a great point that I failed to consider. I still say it was iffy, based on what I can see, but SYG should not even be in the conversation.

Neither should race, to be honest, but that was the first thing they mentioned about the ~~victim~~ assailant. And then they wonder why Trump calls the MSM 'fake news,' and people don't dismiss him as a lunatic...

RetroGrouch · « **Reply #14 on:** July 26, 2018, 04:39:00 pm »

I don't know. I've watched a longer clip of the video, and the shooter was blindsided. Combine that with being knocked to the ground, possibly getting your head bounced against the ground, a younger, bigger assailant, whatever was said (that we didn't hear), adrenaline kicking in, those all could have contributed to shooting the assailant when it appeared the guy had at least paused, possibly stepped back from the assault.

The driver/girlfriend should have parked in one of the open spots at the store, unless she had a handicap tag. The old white guy should have just called the cops about the parking spot (although chances are nothing would have been done unless it was a really slow day for the cops and they were really close). The young black guy should have used words first, rather than violence. The old white guy should have pulled his gun and seen if that dissuaded the attacker (although that would be brandishing and he could have been arrested for that under Florida law).

All these "should have"s. And the Florida SYG laws don't kick in until you are charged, at which time it is a defense, not unlike the mental defect defense. It isn't a get out of jail free card.

ynotaz · « **Reply #15 on:** July 26, 2018, 09:02:59 pm »

I won’t make up my own mind with so little information but I will play devil’s advocate just for the conversation.

What if this guy lives next to the convenience store. He is the neighborhood busy-body, who is retired and home all day.

One of his favorite things to do is confront non-handicapped people who pull into the handicapped parking.

AND he knew one day somebody would give him crap, so he armed himself for the confrontation.

On this day he is the white guy yelling at the black girlfriend of a guy buying his son some skittles when the guy comes out and hears him yelling you N%^G&R BIATCH” Who T.F. do you think you are?

Now, with those assumptions is it still a good shoot?

AltRight Vanguard · « **Reply #16 on:** July 26, 2018, 10:07:57 pm »

Quote from: ynotaz on July 26, 2018, 09:02:59 pm

I won’t make up my own mind with so little information but I will play devil’s advocate just for the conversation.

What if this guy lives next to the convenience store. He is the neighborhood busy-body, who is retired and home all day.

One of his favorite things to do is confront non-handicapped people who pull into the handicapped parking.

AND he knew one day somebody would give him crap, so he armed himself for the confrontation.

On this day he is the white guy yelling at the black girlfriend of a guy buying his son some skittles when the guy comes out and hears him yelling you N%^G&R BIATCH” Who T.F. do you think you are?

Now, with those assumptions is it still a good shoot?

That would not affect it in the slightest. Words are words, physical violence is physical violence. Once can not ever justify the other, unless the words are a direct threat of the latter.

The media told us that George Zimmerman was a busybody too, and he was looking for a fight, but at the end of the day his actions in the shoot had to stand or fall on their own merits.

Race is also irrelevant. The word 'nigger,' and I have the balls to actually type it, is in poor taste... But it is not anything more than just another word. No more powerful or dangerous than any other word, no matter what they tell us.

ynotaz · « **Reply #17 on:** July 26, 2018, 10:26:46 pm »

Zimmerman was pummeled, physical evidence of the assault, he was part of an organized group that regularly patrolled.

Race has everything to do with it if the shooter used it during the confrontation with the woman.

If you want to use your own example feel free.

But put my example in front of a jury with the circumstances we see on the video and see how that works out.

coelacanth · « **Reply #18 on:** July 26, 2018, 10:40:48 pm »

Yeah, 'cause we all know juries are impartial arbiters of justice - right O.J. ?

AltRight Vanguard · « **Reply #19 on:** July 26, 2018, 10:41:03 pm »

Race did not make it any more or less justified for the assailant to push the shooter to the ground. Or any more or less justified for the shooter to draw his firearm once he was on the ground. Race did not make it more or less likely for the attack to continue after the initial shove, nor any more or less justified for the shot to be fired. No, both men could have been black, both men could have been White, or the races could have been reversed, and this shooting would not be any more clean or dirty.

An argument could be made that the shooter would have been charged if he had been black. That is a possibility. It is not right, legally, for law enforcement to so discriminate, but neither is it right that blacks commit such a disproportionate amount of violent crime in the US. Cops are only human.

ynotaz · « **Reply #20 on:** July 27, 2018, 12:32:31 am »

Are we harkening back to my previous comment and summoning up common sense from the grave?

prior to its demise we had much fewer grounds to disagree on the outcome.

RMc · « **Reply #21 on:** July 27, 2018, 01:37:41 am »

So what political motive would you attribute to the sheriff's statement, if any?

sqlbullet · « **Reply #22 on:** July 27, 2018, 10:09:22 am »

I don't know that I attribute any political motive to his statement.

The real issue here is that all the sensational headlines, from both right and left leaning news sources, are making this out that somehow the SYG law reduces criminal scrutiny. It doesn't.

As RetroGrouch already pointed out, the stand your ground law has no effect on the investigative process and does not come into play until after the the use of force or threatened use of force are determined to be justified. (Florida Criminal code 776.032)

In fact, subsection 2 specifically instructs "A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1)"

During the investigation phase, the law does instruct that "the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful."

Once the altercation is ruled justified, the law protects against further criminal prosecution for the incident, and provides fiscal relief in regards to any expenses incurred in civil prosecution.

The media is portraying this as if the SYG law justified the shoot. That is just plain not the case. The shoot was determined to be justified under 776.013.

However, to the Sheriff's point...once it is determined that the use of force is justified and the investigation into the use of force is closed, the SYG law provides some meaningful protections, especially in civil matters, for the initial victim of violence.

coelacanth · « **Reply #23 on:** July 27, 2018, 02:22:42 pm »

Thank you. This thread was beginning to need a clear and concise explanation of the law in question.

jaeger · « **Reply #24 on:** August 13, 2018, 05:15:41 pm »

Quick update that the shooter was charged and arrested today: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/Shooter-charged-with-manslaughter-in-Clearwater-stand-your-ground-case_170853729

It looks like SYG is working exactly as intended; he remained free until the prosecutors decided they had enough evidence to charge him, as opposed to him ending up in jail on the day of the shooting because the optics seemed bad to the responding officers.

I'm personally conflicted and I think it'll come down to what Drejka was saying when he was sucker punched. For whatever the reporting is worth, quite a few people have accused him of brandishing or threatening violence but failed to press charges.