Florida's Stand your ground to be tested

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Dark_Grey said:

No one should be allowed to take away your right to defend yourself.

You somehow consider this incident defence? 

That's shows your suspending reason for your want right there. 

1 hour ago, Dark_Grey said:

Unfortunately, in order for good people to be allowed that right, there will be accidents and casualties.

Kids killed in schools, a father murdered in front of his son. That well illustrates that there are more irresponsible people than you can control by a long shot, and in my opinion your perceived rights are not worthy of the deaths that pay for them. This is an absolute disgrace to America, you ought to be ashamed of your laws when they allow acts like this to happen just so you can keep a gun in the closet just in case, that a percentage of children find and kill themselves with as well, you have no sense of justice, no sense of balance. 

1 hour ago, Dark_Grey said:

No different than driving a car:

Yes it is, not even close. 

1 hour ago, Dark_Grey said:

the vast majority of drivers can handle themselves just fine on the road but every so often you will encounter a reckless driver, a drunk driver, etc. As a society, we have accepted the risk vs. the benefit and collectively decided it's worth the risk to continue to drive cars.

Its a dumb analogy I've heard time and again. Just because people die driving cars not condone deadly weapons being freely available in most parts of America when incidents like this are a regular occurrence. Countries with gun control have car accidents too, but they don't have kids being shot for going to school or fathers shot in front of their son for defending their wives. It's deplorable that you would even try to justify such deadly barbarity with transport incidents. You can keep telling yourself that it somehow justifies the murders, but you just look cold hearted and ignorant to anyone who is not so enamoured with deadly weapons so that it doesn't cloud real logic for them. You're just suspending logic, common sense, reason and empathy to protect a perceived right. 

1 hour ago, Dark_Grey said:

Americans have decided gun ownership is also worth the risks. 

And that's why America isn't great anymore. Its not a place to hold up as a role model, its not somthing a civilised person would want to emulate. Many other countries have surpassed this barbarity, America should have led the way but its sinking instead. This is nothing to be proud of. Its not worth the risk and most of the world doesn't agree with the percentage of citizens childishly demanding access to deadly weapons. It's horrifying how Americans defend weapons during incidents like this. 

[godnodog]

US gun laws are just plain stupid, and this stand your ground is just another plain stupid law. 

This is a clear case why ordinary people should not be allowed access to guns.

"Guns dont kill people, people kill people" oh faqoff

Guns are made to kill, you can all come with the "self protection" bs you want, guns are made to kill, swords are made to kill, grenades are made to kill,etc etc, all killing tools made by people who wanted to design weapons to kill.

Unless you are in a goddam war zone, no mans land or in a lawless country you dont need to carry weapons designed to kill.

This guy is an assassin anywhere else in a civilized country, period, but murica and fridoom.

 

[Kittens Are Jerks]

11 minutes ago, Myles said:

I have no reason to think race plays any factor at all.  

3 dumb people making dumb decisions.   

I think the shooter should not have pulled the trigger.   There was no reason to pull the trigger.   I'm not sure what he should be charged with.   Since I don't know his state of mind at the time, I wouldn't say murder.   Maybe involuntary manslaughter.  

I agree, although I wasn't suggesting that race had anything to do with the incident itself.  I was referring more to the legal aftermath.

Take, for example, the following summary of findings of a 2015 study of the stand your ground law:

After examining 204 incidents where the law was citied—and controlling for multiple variables, including “whether the defendant could have retreated from the situation, whether the defendant pursued the victim, if the victim was unarmed, and who was the initiator of the confrontation”— researchers found that the “race of the victim” was a strong “predictor in the conviction of a suspect” and that “a suspect is twice as likely to be convicted of a crime if the victim is white, compared to when the victim is not white.”

That's why I wondered whether the legal outcome might have been different if the shooter was black, and the victim was white.

[psyche101]

12 hours ago, Browng0at said:

Thats an act of violence within itself which could have killed the older man on his side as well. 

