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

More dancing...........

 

let them know that their behavior is unacceptable

do you think I should have instead shoved them to the ground?

is that what a REAL man would have done?

 

After he shoves him he takes a few steps towards him on the ground. I watched it frame by frame.

When the gun makes it's introduction he stops, takes a step back, then a step to the side. Then he is shot from about 10' away.

About 3 or 4 seconds elapse in total from the time he is shoved until the trigger is pulled.

He doesn't turn or flee until he's actually been hit.

Did he, from an ethical standpoint HAVE to pull the trigger? Morally and ethically, maybe not.

Despite the assurances of other people, we do not know what the result would have been had he not pulled the trigger.

People have been killed before in exactly this situation: gun out, pointed at attacker, and have had their guns taken and used on THEM because they didn't pull the trigger.

Did he, from a legal standpoint have a right to pull the trigger? Absolutely.

Self-defense doesn't end because the guy who just violently attacked you takes a step back when he sees a gun.

 

Your argument is that because the black thug didn't turn and run upon seeing the firearm, the shooting was justified? That won't hold up in court. In fact, I imagine a judge would sustain any objection to such a defense being offered. Self defense never ends. The use of deadly force in self defense has limits.

I just watched a video of the black thug's girlfriend saying "she had a right to park anywhere she wanted". Man, even when these black thugs are the victim they do everything in their power to make you want to take the side of the people murdering them.

 

It was and it will.

There is no requirement that you're currently being beaten before you can pull the trigger.

It simply requires the reasonable belief that an individual seeks to cause you death or serious bodily injury.

A belief that is clearly established by an already carried out attack, advancing again after the initial attack, being shot in his chest while facing the shooter, and being within 10' of the victim which is a fairly common range for most self defense shootings.

People are trying to equate the morally questionable decision to shoot with the legal right to self defense.

Legally the shooting was justified.

The guy who pulled the trigger doesn't have to prove it was self defense.

The state has to prove that it wasn't self defense.

 

If he stopped and then retreated, and he's unarmed, and not only wasn't in arms length when he stopped but now that he has backed up is surely even farther away, he's not an imminent (key word) threat any longer.

You stated earlier it was only my opinion that there is no per se rule on distance opening you up for deadly force. You find that chart in the statute yet chief? Or is it only in your head?

Not in such a situation, in this one, see the tape you provided.

I don't have to prove anything, I'm not the prosecutor in a court of law. I'm simply pointing out you are wrong, and you cannot support your assertions in the plain language of the statute or by case law. Unless.... you've got that chart? No chart? Does the chart not exist?

Actually you've only just now added "reasonable" to that line. Every other time you've said that in this thread previously, you left out reasonable. Remember when I had to correct you because you can't even keep the standard straight? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

 

That's a definition you just pulled out of your nether regions. You know as well as I do that everything you just said was only your opinion and feelings.

Of course reasonable is always part of the equation. That's the standard of every jury. If you'd like me to point out the obvious every time just let me know.

 

I didn't define anything in that post so I'm confused as to what it is you assume I have plucked from my ass.

It was reasoned analysis based upon the plain language of the statute and existing case law paired with undisputed fact.


You got that chart yet? O... there's no chart? So when you said my statement that 'there is no per se formula in the statute or case law stating that when you're within 10' you're fair game' you were, to be kind, "speculating"? Or that just because you pulled you get to use? You got a chart for that in the statute?
Eh?

You stated the prosecution must prove he wasn't in fear to get imperfect self defense. That is simply wrong and demonstrates a lack on knowledge over what imperfect self defense is, and I was merely correcting you.
Imperfect self defense requires genuine but unreasonable fear. You don't have to prove he wasn't afraid, therefore, and any statement that that is the standard of proof is laughably incorrect.

 

Of course you did. You defined "imminent threat".

Clearly you also don't understand innocent until proven guilty, either.

It was either a justified self defense shooting, or it is not. The state clearly must prove that it is not.

They must prove he was not in fear of death or serious bodily injury from a man who just attacked him and was still 10' away.

On top of that they must prove that after 4 seconds of being attacked and landing, drawing and shooting, that he wasn't still under threat at the time he pulled the trigger.

Good luck, Quixote.

 

I did not apply a definition to imminent threat. Yet again you fail to understand that imminent, like reasonable, is a question of fact for finder of fact,the jury, to determine. It is not a charted definition for them to be informed of that fits the exact facts. ARUGMENTS must be made that X facts trigger the definition in this case. All I have done is apply law to facts, and make the argument that: since the assailant was unarmed and in retreat their threat was no longer imminent under these particular facts in this particular case. So not "because X number of steps was taken, leaving the dead man at x feet, you can clearly see he is outside the statutory limit of distance from target laid out in the deadly force statute" but "this was not an imminent threat any longer because upon the production of a firearm in threat of deadly force he had 1) stopped, 2) backpeddled 3) began to turn over his right shoulder to flee, over the course of several seconds while Dreijka lined up his shot and made the determination to fire at the end of those several seconds, evidencing that the assault was stopped by threat of force. The assault having been stopped by threat of force, use of deadly force was no longer authorized from that moment on. "
You'll notice that I don't actually define imminent there, I make an argument that certain conduct is evidence tending to show that something is not imminent. That's not a definition. I'm not using a definition for imminent because if you don't know it now, you're just further demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the subject. Just like I don't define ****ing reasonable, because I shouldn't have to in a discussion forum between informed persons.

