Amend Florida's 'stand your ground' law, says lawyer for Markeis McGlockton's family

[MacTheKnife]

Crump was never the sharpest knife in the drawer. I have no idea how he passed the bar.

Under what circumstances an aggressor can claim self defense is first year criminal law stuff.

The McGlockton shooting had nothing to do with the Florida stand your ground law. It was either self defense or manslaughter. When one is laying on their back on the ground, fleeing is not an option.

I agree. Why the police thought this case was related to the stand your ground law is difficult to understand.

Then the police investigator followed up with the statement--'Not that i agree with it' meaning I suppose...the stand your ground law.

Thus his statement seems to me to be one of trying to curry favor with the media and all the others who do not like the stand your ground law.

Whilst the law is controversial due to the media constantly lambasting it...the police investigator had to know that--thus his weak attempt curry favor with them. Rather pathetic if that was his motive.

On the other hand it could be he simply did not agree that the stand your ground law was applicable in this case. Either way he made a bad statement and his superiors should take note of that.

 

[2aguy]

If they did, it still wouldn't stop them from reciting the right words to apply the stand your ground law.

Agreed which is why in my opinion there should at least be a preliminary investigation into the facts of the matter before deciding that the shooter can invoke the "stand your ground" statute as an affirmative defense. This guy in the Clearwater case is reported to have harassed others about that parking spot on a regular basis. It would be really interesting to know if there is any documentation of how far back his behavior goes, if he's disabled and needed the parking space, and when he acquired hiis concealed carry license.

People lie, particularly when the possibility exists that they could go to jail for things they have done but many of the judges are just as much to blame for allowing these people to keep getting away with killing others in situations in which lethal use of force is not warranted.

While McGlockton was wrong by putting his hands on Drejka, in my opinion, this shooting was unwarranted because there was no imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm at the time Drejka fired his weapon. McGlockton was not advancing on Drejka and appeared to indicate his withdrawal from the altercation by holding up his hands and backing away when he saw the weapon in Drejka's hand, however it appears that he didn't fire immediately.

How about a full look at the actual attacker....he was the only one who initiated physical violence at that moment....not the shooter......

You have no idea what was going on as the guy was facing the attacker.....

 

[2aguy]

Crump was never the sharpest knife in the drawer. I have no idea how he passed the bar.

Under what circumstances an aggressor can claim self defense is first year criminal law stuff.

Stand your ground means might makes right

Once a fight starts, you can use your gun to resolve it

No troll, it means you don't have to run when a criminal attacks you. That is all it means.

And what if you are the one who initiated the confrontation?

You can start a fight, then pull your gun and fire, claiming you feared for your life and stood your ground

Wrong....... you can't start the fight and then shoot..... that isn't how it works...but thanks for lying. If you initiate physical violence you are the one prosecuted..... and that depends on wether the other guy escalates by drawing a weapon ...... these cases are sometimes easy, sometimes hard...but Stand Your Ground protects innocent people from malicious prosecution by cops and prosecutors....

 

[2aguy]

Crump was never the sharpest knife in the drawer. I have no idea how he passed the bar.

Under what circumstances an aggressor can claim self defense is first year criminal law stuff.

The McGlockton shooting had nothing to do with the Florida stand your ground law. It was either self defense or manslaughter. When one is laying on their back on the ground, fleeing is not an option.

I agree. Why the police thought this case was related to the stand your ground law is difficult to understand. Then the police investigator followed up with the statement--'Not that i agree with it' meaning the stand your ground law. His statement seems to me to be one of trying to curry favor with the media and all the others who do not like the stand your ground law. Whilst the law is controversial due to the media constantly lambasting it...the police investigator had to know that--thus his weak attempt curry favor with them. Rather pathetic.

This case is not stand your ground...... it does not come into it the cops don't know what they are talking about, this is a standard self defense case.... Stand Your Ground only applies if you are able to retreat.... the guy on the ground was on the ground, he could not retreat.

this is not a Stand Your Ground case.

 

[OODA_Loop]

So if I'm walking down the street and some guy grabs my ass or breasts I can justifiably shoot to kill him because I was in fear that a sexual assault was imminent?

If that happened would you feel like a forcible felony or great bodily harm was imminent ?

