Do not pull, but put your hand on the weapon ... being ready to pull. I know that means if the other person has a gun and 'pulls faster,' it's 'too late.'
But still, it's what police do (sans the irresponsible ones).
Pinellas Sheriff Misapplies Stand Your Ground
- Thread starter sk8knight
- Start date
But still, it's what police do (sans the irresponsible ones).
And why is it written that way?
Because "10-20-LIFE" was leaving people under 'virtual house arrest' for years.
What we need, just like "Stand Your Ground" was a 'clarifying law' to "10-20-LIFE" is another 'clarifying law' that refines application of "Stand Your Ground."
Laws are supposed to be updated-clarified as needed. Otherwise, why pass a law in the first place? History and issues are why they should be clarified as needed.
Again, you have referenced 776.013, which is the residence/dwelling/vehicle SYG statute that strengthens "castle doctrine" by presuming that someone who has forcibly entered your home represents a deadly threat. You should have referenced 776.012 in regards to this event, not 776.013. 776.012 removes the duty to retreat from anywhere a person is legally present. I realize that statute doesn't use those words but removing the duty to retreat in a non-residence/vehicle is the SYG passed in 2005 that everyone is worried about. Also, the 5 conditions apply no matter which statute pertains, those statutes just remove one or two conditions. You still have to meet the other 3-4 conditions for it to be justifiable. It's certainly not as simple as "I'm scared for my life" and now you're innocent.
The second part of your post is that a defendant had to before the change and still has to make a pre-trial motion for immunity/dismissal on the basis of self-defense in order to avoid trial altogether. In that case, before the change, the defendant would have to prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence in the pre-trial motion. Now, the prosecution, in the motion hearing, has to present clear and convincing evidence that any one of the 5 components is not viable and the immunity is denied. "Clear and convincing" is not nearly as strong as "beyond a reasonable doubt." In this case, IMHO, it is clear that McGlocken was retreating and even turned away and that is convincing enough to me that this should go to trial. At trial, the prosecution has always had to disprove any one of those 5 elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The pre-trial motion is simply to avoid trial and the new statute hopefully will stem off some unnecessary cases. We'll see.
Last edited:
SYG was a clarification to the self-defense laws in order to stop overzealous prosecutors from representing very unsafe avenues of retreat as viable and convicting people who shouldn't be in jail.
10-20-LIFE should be adjusted or removed entirely as it overrides legislatively specified sentences arbitrarily. Case in point, the Jacksonville case where the woman fired a warning shot in anger at her husband. She get's convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, which has a minimum term of 8 years (I think). But because 10-20-LIFE is in play, her felony with a firearm gives her a mandatory minimum of 20 years. The lighter sentence was considered and should be applicable. 10-20-LIFE was a political knee jerk and not considerate of context. It might work as designed if the crime was a felony that was not related to the gun that was then exacerbated by the gun. But when the statue explicitly considers a deadly weapon, there's no reason to apply 10-20-LIFE.
Yup. You're right that I quoted the wrong statute. 776.012 says:
(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.
So you contradicted yourself. The 5 conditions do not apply to the use of this statute because it removes duty to retreat and proportionality and reasonableness is left up to the discretion of the shooter. It is just that simple as "I'm scared for my life" unless the state can prove that you weren't, or there's evidence that you were either in the commission of a crime, or were somewhere you had no right to be. In this case the shooter was in a public place and wasn't committing another crime. So the state has to go to court to prove the shooter wasn't scared for his life after being shoved to the ground. Good luck with that.
And here is what changed last year. 776.032:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html
(1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s.776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.
So no, they can't arrest him and just work it out in pre-trial. They need some sort of case against the shooter to say he isn't genuine in his belief that he was in danger, or that he was committing a crime, or was somewhere he had no right to be - even to arrest him.
And because he's claiming SYG, the family can't even sue him for wrongful death.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html
(1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s.776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.
So no, they can't arrest him and just work it out in pre-trial. They need some sort of case against the shooter to say he isn't genuine in his belief that he was in danger, or that he was committing a crime, or was somewhere he had no right to be - even to arrest him.
And because he's claiming SYG, the family can't even sue him for wrongful death.
I would normally just agree to disagree because you are second-order ignorant on this matter and you're too smart and stubborn to admit it but, in this case, getting it wrong may mean spending a good portion of your life in jail. You really need to read Law of Self Defense by Andrew Branca or some similar material by a legal expert in self defense.
