ADVERTISEMENT

Pinellas Sheriff Misapplies Stand Your Ground

sk8knight

sk8knight

Diamond Knight
Gold Member
Jun 23, 2001
18,835
18,277
113
In a recent homicide that is a potential self defense case, the Pinellas sheriff wrongly cites SYG as a justification for not arresting the shooter. In the video, , you can clearly see McGlockton being the aggressor and knocking the eventual shooter to the ground. Then the victim of the shove pulls his weapon and point it at McGlockton. It’s what happens next that should make the shooter a murderer and is not a justifiable self-defense nor a SYG case.

Upon seeing the weapon, McGlockton backs up and turns to walk away. At this point, he is no longer a threat and the shot should never have been taken. The shooter should have been arrested and should be facing charges. If McGlockton had lunged or moved forward upon seeing the weapon, then the shot would’ve been warranted.

So why isn’t it SYG? SYG only removes a duty to retreat. In other words, once the shooter was pushed to the ground, SYG meant he didn’t have to try to get away in the dangerous gas station before he could defend himself, an act that would put him in danger of getting run over in order to find “safety”. But none of that mattered in this case because McGlockton was retreating. The Pinellas sheriff got it horribly wrong and it will add to the dangerous misinformation that is out there about SYG. And the protestors should be protesting but they will be protesting against SYG which is a bad thing rather than just demanding that the sheriff pursue the right COA with an arrest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: knights of UCF, tribbleorlfl and Knight_Classes_begin_7pm
Happy Hands said:
Guy is a graduate of the George Zimmerman school of relating to black people. Why he though it was his business to bother a mother in a car with her child because she was illegally parked is beyond me. He carries his gun everywhere and that probably gives him some kind of dipshit courage.
Click to expand...
And that speaks even more to the sheriff’s wrongness because it removes the innocence factor of justifiable self defense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tribbleorlfl
As the law says, all that matters is that the shooter fears for his life. Much like the use of deadly force protocol for police that leads to many officer-involved shootings, the person only needs to believe his/her life is in danger. The guy was already assaulted once. Yes, the shooting victim retreated a bit, but it doesn't record what was said. Maybe he threatened more violence (doubtful), but that's what the shooter told the police - he feared more was coming.

All this over parking illegally in a handicapped spot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight_Light
CommuterBob said:
As the law says, all that matters is that the shooter fears for his life. Much like the use of deadly force protocol for police that leads to many officer-involved shootings, the person only needs to believe his/her life is in danger. The guy was already assaulted once. Yes, the shooting victim retreated a bit, but it doesn't record what was said. Maybe he threatened more violence (doubtful), but that's what the shooter told the police - he feared more was coming.

All this over parking illegally in a handicapped spot.
Click to expand...
That's not all that matters and this goes to not only legislation but also precedence. Reasonableness is only one component of self-defense. It's true that you have to have a reasonable fear of imminent grave bodily harm or death but there are actually 5 components to self defense: innocence, imminence, proportionality, reasonableness and avoidance. If the state disproves any one of these factors beyond a reasonable doubt, then you are going to jail for some homicide-related crime (i.e. murder, manslaughter, etc.) because you are admitting to the homicide as a predicate for your justification defense.

In this case, you can make the argument that the eventual shooter started the altercation with the woman that lead to McGlocken and therefore was not innocently going about his business. Then, is it reasonable that a normal person in the same circumstance given the same knowledge be in fear of grave bodily harm or death, which is the concept of objective reasonableness. So it's not enough that the person is in fear if no one else on earth would fear that situation. Then there's imminence, where this fails because McGlocken is retreating with no ranged weapon and does not pose an imminent threat. Remember, Michael Brown turned around and came back at Officer Wilson before Wilson fired. McGlocken retreated, thus there was no imminence. Proportionality, well, unarmed men can, and do, kill and so maybe drawing the weapon was proportional, maybe not. Finally, avoidance, once pushed to the ground, could the shooter have avoided the imminent threat entirely. Well, if you're pushed to the ground and a large dude is standing over you aggressively and there are cars and a road behind you, it's kind of hard to avoid the imminent threat. Then, unlike Zimmerman where Trayvon was on top of him beating about his head and there was no path to avoidance, SYG would remove the avoidance here because there was a path however dubious (in Ohio the shooter would've had to try to escape before he could use deadly force).
 