 

Great. Like I said, good luck with the two-step defense.

I had a good laugh at your invention of the "threat of force makes pulling the trigger illegal though".

Good one.

Maybe you can get that added to the police manual. When they want to arrest someone they just point an empty gun at them and at that point they've ended the threat.

 

Conservatives say: "if the black guy didn't run away at 20 mph, hollering and waving his arms, there was no retreat"

 

Then actually go about proving such to be the case, beyond a reasonable doubt. Do not merely claim that such is the case, demonstrate that the claim is based entirely on fact, and is not simply a misrepresentation on the part of yourself.

 

Seeing his past actions its quite clear. You just dont want to see that.

 

Was the citation even read by yourself prior to it being presented? It is doubtful such is the case, otherwise it would never have been presented on the part of yourself.

There is not so much as a single passage of the cited statute that actually reinforces and validates the claim being made on the part of yourself.

As has been stated once already, 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 or court ruling 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.

If such a legal doctrine actually exists, then actually cite it. The statute for the state of Florida does not even bear a passing resemblance to what is being claimed on the part of yourself.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/imminent

Imminent peril, for example, is danger that is certain, immediate, and impending, such as the type an individual might be in as a result of a serious illness or accident. The chance of the individual dying would be highly probable in such situation, as opposed to remote or contingent.

McGlockton had already demonstrated that he was willing to commit felony battery, aggravated assault, and a number of other violent offenses when he chose to intentionally and deliberately shove Drejka off his feet and to the ground. Had Drejka not drawn his firearm when he did, McGlockton was going to continue the assault, based on his aggressive posture and deliberate approach immediately after the shove. In this action, McGlockton demonstrated that he was a credible threat, and had every intention of actually making good on that threat. The mere fact he did not follow through at that specific moment in time means nothing. His continued mere presence in the immediate area, within ten feet of Drejka, would constitute a continued and credible threat based on the assault not five seconds previously.

Beyond that particular matter, McGlockton made no effort to show that he was not going to continue the assault, as he did not have his hands up, or make any effort to otherwise convey that he was done.

The statute cited by yourself does not specify what "imminent" amounts to with regard to this particular subject. The cited statute mentions the word nine specific times, but does not clarify specifically what it does and does not mean in practical, real-world, easily cited terms. The phrase "imminent" is subjective and means different things to different individuals based on their own experiences and knowledge. Simply because someone is not continuing a violent assault at one particular second does not mean that they no longer pose a legitimate threat of death or great bodily harm.

The interpretation on the part of yourself is particularly troublesome, based on the narrative that is being presented, about how the legal window for the use of deadly force for self defense purposes can disappear in an instant, even though the confirmed threat of harm is still present and physically able to reengage without warning.

 

Past actions have no bearing on the present incident, unless the felony conviction of McGlockton for violence against others is also fair game for a compare and contrast.

Beyond that matter, past actions do not amount to actual proof that the claim on the part of yourself is factually correct.

 

There are two primary statutes in Florida outlining when the use of deadly force is justified so as to avoid criminal liability. 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. Under Section 782.02, Florida Statutes, the use of deadly force is further justified when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which the person is located.

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/case-work/criminal-defense-articles/self-defense-florida/

 

782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.—Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0782/0782.html

 

(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.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...013&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html

 

Under Florida law, you can only use deadly force if you have a reasonable belief that such force is neccessary to prevent a violent felony.

it is UNREASONABLE to believe an unarmed someone backing away from you after you have presented a gun is still a threat

a REASONABLE person sees such a retreat as an end to the threat, or at least a suspension of the threat allowing you to arrest that person and hold them for the police.

 

Sure if he murdered someone as well by all mean use it.

ANd of course they show what kind of person he was quick to anger and respond, something he did here for no reason.

 

Taking a step back but remaining in the immediate area is not a retreat. Nor does it amount to no longer being a credible threat since violence was already initiated in an unprovoked manner. Beyond that, the prosecutor must demonstrate that Drejka knew, beyond reasonable doubt, that McGlockton was not going to make any further efforts at engaging in violence. Such is going to be extremely difficult in the current era where even law enforcement is trained to recognize that what looks like surrendering by a suspect may be nothing more than a possible ploy to attempt to regain control of the situation.

 

Not a two step defense, it's truly sad you're unable to grasp such a simple argument.

Not actually what I said. Poor little chickenshit, cant post without intentionally misattributing a quotes and lying.

lI'd thought that was the problem. You're looking at this from the perspective of the defendant being a police officer. No wonder you can't get the calculus right. Also, again, not actually what I said.

It's very sad you have to resort to strawmen to make your argument. I enjoy a good debate but you're so incompetent at it you suck all the fun out of it.

 

He actually doesnt have to show that BARD. In florida, self defense is asserted in the pre trial phase. Once a prima facie showing is made by the defendant, the prosecution must show by clear and convincing evidence they are not entitled to that defense. If they do, defendant may raise it at trial and likewise it must be show by clear and convincing evidence that self defense is not available under these facts, THEN must prove the underlying crime BARD.
If self defense is not disproven by clear and convincing evidence at either time, the defendant walks immediately.

I thought you did copious research on this earlier xen?
You didn't find that out?

Google "self defense immunity Florida ".

 

the jury might disagree