You're trying to say that as long as the shooter says he was scared that we take his word for it? Then why the hell did we need a trial for Zimmerman. That's not the way it works; the prosecutor and the jury will damn well examine the reasonableness of the shooter's fears and all of the other factors as well. Also, as I said before and I'm not going to look it all up for you, subsequent case law has clarified and placed limitations on this statute. You can't just read the statute and assume that's all there is to it. For example, you can't start a fist fight, get punched in the face, and then shoot the guy that punched you. Even if you were afraid, unless you withdrew and the other guy pursued you, then you escalated the proportionality (and gave up your innocence as well by agreeing to the mutual combat) and you will be prosecuted and most likely convicted.
And I'm saying that the video that they had at the time justified probable cause for arrest. McGlocken was withdrawing in the video that they would've looked at while they were on scene. That's enough PC for me.
That is fair ... however ... moron 2 probably would not have taken that same action if moron 1 was 6 foot 4 and 270 pounds. He clearly wrecked moron 1 because he was an older skinny guy. Moron 2 is a bully ... and thought he was going to be the big man ... right up until the point the he got shot.
And that size discrepancy made moron 1's fear reasonable. Up until the point that moron 2 retreated, at which point moron 1 became more moronic.
No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that in this case, the shooter was assaulted and had a reasonable claim to fearing for his life (may have been even further justified if the victim had threatened him, but we don't know what he said after he shoved the shooter to the ground). If all the shooter did was whip out a gun and shoot this guy, the police would have arrested him. The shooter was arguing with another person, but not physically.
You're right that you can't start a physical assault and then claim SYG if you escalate it - because that is the commission of another crime. It's not carte blanche. But that is not what happened in this case.
We don't know what McGlocken said to the shooter, and he was obviously talking to him. That holds relevance as well. It's not beyond reason that even without a gun, big tough guy McGlocken was continuing to threaten the shooter. He didn't have his hands up, and there is an excerpt of the video missing where he actually gets shot (you see him back away a bit, and it flickers and then you see him running into the store clutching his chest). So we don't have the full facts.
But he did place himself into the position by accosting the woman and children. You can’t ignore that McGlocken most likely would not have pushed him had he not decided to force himself into an encounter with the woman. Again, this goes to the innocence component. If you start telling young men hanging out on the corner plying a trade that loitering on the corner is illegal, you can’t claim innocence when they assault you and you kill them. You went in looking for a fight and a fight found you. This guy wasn’t necessarily looking for a fight but he was looking for a confrontation and one found him. All else that happened is the fruit of that initial confrontation that he instigated.
Yep, 10-20-LIFE started all this in Florida.
I wish the US media would cover that fact. I hope NPR does eventually.
Yep, 100% agreement. Accosting someone is grounds for being exempt from this law. He should be charged with at least manslaughter as a result.
And in that regard, and in comparison, Zimmerman did not accost Martin, like this.
At the same time, I think we're all tired of people parking in handicap spaces. They are not 'waiting zones.' People really need to stop that. But accosting someone could be considered vigilantism.
Just like people driving in the left lane at the speed limit, saying they have 'the right' to do so. No, that's vigilantism too.
So an argument is a crime? Walking up and talking to someone without assault or insult is an instigation of violence? Please. You can't really believe that.
Now this story might come into play when the DA considers the case. The same guy who shot McGlocken reportedly threatened to shoot another guy who parked in the ADA space illegally two months ago - and has had similar responses previously.
http://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/ne...-spot-weeks-before-stand-your-ground-shooting
"Kelly, who drives a septic tank, briefly parked his tanker in this handicapped spot outside the Circle A Food Store before running inside this store for a beverage. When he came out, he saw Drejka taking pictures of his vehicle.
"He asked me (if) was I handicapped, and I said, 'Obviously, I'm driving a tanker. I'm not handicapped.' And I asked if was he handicapped and he stated 'No, my mom is,'" Kelly said.
Kelly asked Drejka if his mom was nearby and offered to move his tanker. That’s when he says Drejka became furious.
"He flipped out on me called me every n-word, said he's going to shoot me," Kelly said. "He said he was going to kill me, and he went back to his truck, got something out of his truck and walked back up on me."
Store owner Ali Salous came out and shut down the confrontation.
"I didn't know this was going to happen two months later with another guy. It's really sad," he said.
Salous says Drejka has a history of confrontations in and around his store.
"He told me I can't help it. Every time I do this I get in trouble, and I can't help it. I keep doing it," Salous said."
<SemanticAssholeNitpicking>We have State's Attorneys in Florida, not DA's.</SAN>
Ok, now that I've got that out of my system, no one said that McGlocken was justified. But you can also put yourself into situations without committing crimes where you may be "asking for trouble" and then you can't claim innocence when someone attacks you. In this case, trying to play law enforcement officer toes the line of asking for trouble. His prior acts will be damning and will portray him as someone looking for trouble. And when you're looking for trouble, it's hard to then say "hey I wasn't doing anything and this guy tried to gravely injure or kill me and so I had to kill him to prevent that."