  • Like
Reactions: tribbleorlfl
Even the Detectives wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, because he initial instigated the situation. Same concept here. If someone is an a-hole, and a known a-hole, they need to be charged with manslaughter.

Now the person who was shot still committed a total and complete assault, and that should not be excused. Someone getting shouved like that could be seriously injured. But the shooter initiated the situation at the same time.

These cases are still extremely rare. Florida is still only #25 per-capita in shooting, and once organized crime is removed, it's actually in the bottom 10. We're actually a very, very safe state.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tribbleorlfl
UCFBS said:
Even the Detectives wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, because he initial instigated the situation. Same concept here. If someone is an a-hole, and a known a-hole, they need to be charged with manslaughter.

That was a complete assault and should not be excused. Someone getting shouved like that could be seriously injured. But the other guy initiated the situation at the same time.

These cases are still extremely rare. Florida is still only #25 per-capita in shooting, and once organized crime is removed, it's actually in the bottom 10. We're actually a very, very safe state.
Click to expand...
Except that the trial evidence proved out that Zimmerman didn’t initially instigate the situation and his story at the time didn’t support that assertion either. He’s an asshole alright, but let’s not misrepresent the facts of that case. And let’s not allow someone’s abrasive personality to cause people to file charges in spite of the facts of the case. Because the process is as bad as a conviction and should be used appropriately and not because someone is an asshole.
 
sk8knight said:
That's not all that matters and this goes to not only legislation but also precedence. Reasonableness is only one component of self-defense. It's true that you have to have a reasonable fear of imminent grave bodily harm or death but there are actually 5 components to self defense: innocence, imminence, proportionality, reasonableness and avoidance. If the state disproves any one of these factors beyond a reasonable doubt, then you are going to jail for some homicide-related crime (i.e. murder, manslaughter, etc.) because you are admitting to the homicide as a predicate for your justification defense.

In this case, you can make the argument that the eventual shooter started the altercation with the woman that lead to McGlocken and therefore was not innocently going about his business. Then, is it reasonable that a normal person in the same circumstance given the same knowledge be in fear of grave bodily harm or death, which is the concept of objective reasonableness. So it's not enough that the person is in fear if no one else on earth would fear that situation. Then there's imminence, where this fails because McGlocken is retreating with no ranged weapon and does not pose an imminent threat. Remember, Michael Brown turned around and came back at Officer Wilson before Wilson fired. McGlocken retreated, thus there was no imminence. Proportionality, well, unarmed men can, and do, kill and so maybe drawing the weapon was proportional, maybe not. Finally, avoidance, once pushed to the ground, could the shooter have avoided the imminent threat entirely. Well, if you're pushed to the ground and a large dude is standing over you aggressively and there are cars and a road behind you, it's kind of hard to avoid the imminent threat. Then, unlike Zimmerman where Trayvon was on top of him beating about his head and there was no path to avoidance, SYG would remove the avoidance here because there was a path however dubious (in Ohio the shooter would've had to try to escape before he could use deadly force).
Click to expand...
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

Read the statute. What you're outlining is a generic self-defense protocol for someone already charged with a murder, but that doesn't appear in the actual statute. The statute actually says

(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
(b) 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.

(2) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

The law already covers that it's reasonable and imminent and avoidance is disregarded since it involves being in a dwelling or residence. There's no proportionality, and the only innocence is that the shooter cannot be involved in the commission of a crime, shoot a police officer, or shoot someone at will who has the right to be there. The Sheriff refused to press charges and I would be willing to bet the DA will also avoid them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFBS
White guy shoots and kills black guy and the cops turn a blind eye...

I think we've all heard this story before.
 
The Tampa Bay Times reported interviewing Rick Kelly, 31, who said that two months ago he was at the store and parked in the same handicapped spot. He said he saw Drejka walking around his vehicle checking to see if he had a permit, which he didn’t.

