Sheriff called parking spot shooting legal under ‘stand your ground’ laws. Prosecutors disagreed.

False. No matter how the matter is looked at, the shove itself was quite violent, to say nothing of being unjustified and unprovoked.

 

Yeah, I've seen your argument. Stick with the HOA's.

 

Which means nothing.

Words. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. Had the words been anything of substance, McGlockton would not have been casually strolling over to Drejka at the time, but rather charging full speed.

Beyond that particular matter, the woman in question was not a wife, merely a girlfriend.

 

Says the guy missing the elements of justified use of force more than once in this thread?

That's all you got huh? Sad. Pathetic even.

 

I mean if you want to keep your chickenshit misattributed quote up, I'm not going to report you. You'll just be chickenshit that can't make an argument without lying.. really up to you sparky.

With the video its pretty open and shut. When that idiot gets on the stand and opens his yap, its going to get even worse.

You want to talk about feelings, mr 'but I got to pull it so that means I get to use it even if the guy starts fleeing'?
Cute.

 

The matter has been subject to significant research. And in that research pertaining to the law of the united states, nothing has been found suggesting that once an individual has committed a violent assault, the victim of the assault is legally obligated to refrain from responding with force simply because the attacker is not continuing the assault at that specific moment in time, or is otherwise in the act of physical retreat. There is no legal doctrine that has been found, that suggests one can initiate violence against another, and then legally protected from the consequences of their actions simply because they suddenly decide to walk away, with the victim becoming the assailant if they respond with force.

 

I'm not missing anything, clearly.

Man gets attacked, man draws gun, man shoots attacker standing 10 feet away one time center mass.

Everything else is just your tear ducts doing overtime.

 

I don't care what you do. What's funny is that you start the insults then cry when I respond in kind.

I agree, the video is open and shut.

Man attacks man, man gets shot for attacking him.

Yes he was fleeing so hard he got shot 10 feet away while facing him.

He's the sloooowest mouse in all of Mexico.

 

Just take one step back!

It's like stealing a base!

 

So you didn't google "florida imperfect self defense cases" or something similar then?

I don't know how to help you if you can't google Xen.

Whether force is justified or not depends on circumstances that exist in the instant force is used. This is legal fact.

The instant force was used in this case, the dead man was walking backwards and beginning to turn around to flee as he is shot.
Prior to that, he had seen the firearm produced by the defendant in response to his legally unjustified assault, and stopped pursuing a continuation of his initial unjustified assault several feet short of arm's length from the defendant's FEET much less his head. Several seconds elapse between the defendant producing the gun, and the dead man stopping, backpeddling and turning, and the shot.
During those seconds, the threat went from being imminent in the present, to having been imminent several moments ago but now no longer such. It is after that point that a shot rings out. A shot after that point is unjustified, but amenable to the mitigating defense (as in its not a complete defense) of imperfect self defense if one earnestly, but unreasonably, believed an imminent threat to remain present/be present.

You can see from the plain language of the statute that if the threat is not imminent, deadly force is not authorized. When you're retreating and unarmed you're no longer an imminent threat. He didn't dive into his waistband, or pockets, there is no legitimate claim of "but I thought he was going for a gun or knife" to turn flight into tactical retreat to cover. There are no facts to support such.
Watch the tape again: He's retreating when shot, backing away and beginning his turn. Someone backing away and turning to run is not in the process of imminently attacking. Not in the process of imminently attacking or continuing same? Not fair game.
Mere threat was sufficient to halt the assault? Progressing the force continuum into use of deadly force is not authorized.

 

Just use a strawman!! Quixote style!

 

You may quote where I bitched about ad hominem instead of simply pointing out you misattributed a quote, what that said about you, and calling you chickenshit. Don't worry. I'll wait.

And shooter goes to prison for shooting too late. Very open and shut.

 

I'm repeating your argument.

You've said multiple times that "he stepped back and the threat was ended".