I watched the video again and McGlocken starts backing up as soon as Drejka starts to sit up and continues to back up as Drejka pulls his weapon and then with no further consideration shoots and kills him. At the point where Drejka had his weapon out and pointed at McGlocken and McGlocken was backing up, Drejka went from the victim to the aggressor. He had full control of the situation. He should not have fired. This happens often in this country and people get convicted when the tables turn all the time. Drejka's lucky for two reasons at this moment: (1) because the Pinellas County Sheriff is either a grossly wrong or a racist and (2) he fired at him 2 seconds after he got knocked down and didn't give him a chance to clearly flee before he shot McGlocken or else he would be in jail right now.
That's another flaw of the "scared for your life" clause. Let's say you are 5'3" and anybody over 6'0" intimidates you. Does anybody over 6'0" that makes a gesture toward you (threatening or non-threatening) give you the right to shoot them because of your feelings? How much does your personal uneasiness/apprehension play into this?
I don't know, 6'4" or 7'4", it doesn't matter, Tacko would still have to fall if it is my wife and kids (see what I just did there?).
Last edited:
That’s where objective reasonabless applies. Would any normal person given what you know and in that same situation reasonably feel the same way. If your action was motivated by an unreasonable fear, then it will be easier for the prosecutor to disprove your self defense claim. There are cases where your fear can be reasonable even though the other party doesn’t actually pose an imminent threat.
^ 100% Total Hyperbole
Watch the video
That shouve to the ground could have caused some serious damage, especially if someone was older. It was not a simple push of someone who might be off-balance, it was a rushing-towards, full-force, full-body-weight, power-shouve. He went flying back onto the ground.
The shooter was physically assaulted with full battery. That is not a 'gesture.' We are not talking about 'gestures.' Even if I disagree with his aiming and firing the weapon (he should have just put his hand on it to "show"), he was assaulted w/battery.
Please do not bring up crap that has nothing to do with any reality and is laughable.
Case-in-point: This is why the "Libtard" term is used ... debate reality, not what you want it to be
At least Zimmerman was in a 'physical fight' (verified by all parties, on-the-ground) before the gun even made an appearance. This is worse than Zimmerman in many regards, which is why it IS up for debate and good we question the current set of laws. I argue they need improvement.
But do not go full retard. Don't be 3rd grader US media. This was not 'gesture,' this was powerful, physical assault.
You clearly have some anger issues. I can almost hear you yelling at your computer screen (nice use of the bolded text). These are legit questions, not debating. This is the girlfriend's story:
Jacobs, who was waiting in the vehicle with the couple’s two younger children -- an infant and a 3-year-old -- said she started feeling “scared” when she noticed how fast the argument was escalating. It wasn’t long before McGlockton came out along with their 5-year-old son and tried to diffuse the situation.
Surveillance video from the Circle A Food Store in Clearwater, about 30 minutes east of Tampa, showed McGlockton leaving the store and shoving Drejka hard to the ground.
“By this time a witness pulls up and everybody hears us going back and forth with one another. ... A witness goes in the store and he let the owner know that there was somebody out there messing with a woman in a car,” she said. “My man hears what’s going on, sees the guy yelling at me and I’m sitting in the car. My man is defending me and his children, so he pushes him down.“The guy is on the ground and he pulls the gun out. ... My dude steps back 'cause my dude is fearing for his life -- all of us were,” she added.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/victims-g...provoked-fatal-stand-ground/story?id=56751894
Which shooting was that?
I agree with you on the 'parking vigilantism.'
However, him being assaulted first does change a lot.
That's why I say manslaughter.
CAPS is yelling. Bold is emphasis. Other people are using bold. Do all of them have 'anger management' issues too?
BS! You're now deflecting from what you said. Let's revisit:
"Does anybody over 6'0" that makes a gesture toward you (threatening or non-threatening) give you the right to shoot them because of your feelings?" -- @firm_bizzle
How did you ever mistake a 'gesture' with an actual, physical assault and serious battery?! If anything, you're justifying why I used emphasis.
There is a huge difference between 'gesture' and assault'n battery. That wasn't just a 'push' either.
Did the man 'accost' his wife? Sure! Absolutely! No argument!
He then decided to rush out and escalate with assault'n battery ... not even stopping to try to understand the situation. He was wrong!
Then this guy decided to respond by not only brandishing, but pulling, aiming and firing. He was wrong too ... especially since he accosted someone first!
But this is not about 'gesturing' at all. The husband did not just 'gesture.' He freak'n knocked the crap out of him! Apply logic, not 3rd grade US media journalism, in your facts.
No one in Florida is 'getting off' on charges after shooting someone because of a 'gesture.' Do not make it about someone getting shot over a 'gesture.' Once someone commits serious battery, all bets are off! People need to stop assaulting people!