He said that during the ensuing argument Drejka threatened to shoot him.

"It’s a repeat,” Kelly told the paper. “It happened to me the first time. The second time it’s happening, someone’s life got taken. He provoked that."
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluechip12
People who park in handicapped spots that shouldn't deserve to be confronted. Not necessarily shot, but a quick ass whipping would be apropos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight_Light and UCFWayne
CommuterBob said:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

Read the statute. What you're outlining is a generic self-defense protocol for someone already charged with a murder, but that doesn't appear in the actual statute. The statute actually says

(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
(b) 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.

(2) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

The law already covers that it's reasonable and imminent and avoidance is disregarded since it involves being in a dwelling or residence. There's no proportionality, and the only innocence is that the shooter cannot be involved in the commission of a crime, shoot a police officer, or shoot someone at will who has the right to be there. The Sheriff refused to press charges and I would be willing to bet the DA will also avoid them.
Click to expand...
You’re citing castle doctrine not SYG. The self defense tenets apply to all cases of self defense, not just using deadly force. They are established in legislation and case law up to and including the Supreme Court. The 5 principles of self defense apply even when castle doctrine is invoked except that castle doctrine sets an explicit standard for determining reasonable fear and absolves the avoidance condition. Which is why (1) states “has no duty to retreat” and (2) states “is presumed to have held a reasonable fear” when the following conditions are met.

In this video, castle doctrine doesn’t apply to the ultimate shooter. If the lady had shot him, then castle doctrine may have applied to her. But this guy wasn’t in any structure or conveyance that could be considered to meet the above conditions. So it falls to “general self-defense.”

The state’s attorney for Pinellas County may very well charge the shooter after a review and I believe absolutely should. The Pinellas sheriff was wrong to say that he could not charge because of SYG. Nothing in SYG keeps him from making the arrest. SYG is something you assert in your defense that has to go to a hearing and be affirmed in court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tribbleorlfl and UCFWayne
And additionally, even in your home, proportionality exists, because if an unarmed 90 year old woman breaks in and you blow her away, you’re going to have legal problems.
 
So it’s ok to shove a guy to the ground who is pointing out to someone that using a handicap spot when you’re not is wrong?

I’m not going deeper into this but the idea that the guy who shoved here is innocent is BS.
 
This is what happens when two morons collide and one has a gun.

Moron 1 appears to be an instigator ... and likes to take it upon himself to enforce parking rules and be a general pain in the ass.

Moron 2 is a bully and finally bullied the wrong guy and paid for it with his life.

I can see it both ways. It does remind one of the Zimmerman/Trayvon situation. Two idiots that collided at the wrong time and the wrong place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight_Light, cnsaguy, UCFWayne and 1 other person
UCFKnight85 said:
So it’s ok to shove a guy to the ground who is pointing out to someone that using a handicap spot when you’re not is wrong?

I’m not going deeper into this but the idea that the guy who shoved here is innocent is BS.
Click to expand...
You're the dumbest piece of shit on this board.

The dudes dead. He pushed a guy. Justify that you rat shit trash mound.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluechip12 and tribbleorlfl
Based on the video, it would be like a homeowner shooting after the intruder has already walked away despite ransacking your home. I base this purely on the fact that the aggressive blm'er appeared to take a step or two backwards once the gun was displayed.

But, you cannot predict that the aggressor would have stopped the aggression if, for example, the gun was empty or jammed. Had it not fired successfully, the attacker would have likely continued pummeling the man.

The force of the shove suggested that the aggressor intended to do significant damage as he shoved and then continued to approach once the victim was already down.

My nod goes to the victim winning this case. The alive victim of course.
 
