Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
and then

Florida's Stand your ground to be tested

1,378 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Dark_Grey
1 hour ago, Myles said:

If any 3 of them would have done the "right thing", this would not have ended with a death.  

That seems to be the moral of this very tragic story

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks

The following article is worth the read as it raises some interesting points about this case, as well as the stand your ground law itself:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/florida-s-stand-your-ground-law-incentivizes-violence-markeis-mcglockton-ncna894356

Take the following point for example:

But what if McGlockton, instead of shoving Drejka, had instead pulled out a gun of his own and shot and killed him? Given the facts as reported, McGlockton could have claimed that he was the one acting reasonably by protecting not only himself, but also his girlfriend and young children. Drejka had approached the car unbidden, had acted aggressively and was armed. Under the principles of “stand your ground," it seems possible that McGlockton could have killed Drejka and successfully argued self-defense.

Given that under the law an individual only has to feel threatened to use deadly force, McGlockton could very well have argued self-defense had the outcome been different.. But it's not the events leading to the shooting that should be the issue here. The issue is a law that appears unnecessary, dangerous, and in some respects, a license to kill.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

yea, he could, he could also not get shot if he continued the assault when mcglockton was on the ground, and later claim he was afraid for his life due to mcglockton being aggressive and armed, and he could prbly get away too,  but he made a mistake, by not finishing what he started. never start a fight you can not finish

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bama13

Or McGlockton could have not assaulted Drejka in the first place. He could have just asked what the problem was and then told his wife she shouldn't have parked in a handicap spot. Probably end of story.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, Bama13 said:

Or McGlockton could have not assaulted Drejka in the first place. He could have just asked what the problem was and then told his wife she shouldn't have parked in a handicap spot. Probably end of story.

you making too much sense now, stop

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks

Can't help but wonder what difference it would have made had McGlockton been white and Drejka black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bama13
5 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Can't help but wonder what difference it would have made had McGlockton been white and Drejka black.

Can't help but wonder why you wonder? This didn't have a damn thing to do with race.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
5 hours ago, aztek said:

yes,  do not push, knock people down, you may get shot,  or if you do, make sure they are not able to retaliate. if the attacker did not walk away after pushing the guy, but kicked him and knocked him out, he would be alive. there was enough time, and it was pretty clear the guy was reaching for the gun. but he walked away and gave him time and opportunity to shoot.

Are you actually saying he had to be shot because he let the other guy pull the gun out? wow.

It's rather ironic that you're so anti-police, I can picture you as a cop shooting people who are handcuffed.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, Rlyeh said:

Are you actually saying he had to be shot because he let the other guy pull the gun out? wow.

 

lmao, no, that was something you imagined, i said something very different.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
Just now, aztek said:

lmao, no, that was something you imagined, i said something very different.

No, I quoted what you said. You're saying he shouldn't have backed away after seeing the other guy pull out the gun.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore
11 hours ago, and then said:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-parking-lot-shooting-raises-questions-about-states-stand-your-ground-law/

This case will probably be a strong test of the stand your ground law in many states.  For those not familiar, an altercation occurred in the parking lot of a convenience store in Florida and a man was left dead after physically assaulting a stranger.  The stranger was an older, white guy who had a habit of confronting people who improperly parked in Handicap spaces.  The lot was mostly empty but the woman driver chose to park in the handicap space and after walking around the vehicle to see if it had a permit and not finding one, he began to tell the young woman she was breaking the law.  Her husband came out of the store and attacked the guy with no warning, shoving him to the ground very forcefully.  He then took a couple of steps back.  The guy who got shoved to the ground reached back, pulled a pistol and put one in the guy's chest.  The young guy died.

The CCTV video shows the altercation but has no sound.  The older guy says he was in fear for his life.  The local cops declined to arrest him because of the "Stand your ground" laws in FLA.  It's a shame that the guy had to die but I think he escalated the situation far beyond what he needed to.  It seems like this probably wasn't the first time he went straight to overreaction... but it certainly was his last time to do so.  What say Y'all?  Should a person be able to use deadly force if they are in fear for their life?  I say yes.  

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?