Ffs

47 is not old 

 

You're all acting is if it was a decrepit senior citizen. 47 is fit and active. I'm 51 and am very fit. 

 

The shooter should not be harassing people for where they park, he was not a cop, he was an ahole picking on a woman and when a man showed up, the pathetic coward pulled out the so called 'great equaliser' and murdered his way out of picking on a woman and small child. He was not a cop, not even a security guard. He was a jerk picking on easy targets and now a murderer. I understand the sentence for murder in Florida is the death sentence. The shooting ahole deserves that. He is just pathetic spineless scum. 

[psyche101]

12 hours ago, freetoroam said:

I agree..he should not have been murdered. But how many times do we see these senseless murders? Too many. 

But they still took the piste by parking where ever they liked....ofcourse, the murder does out weight that, but still disregarded the signs.

Absolutely no way do i justify what the murderer has done, but i do not condone parking in the wrong place cos you feel like it....but..again...no reason to get shot dead for.

Too many lunatics with guns out there, maybe people will think twice about where they park or maybe they will carry a gun with them next time......that is how crazy this all is! 

 

The insane killer was not a cop, not a security guard. It's none of his business. He is a wierdo looking to pick on women and kids and had a gun in case a man showed up. He is a spineless disgusting fraak who had no business telling people where to park. If a normal person was so annoyed at people parking in the wrong place, they would approach the shopping centres management and or call local security guards. This wierdo decided he would be the law and took vigilante action. Its not his car park, nor his land, he was not put in a difficult situation because the people parked there. He is a killer and a disgusting example of a human being and a perfect illustration of why the US gun laws are a huge failure  and seen so by most of the civilised world. 

He deserves the full extent of the law for first degree murder. That the cops are too gutless to throw him in jail immediately just shows a massive failing in the system. 

[psyche101]

9 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

A lot of people on this thread seem to think McGlockton had the "moral" right to physically assault Drejka for verbally arguing with his girlfriend.  

Yes very much so. He was acting in self defence on his wife's behalf, whether she knew he was armed or not, she had a psycho armed gunman abusing her for no good reason at all and there's no good reason that psycho would not have murdered her if she stood up to him. A shove is an assault charge, its not a reason to murder in any civilised country, that some people in this thread think it is well illustrates the failings in your system. 

There's every chance that freak gunman could have murdered his wife with his unstable mindset  just as if he might have died if his head hit the ground sharply. Shame it didn't, the family would still have a father, and some lunatic would not be harrasing people he has no right to abuse. That pig of a man gave up his right to be part of society when he entered the car park armed looking to pick a fight. This shows the stand your ground laws are a massive failure and ridiculous in nature. 

[psyche101]

6 hours ago, freetoroam said:

Car park rage. And someone got shot. 

Thats Florida. In England, even if a few words are exchanged, the driver moves, we are not afraid to tell people here that they are parked in the wrong place, i do not get why people are seeing that as wrong on Drejkas behalf.

I have done it, but we do not have guns here. 

You shouldn't, it's not up to you to do so. 

Everyone is speculating, theres reasons a family might need a park like that when not disabled  they had a child, the father might have needed a asthma puffer for his child or another family member, his wife might have been diabetic and forgot her medication and suddenly needed it, there's plenty of reasons one might not fathom before going off over a parking space the only reasonable course of action is to call the centres security and take a photo of the number plate, then let the right questions be asked. 

The man, if we can call this scumbag a man, was bullying a woman and child and was all tough till a man showed up. He is a gutless low life without a sense of decency who fills his life playing cop on easy targets. He should be charged with murder if there is any justice here. 

[freetoroam]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

You shouldn't, it's not up to you to do so. 

Everyone is speculating, theres reasons a family might need a park like that when not disabled  they had a child, the father might have needed a asthma puffer for his child or another family member, his wife might have been diabetic and forgot her medication and suddenly needed it, there's plenty of reasons one might not fathom before going off over a parking space the only reasonable course of action is to call the centres security and take a photo of the number plate, then let the right questions be asked. 