I don't blame you for trying to take one step back from your really bad argument though. Pun intended.

 

Oh I see.

What's the window of time you have for shooting someone. Is it more or less than 3 seconds.

I'll wait.

 

People who shoot at someone, miss, and step back are SAFE!

The threat is no longer imminent!

 

Doesnt matter what you want to call it , the guy was in no danger of the victim who was unarmed out of reach and backing away.

 

Except Drejka did not know that McGlockton did not possess a weapon on his person. Nor is there any legal standard which holds a person who is unarmed is not a threat to another.

 

He fights logic like a 200lb sturgeon on the end of that line bro.

 

Cite the statute.

Except it is not. Once someone initiates violent force against another, they have demonstrate that they are a credible threat. Their mere continued presence in the area, especially when they are not restrained, constitutes a continued threat of harm. One cannot commit an assault against another, proceed to immediately claim they do not wish to continue after getting in their attack, and expect the matter to suddenly cease. The law of the united states does not work that way.

Pray tell, exactly what amounts to "imminent" with regard to a threat, when the one who initiated unprovoked violence remains in the immediate area?

Once again. One cannot commit an assault against another, proceed to immediately claim they do not wish to continue after getting in their attack, and expect the matter to suddenly cease. The law of the united states does not work that way.

McGlockton was not in the act of retreating from the scene. A retreat is not done when facing forward towards the threat. Retreat does not involve one or two steps while still remaining in the immediate area.

Beyond that matter, is must be proven by the prosecutor that Drejka, who was assaulted not even five seconds before discharging his firearm, did not believe McGlockton presented an imminent threat to his well being if he did not act. It must be proven that Drejka knew the assault was not going to continue, and that his actions were not only deliberate, but also motivated and driven by malice and revenge. It must actually be demonstrated that Drejka knew fell well that McGlockton was not going to try and continue the assault if given the opportunity to respond in such a manner, but would have instead surrendered and made no effort to retaliate.

 

Then he could have just pulled his gun, if the vicitm then actually attacked him he had plenty of time to respond.

He got angry because he was pushed and took revenge knowing he can abuse those laws .

 

Was he violent felon?

 

What accounts say he was yelling? Who do you think tends to yell first middle aged white guys or young black women with a prima donna I got my rights attitudes?

 

So you havent even read the applicable statute in your research? I cited it earlier even.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

You dont know the definition of imminent? That didn't come up in your supposedly copious research? My, perhaps you should discover its definition and apply it to the facts to prove yourself right?

You've also got your standards wrong. Dreijkas fear can be genuine if unreasonable and lead to exactly what I'm talking about. Hence my point.
Read the statute and discover the definition of imminent and share it with the class, (call it your contribution since I had to hunt the statute already quoted for you) and see if you dont want to change your statements here.

 

Do you think you would be angry? I certainly would be and would be grateful my weapon had stopped further attack and threat of serious harm or even death. I don't think I would have pulled the trigger and think he may serve time for it. But yeah I'd have been real angry and rightfully so don't you think? And you know what else? I'd have been scared ****less. Scared of more serious bodily harm or even this guy might kill me. And had I a weapon perfectly justifies to pull it out and brandish it in order to stop the attack.

That's where the this begins and what the jury will have to decide. Was the shot out of malice, was it out of reason assumption of a threat, was accidental due to the circumstance, the fear and anger the attack by McClockton had instilled on Drykea. It will probably get down to a matter of what degree of a manslaughter was it and what sentence should he receive based on his ability to convince the jury the gun just went off.

If it is suspended with probation on the lowest end and 10 years on the higher end what say you? Me? Based on what we know now which is basically the video, 5 years or below based on what happens at trial. I want to hear how the judge explains what and how the law applies to the jury and what each side presents their case. And his only defense may be to take the stand and place himself at the mercy of the court.

 

It happens all the time. There are thousands of cases where a home owner shoots a home invader who is fleeing, with no charges filed against the home owner for doing so. Sometimes fatally so.