I’d say it should be second degree, the shooter’s life was not in danger but only he can determine that. I would say the dead guy is not without fault. I’ve gotten in a few traffic disputes, I’ve never physically pushed someone to the ground. He saw a weaker man and went after him. Plenty of blame to go around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFBS
Sir Galahad said:
I’d say it should be second degree, the shooter’s life was not in danger but only he can determine that. I would say the dead guy is not without fault. I’ve gotten in a few traffic disputes, I’ve never physically pushed someone to the ground. He saw a weaker man and went after him. Plenty of blame to go around.
Click to expand...
The prosecutor can and will place themselves in his shoes in order to determine if it was reasonable for him to believe he was in imminent danger. If this does go to trial, the jury will be asked to do assess reasonableness and experts might testify on it. The sheriff’s duty is to do the same. He took the easy way out and tried to justify it with SYG.
 
My first thought is, does he have a conceal carry permit, if not he first should be charged with that. If the guy backed off, Manslaughter is reasonable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Sir Galahad said:
I’d say it should be second degree, the shooter’s life was not in danger but only he can determine that. I would say the dead guy is not without fault. I’ve gotten in a few traffic disputes, I’ve never physically pushed someone to the ground. He saw a weaker man and went after him. Plenty of blame to go around.
Click to expand...
Manslaughter. We need an additional law atop of "Stand Your Ground," just like "Stand Your Ground" was an additional law atop of "10-20-LIFE" because people were under "virtual house arrest" for even 3+ years, without being charged.

First off ... the shooter initiated the original confrontation with the wife. I also think his past actions are relevant and should be admitted, despite people abusing the "handicap space."

The Sanford PD made the same case with Zimmerman, had Zimmerman not been 'tailing' Martin -- even though Martin 'came back' and eventually 'jumped' him -- that wouldn't have led to the confrontation. People need to realize that 'severely pissing off' people has consequences too, although I would argue Zimmerman wasn't as much as fault as this guy. Also, Zimmerman did not use "Stand Your Ground" as his defense.​

But, secondly, the husband came in and not only assaulted, but committed some serious battery. People think "shouving" is not battery, and not as bad as a punch. That is utter BS. He could have hit his head, quite seriously, given that massive shouve. I invite people to watch the video again.

The shooter was combative with a wife, even if verbal, he was still cornering her.

BTW, had the husband lived, he should have been charged with assault and battery as well. People need to stop initiating violence, even when people are total a-holes.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
So it’s ok to shove a guy to the ground who is pointing out to someone that using a handicap spot when you’re not is wrong?

I’m not going deeper into this but the idea that the guy who shoved here is innocent is BS.
Click to expand...
I don't take you as one who usually trolls, but this is borderline. No one in this thread said that the victim was innocent. In fact, reading everyone's posts you can clearly see that quite the opposite conclusion is drawn. As someone else pointed out, we don't have audio, so there's no way of knowing what the shooter said to the female in the car. I would find it very hard to believe that the victim violently shoved a guy who was being cordial and pleasant about the illegalities of parking in a handicapped spot without a proper permit. That said, even if he was being the kindest soul in the world about it and the victim had shoved him twice as hard, there's still NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON to brandish a gun and kill the guy. If this is truly SYG, then any one of us on this message board would likely have several cases throughout our lives where we could've killed someone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: knights of UCF, tribbleorlfl and KnighttimeJoe
EweSeaEff said:
I don't take you as one who usually trolls, but this is borderline. No one in this thread said that the victim was innocent. In fact, reading everyone's posts you can clearly see that quite the opposite conclusion is drawn. As someone else pointed out, we don't have audio, so there's no way of knowing what the shooter said to the female in the car. I would find it very hard to believe that the victim violently shoved a guy who was being cordial and pleasant about the illegalities of parking in a handicapped spot without a proper permit. That said, even if he was being the kindest soul in the world about it and the victim had shoved him twice as hard, there's still NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON to brandish a gun and kill the guy. If this is truly SYG, then any one of us on this message board would likely have several cases throughout our lives where we could've killed someone.
Click to expand...
I think the brandishing can be justified to some degree. The brandishing ended the threat. If you are threatened and pull a gun and tell the person that you will shoot them if they advance (I know that probably didn’t happen here), then that is a legitimate self-defense action. It’s the shooting while McGlocken is retreating that is wrong. The threat had dissipated. If the shooter says to keep walking away, that’s a legitimate form of self defense. Especially if he gets to a safe place and then calls 911.