The man, if we can call this scumbag a man, was bullying a woman and child and was all tough till a man showed up. He is a gutless low life without a sense of decency who fills his life playing cop on easy targets. He should be charged with murder if there is any justice here. 

He should be charged with murder...i have no doubts on that one.

There is no excuse for people parking in a disabled spot when they should not be. Here supermarkets have disabled spots and mother and child spots. 

It is pure laziness and disrespectful for people to ignore road signs and not a good example infront of the children if they are in the car.

I am certainly no scumbag or a bully if i see someone parking somewhere they should not be and remind them. There is a way of telling someone without it being bullying.  I certainly would not stand and take a picture of someones car while they are sitting in it (as she was)....that is asking for trouble. Best remind them they are the wrong spot and see what they say, i have only done this a couple of times and each time they have apologised and moved. We have security at the marina where i am living  but a polite reminder normally does the trick. 

We have a boaters only car park and if someone pulls in there without a badge, the boaters tell them to move, politely, we do not go running to security. ....all move. Security do not care, they have a very big area to manage and the boaters car park is not a priority to them. We can deal with it as people do move when told to....they do not start an argument and know here they can not park where ever they like. 

We have every right to tell them to move, we pay for the boaters parking area. 

In this case, if the father needed a puffer for his child he should have gone to the pharmacy.

The spot is for someone with a badge....what if all the disabled places are taking up by people going in to buy snacks (as was this case)  and a disabled person came along, where do they park.?

Do not get me wrong, i do not wait or watch out for bad parkers like Drejka seems to have done.

People who insist on ignoring the road and parking signs have no right being on the road. 

Saying all that, this all got way out if hand, the shop owner knew Drejka as he had called the police on him before, but he was allowed back and was doing it again???

 a customer had gone into the shop and told them he was harassing someone that day,.....apparently... or maybe they had gone in to report someone was parked in a disabled bay?

The mother got out of her car, with the children in the car and as we know, this lunatic had a gun. 

The father should have just come back and driven off.

We do not know if Drejka had told her politely and she told him to get lost. Either way, she should not have parked there. Either way....he should never had shot the father who should never have pushed him to the ground. 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by freetoroam

[freetoroam]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

whether she knew he was armed or not, she had a psycho armed gunman abusing her for no good reason at all

All the more reason she should never of had opened her car door.

But he did not have his gun out when talking to her and we do not know what he was saying to her. He may have been reminding her she was in a disabled spot and she may have given him a mouthful first. The father had no qualms of pushing someone to the ground in front of his children, physical contact was not called for at that stage.

Again no excuse for him to shoot her husband in the chest, but again, mistakes all round here and the fatal one was the biggest and final one. 

[+and-then]

17 hours ago, Wickian said:

If he does get off with a Stand Your Ground defense, it will be just barely within the confines of that law.  Being attacked and knocked to the ground unawares and very roughly by a much younger man could potentially make him fear for his life when all he was doing was nagging them for breaking the law and parking in a handicap spot.  Given the second or two he hesitates with the man not advancing on him before he shot though, I don't think he'll get that defense.

I think it will be an iffy defense and it may help to refine the boundaries of that law.  After watching the tape several times, the hothead doesn't begin backing up until the other guy reaches for his weapon.  We can't hear what is being said and that could be important as well.  They both overreacted but I think the law tends to give the shooter the benefit of the doubt more than the original aggressor.  It will be an interesting case to watch.  I carry regularly and if put in that situation I can't imagine shooting the guy.  But that's a call a person can only make when they experience  such an event.  I walk in the evenings regularly.  If someone pulled over, got out and laid hands on me, they'd have a bad day.  Not because I'm a bloodthirsty redneck but because the rational reaction in such a situation is to expect a beat down or worse.  Sometimes there are lines you just don't cross because you can set yourself up for a really bad outcome.  