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, Rlyeh said:

No, I quoted what you said. You're saying he shouldn't have backed away after seeing the other guy pull out the gun.

yea, that is exactly what i said,  so what is your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
7 minutes 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?

I believe that's the controversial part of this. This case seems like it rides the line between those two statutes.

Here is the link to the unedited, 25 second CCTV recording. Take a look and judge for yourself

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
Just now, aztek said:

yea, that is exactly what i said,  so what is your point?

Besides the fact you're advocating people should fight to the death? 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, Rlyeh said:

Besides the fact you're advocating people should fight to the death? 

yea besides that imaginary fact of yours

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
1 minute ago, aztek said:

yea besides that imaginary fact of yours

That imaginary fact you keep repeating;

1 hour ago, aztek said:

yea, he could, he could also not get shot if he continued the assault when mcglockton was on the ground, and later claim he was afraid for his life due to mcglockton being aggressive and armed, and he could prbly get away too,  but he made a mistake, by not finishing what he started. never start a fight you can not finish

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, Rlyeh said:

That imaginary fact you keep repeating;

 

where did i said he HAD TO get shot because he walked away\let the other guy pull a gun?????? as you claimed i said

Quote

Are you actually saying he had to be shot because he let the other guy pull the gun out? wow.

 

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
10 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

The Police and the D.A. obviously disagree with you.

That illustrates nothing more than a huge failing in the system. I'm 51, I'm older than the so called old guy. I can run a kilometer without stopping, push a sled of 100kg and bench and squat my bodyweight and he is 4 years younger than me. He has no right at all to be harrasing people over where they park he is nor police is is a sick wierdo.

The police failed in their duties not charging him with murder immediately. And if that's the law its barbaric and uncivilised and desperately needs to change. This is a sad abhorrent story and a clear cut case of murder. It sickens me that we have places on earth where such 'tribal justice' can be carried out. This example screams how badly the US needs gun control, and how it turn people into animals, and why its not the greatest country in the planet anymore.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
1 minute ago, aztek said:

where did i said he HAD TO get shot because he waled away?????? as you claimed i said

Why are you still stuck on that? You already agreed he shouldn't have backed off. You then went further and advocated them fighting to the death.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, psyche101 said:

That illustrates nothing more than a huge failing in the system. I'm 51, I'm older than the so called old guy. I can run a kilometer without stopping, push a sled of 100kg and bench and squat my bodyweight and he is 4 years younger than me. He has no right at all to be harrasing people over where they park he is nor police is is a sick wierdo.

The police failed in their duties not charging him with murder immediately. And if that's the law its barbaric and uncivilised and desperately needs to change. This is a sad abhorrent story and a clear cut case of murder. It sickens me that we have places on earth where such 'tribal justice' can be carried out. This example screams how badly the US needs gun control, and how it turn people into animals, and why its not the greatest country in the planet anymore.

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

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

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, Rlyeh said:

Why are you still stuck on that?

on what exactly?  your trolling is becoming annoying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

This example screams how badly the US needs gun control, and how it turn people into animals, and why its not the greatest country in the planet anymore.

No one should be allowed to take away your right to defend yourself. Unfortunately, in order for good people to be allowed that right, there will be accidents and casualties. No different than driving a car: 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. Americans have decided gun ownership is also worth the risks. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore
33 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

I believe that's the controversial part of this. This case seems like it rides the line between those two statutes.

Here is the link to the unedited, 25 second CCTV recording. Take a look and judge for yourself

Thanks for the hand with that. I did watch the CCTV recording. It was the aspect of HYG vs SD that I was wondering about. I could understand the SD aspect from the video, but wasn't' sure why/how the HYG was implemented instead of SD.

Around here HYG is more with personal home/property kind of stuff, not so much public areas- those tend to fall under SD. Guess I should hie myself off to the local laws around there and inform myself before passing judgments or making opinions about this whole mess.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
23 minutes ago, aztek said:

on what exactly?  your trolling is becoming annoying

What did I just say? You really don't need to play dumb.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
1 hour ago, Bama13 said:

Can't help but wonder why you wonder? This didn't have a damn thing to do with race.

I was referring to the follow-up, legally and otherwise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.