Also, SYG is not equivalent to self defense and it is harmful to potential victims when the media and other people continue to equate the two in order to push an agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tribbleorlfl
sk8knight said:
I think the brandishing can be justified to some degree. The brandishing ended the threat. If you are threatened and pull a gun and tell the person that you will shoot them if they advance (I know that probably didn’t happen here), then that is a legitimate self-defense action. It’s the shooting while McGlocken is retreating that is wrong. The threat had dissipated. If the shooter says to keep walking away, that’s a legitimate form of self defense. Especially if he gets to a safe place and then calls 911.

Also, SYG is not equivalent to self defense and it is harmful to potential victims when the media and other people continue to equate the two in order to push an agenda.
Click to expand...
That's why I included the "and" between brandishing and killing. I have ZERO problem with the guy pulling his weapon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tribbleorlfl
Happy Hands said:
Guy is a graduate of the George Zimmerman school of relating to black people. Why he though it was his business to bother a mother in a car with her child because she was illegally parked is beyond me. He carries his gun everywhere and that probably gives him some kind of dipshit courage.
Click to expand...
This guy pull the same stunt with somebody else 2 weeks ago at the same gas station.
 
The Branch said:
This is what happens when two morons collide and one has a gun.

Moron 1 appears to be an instigator ... and likes to take it upon himself to enforce parking rules and be a general pain in the ass.

Moron 2 is a bully and finally bullied the wrong guy and paid for it with his life.

I can see it both ways. It does remind one of the Zimmerman/Trayvon situation. Two idiots that collided at the wrong time and the wrong place.
Click to expand...

In fairness Moron 2 was standing up for his girlfriend (who may have feared for her life) and child who Moron 1 was yelling at.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluechip12 and tribbleorlfl
sk8knight said:
You’re citing castle doctrine not SYG. The self defense tenets apply to all cases of self defense, not just using deadly force. They are established in legislation and case law up to and including the Supreme Court. The 5 principles of self defense apply even when castle doctrine is invoked except that castle doctrine sets an explicit standard for determining reasonable fear and absolves the avoidance condition. Which is why (1) states “has no duty to retreat” and (2) states “is presumed to have held a reasonable fear” when the following conditions are met.

In this video, castle doctrine doesn’t apply to the ultimate shooter. If the lady had shot him, then castle doctrine may have applied to her. But this guy wasn’t in any structure or conveyance that could be considered to meet the above conditions. So it falls to “general self-defense.”

The state’s attorney for Pinellas County may very well charge the shooter after a review and I believe absolutely should. The Pinellas sheriff was wrong to say that he could not charge because of SYG. Nothing in SYG keeps him from making the arrest. SYG is something you assert in your defense that has to go to a hearing and be affirmed in court.
Click to expand...
Again, read the statute. That's actually wrong now. FL changed the procedure for SYG last year to make the burden of proof fall upon the prosecution to prove that a shooter wasn't acting in self-defense (rather than having the defense invoke SYG as a motion against a murder charge), meaning a case like this would have to go to trial twice - once for SYG, and then once for murder.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/court...and-your-ground-law-Chaos-followed-_165038900
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DaShuckster

Campus Unrest

Replies
90
Views
1K
The Water Cooler
KnighttimeJoe
KnighttimeJoe
Knightbengal

The Knighted Ones Podcast - Episode 36: UCF to The NFL, Cookin' Jacurri, And a Huge New Hooper

Replies
1
Views
100
The Dungeon - Knights Only
Knightbengal
Knightbengal
DaShuckster

A Shoutout to Speaker Johnson

Replies
2
Views
142
The Water Cooler
DaShuckster
DaShuckster
Knightbengal

The Knighted Ones Podcast - Episode 36: UCF to The NFL, Cookin' Jacurri, And a Huge New Hooper

Replies
1
Views
217
UCF Fan Forum
Knightbengal
Knightbengal
Boston.Knight

Where the gold haters at 2300? ⤴️

Replies
18
Views
476
The Water Cooler
hemightbejeremy
hemightbejeremy
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back