At the same time, I say this guy gets manslaughter, because he did accost someone first.
Last edited:
CAPS is yelling. Bold is emphasis. Other people are using bold. Do all of them have 'anger management' issues too?
BS! You're now deflecting from what you said. Let's revisit:
"Does anybody over 6'0" that makes a gesture toward you (threatening or non-threatening) give you the right to shoot them because of your feelings?" -- @firm_bizzle
How did you ever mistake a 'gesture' with an actual, physical assault and serious battery?! If anything, you're justifying why I used emphasis.
There is a huge difference between 'gesture' and assault'n battery. That wasn't just a 'push' either.
Did the man 'accost' his wife? Sure! Absolutely! No argument!
He then decided to rush out and escalate with assault'n battery ... not even stopping to try to understand the situation. He was wrong!
Then this guy decided to respond by not only brandishing, but pulling, aiming and firing. He was wrong too ... especially since he accosted someone first!
But this is not about 'gesturing' at all. The husband did not just 'gesture.' He freak'n knocked the crap out of him! Apply logic, not 3rd grade US media journalism, in your facts.
Don't make it about someone getting shot over a 'gesture.' Once someone commits serious battery, all bets are off! People need to stop assaulting people!
At the same time, I say this guy gets manslaughter, because he did accost someone first.
And what did the man with the gun do to the woman to start with? What gesture would have been enough for her to respond with deadly force?
^ This is the type of 3rd grader, 'what if' logic that the US media pushes.
Meanwhile, everyone with 'common sense' focus on ...
- Illegal Parking (but just a fine): Couple parks in a handicap spot w/o tag
- Accosting (unnecessary confrontation): Guy accosts woman (first available) over illegal parking
- Assault'n Significant Battery (unnecessary escalation): Husband of woman runs out and immediately and aggressively commits assault'n battery without even stopping to understand situation
- Assault with Deadly Weapon (unnecessary escalation): Battered person pulls, aims and shoots the man who assaulted him, without brandishing and warning he's armed, first
You, just like analysts in the US media designed to drum-up advertising dollars, are talking about someone jumping directly to #4, from #1-#2 -- ignoring the first battery -- and asking about 'gestures' -- which are not even in the law -- of which I have never heard of someone shooting someone and being backed by 'Stand Your Ground.'\
I've only heard of people being physically assaulted or, in the case of a car, damaging the car -- e.g., breaking window, banging on/climbing over "to get at" said person who decided to shoot them. Please ... please ... understand your question is illogical in this entire context.
Again, we're talking not just physical threats that are absolutely obvious and without question, but ones that already occurred.
Yes, because they are talking the same non-sense as you did. You want to talk about #3 never happening. That has nothing to do with the law!
Do you understand that? Or are you just going to keep trying to pick on something else? At least try to backtrack on what you stated from the get-go.
Yep.
The US FCC chairman won't yank licenses over fake news, and that's a good thing. The 1st Amendment exists for a reason.
The only thing the US FCC chairman has 'taken a stand' on, is employers suppressing journalists. The left is clapping because of Sinclair, but they don't realize that some of the outsourced program contractors are next. CNN has some real issues with this, like a lot of 24x7 news that relies on 3rd parties.
The key is that the American public has to stop seeking news they agree with, and be objective. Unfortunately 80% of Americans who are don't watch the news, and ignore the memes based on it.
Unfortunately 80% of non-Americans do watch their national news, and American news is fed from US news. So the whole 'cages' thing with the mis-appropriated pictures were all over the TV when I was in France, even after the AP pulled them.
I'm not going to defend either guy .... just a situation that should have never happened from all sides and it's sad that somebody lost their life.
Remember when the entire MSM complex ran with “hands up don’t shoot” before they had a sliver of facts? Cretins
In an easy to foresee evolution of this event, Benjamin Crump has connected with the family and is now their legal representation. The media is erroneously calling this SYG and linking this to Trayvon Martin. I can’t wait for the uproar about this to begin. If the damn Sheriff would’ve just done his job and arrested Drejka, none of what is about to happen would happen.
I agree in this case but they're running with it. They call every self-defense case SYG anyways, especially in Florida. Which is bad because SYG exists for a reason and getting rid of it because of a false imputed racial angle would be a big step back for victims of violent attacks.
Without getting silly playing statute games, from the video alone this looks as bad as when the swat team killed that dad lying face down in the hotel hallway. That one didn't get Jesse & Al out to it, wonder why...
Remember this one where she stood her ground but because she didn't kill the dude, she had to go to jail?
http://www.jacksonville.com/news/cr...n-sentenced-20-years-prison-stand-your-ground