[+and-then]

16 hours ago, Kismit said:

His life was not threatened

That is YOUR perception of an event that you viewed (without sound) from a calm, logical perspective.  The reason the young guy shouldn't have laid hands on a stranger is exactly because of that law.  The law is based on the perception of life-threatening danger by an aggressor.  Words are NEVER enough to justify what the hothead did.  When he got violent with the older guy, he opened the door to what happened.  Bottom line is that the guy who went straight to violence made a choice that led to a really poor outcome.  He COULD have refrained from breaking bad but he chose not to.  He paid with his life.

[freetoroam]

1 minute ago, and then said:

That is YOUR perception of an event that you viewed (without sound) from a calm, logical perspective.  The reason the young guy shouldn't have laid hands on a stranger is exactly because of that law.  The law is based on the perception of life-threatening danger by an aggressor.  Words are NEVER enough to justify what the hothead did.  When he got violent with the older guy, he opened the door to what happened.  Bottom line is that the guy who went straight to violence made a choice that led to a really poor outcome.  He COULD have refrained from breaking bad but he chose not to.  He paid with his life.

I still do not get why some are defending the younger guy for physically attacking someone. It was not called for. Drejka was not physically attacking his wife, infact, she opened the car door. Had she felt threatened for herself and her children, she should have locked the door. 

[+and-then]

15 hours ago, Kismit said:

One human being dished out a death sentence. There is precedent for a death sentence, there is also precedent for the use of deadly force, being pushed over is coincedently not on that list either.

Being pushed over is also not on the list of life threatening incidents. You do not need to defend yourself with deadly force unless your life or your family is in a life or death situation.

The young guy assaulted him.  He didn't try to do anything except attack the guy.  At THAT point, the law favors the person who is on the defense.  Period.  No physical assault, then the shooter would certainly be guilty of murder.  Once the guy laid hands on him, all bets are off and it becomes an issue of personal perception.  Had the guy turned and been shot in the back, I'd agree with you.  He didn't.

[+Hammerclaw]

The moral of the story is--don't start something with a perfect stranger, 'cause that stranger might not be feelin' so perfect that day.

[psyche101]

5 hours ago, aztek said:

yea well, that is not how things work in usa.

Yes, you condone wierd is trolling carparks to instigate murder. Not sure why you are proud of that. 

5 hours ago, aztek said:

we will figure ourselves what heeds to be changed in OUR country, thank you very much.

Indeed, and the rest of the world can continue to count needless deaths watching you fail at what you keep telling us you are so good at. We can't change it, but we can be disgusted by such barbarism. This incident shows what a disgrace gun culture can result in. You've shown your defiance sure, but it's something to be ashamed of  not proud of. 

[+and-then]

14 hours ago, Kismit said:

f you walked out of a store and your Mother/Brother/Wife/child/friend that you left in your parked car is being verbally abused, at close range, in their face so to speak.

You came to this conclusion based on hearing what he said?  I heard nothing.  We have her statement of what happened.  In this country, you cannot justify violence against a person based on being offended by their words.

[+and-then]

14 hours ago, Kismit said:

So self defense is only acceptable so long as it is lethal and after the act?

The young guy wasn't being threatened nor had his wife been touched.  That's the difference.  When he escalated to physical violence he set himself up for what happened.  He didn't deserve to die for having an overreaction but the older guy didn't deserve to be physically assaulted, either.  The guy had just been forcibly shoved to the ground and the guy who did it might well have pulled his own weapon.  It all happened very quickly.  Had he hesitated and the other guy pulled a weapon, he'd be dead and the young guy would be facing a murder charge.

[Will Due]

11 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Yes, you condone wierd is trolling carparks to instigate murder. Not sure why you are proud of that. 

Indeed, and the rest of the world can continue to count needless deaths watching you fail at what you keep telling us you are so good at. We can't change it, but we can be disgusted by such barbarism. This incident shows what a disgrace gun culture can result in. You've shown your defiance sure, but it's something to be ashamed of  not proud of. 

 

I'm sure you aren't proud of the fact that it was Americans who used their guns to keep the Japanese from overrunning your country Australia during WW2. 

 

 

[+and-then]

14 hours ago, Kismit said:

And I believe the right to defend what is yours, ie:your family, out weighs the right to defend a disabled carpark. I hope this case does go further. I hope that a sensible and moral decision is eventually reached and that the law is tested to become what it should be. 

The law will either be upheld as is or it will be revisited and refined.  That's up to the people of the State of Florida.  The application of the law, in this case, seems marginal but unless one was there to witness the whole event it is too difficult to make the call.  One thing seems sure, if he isn't prosecuted, the message is going to be sent that good manners and self-restraint is the best idea when you find yourself in a conflict with strangers.

[freetoroam]

5 minutes ago, and then said:

You came to this conclusion based on hearing what he said?  I heard nothing.  We have her statement of what happened.  In this country, you cannot justify violence against a person based on being offended by their words.

As you say we hear nothing, but we do see a woman open her car door to a man who is allegedy  verbally abusing her.....she opens the door even with the children in the car. 

Maybe she saw the husband coming, so what was the intension there, to both start a row with Drejka, again, infront of the children. 

8 minutes ago, and then said:

Had he hesitated and the other guy pulled a weapon, he'd be dead and the young guy would be facing a murder charge.

Would be interesting to know if they did have a gun too. Neither the wife or husband seemed afraid of Drejka and looks like if McGlockton had not been shot, this would have escalated.

I mentioned earlier,  what would have happened if Drejka did not pull out a gun , but got up and started to fight back? 

The father started the physical assault and he knew his children were watching, as did the wife when she opened the car door.

These two did not feel.threatened, they were peeved for being told off and instead of doing the right thing, get in and stay in the car and get their children away from this nutter, they were up for having a fight with him, infront of the children. 

[+and-then]

12 hours ago, South Alabam said:

So now every time someone gets pushed in an altercation, you can shoot them. Got it.

The law is about the personal perception of life-threatening danger.  Making that call from an armchair where no adrenalin is flowing isn't possible.  You want to remove the jeopardy?  Don't lay hands on a stranger - problem solved.

[+and-then]

6 hours ago, rashore said:

Ok.. so haven't read through the thread yet, so just quoting the OP to ask...

I'm wondering how/why this is stand your ground and not a self-defense thing? Or is that why this is a testing thing, because it's being run under stand your ground instead of self-defense?

 

Essentially they are the same thing.  In some states, a person has an obligation to retreat and do everything possible to avoid the aggressor.  Many states have (rightly, IMO) put the onus on the aggressor and allow the person who is assaulted or threatened to have no duty to retreat at all.  

[freetoroam]

7 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

I'm sure you aren't proud of the fact that it was Americans who used their guns to keep the Japanese from overrunning your country Australia during WW2. 

 

 

Jeeze for real? Are you comparing the likes of Drejka and people who over reacted with their guns to soldiers who were trained and went to help others in another country? 

There have seen countless needless deaths, we have seen many threads about another lunatic gunman, and you want to justify them having guns because the Americans went to Australia in WW2 ?

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

Jeeze for real? Are you comparing the likes of Drejka and people who over reacted with their guns to soldiers who were trained and went to help others in another country? 

There have seen countless needless deaths, we have seen many threads about another lunatic gunman, and you want to justify them having guns because the Americans went to Australia in WW2 ?

 

Americans own guns to prepare themselves and their children to deal with the fact that guns need to be used sometimes. It's a mindset that a lot of people in other countries ignore.

Ignore until they need American men and women to come to their country and possibly die while protecting them because they refuse to protect themselves with guns.

And I'm really tired of foreigners telling us what to do with our guns.

 

 

[psyche101]

41 minutes ago, Will Due said:

I'm sure you aren't proud of the fact that it was Americans who used their guns to keep the Japanese from overrunning your country Australia during WW2. 

Our diggers held their own thanks very much. in the world: how the Yanks saw the Digger

You think America is a war zone do you? Or is that what you would like? Either way, not far off it really is it.