 

[2aguy]

If they did, it still wouldn't stop them from reciting the right words to apply the stand your ground law.

Agreed which is why in my opinion there should at least be a preliminary investigation into the facts of the matter before deciding that the shooter can invoke the "stand your ground" statute as an affirmative defense. This guy in the Clearwater case is reported to have harassed others about that parking spot on a regular basis. It would be really interesting to know if there is any documentation of how far back his behavior goes, if he's disabled and needed the parking space, and when he acquired hiis concealed carry license.

People lie, particularly when the possibility exists that they could go to jail for things they have done but many of the judges are just as much to blame for allowing these people to keep getting away with killing others in situations in which lethal use of force is not warranted.

While McGlockton was wrong by putting his hands on Drejka, in my opinion, this shooting was unwarranted because there was no imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm at the time Drejka fired his weapon. McGlockton was not advancing on Drejka and appeared to indicate his withdrawal from the altercation by holding up his hands and backing away when he saw the weapon in Drejka's hand, however it appears that he didn't fire immediately.

Darwin's Law # 387:
Don't walk up to a stranger and shove them to the ground. And then don't say to the victim" "I'm going to kill you mother fucker!".
Follow that law and you are going to stay alive.

Threats after the fact or once the gun resolved the threat issue, tells me that the shot needed not be taken in the moment it was taken. His enragement from the push down got the best of his ability to control his emotions in the situation. Could be linked to his personal attributes or character in life that made him take the shot. If so it needs to be investigated further based upon the store operator's assessment of his patterns there, and any other witnesses present during the event.

Wrong..... he was physically attacked by a larger, younger attacker......

 

[2aguy]

Readers split on whether Clearwater shooting was justified under Stand Your Ground law

It wasn't a STand Your Ground shooting...... you have to be able to retreat in a Stand Your Ground case...this is a simple, self defense case.

 

[2aguy]

Told ya....they are willing to perpetrate an injustice to advance a political goal and stir the race hate..

This is just about race to you? Nothing to do with an abuse of the stand your ground laws?

So if I'm walking down the street and some guy grabs my ass or breasts I can justifiably shoot to kill him because I was in fear that a sexual assault was imminent?

Again.... this is not a Stand Your Ground case... the guy was on the ground and was unable to retreat. this is just a standard self defense case.

Anti gunners are making it a stand your ground case because they want to punish people who carry guns in public.

 

[rightwinger]

Crump was never the sharpest knife in the drawer. I have no idea how he passed the bar.

Under what circumstances an aggressor can claim self defense is first year criminal law stuff.

Stand your ground means might makes right

Once a fight starts, you can use your gun to resolve it

No troll, it means you don't have to run when a criminal attacks you. That is all it means.

And what if you are the one who initiated the confrontation?

You can start a fight, then pull your gun and fire, claiming you feared for your life and stood your ground

If the white man had an obligation to end this peacefully then sodid the black man. When someone is merely running his mouth you have choices! Shoving him violently is not an acceptable choice is it?

A shove away from your loved one who is being screamed at

Not grounds for lethal force

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Again, The dead pusher was measuring up a massive kick to down fat mans head. hitching up pants, leering down, advancing. The Gun came out just before. Pusher then began to drift, they (she was out of car heading for back) had planned to hit him front and back. Prove me wrong.

Easy. Watch the video.

Your imagination is running away with you.

 

[rightwinger]

Again, The dead pusher was measuring up a massive kick to down fat mans head. hitching up pants, leering down, advancing. The Gun came out just before. Pusher then began to drift, they (she was out of car heading for back) had planned to hit him front an back. Prove me wrong.

When you have been shoved down violently it is a reasonable anticipation that more violence will come and that you are at a disadvantage. Again, the white guy was running his mouth at the time he was physically assaulted!

OK? I think? I would never approach any parked car in a parking rage incident. Especially with kids in the car. But this idiot did and decided to argue.

What would happen to the fat man busybody w/o a Gun? Kicked? Ran over? Head smashed to pavement? All of above? Gun saved his fat butt.

Yes! He could have been kicked ran over or even had his head smashed on the pavement. Hence the stand your ground law applies! He was reasonably in fear of death or severe bodily injury!

Could have

Until he drew his gun on an unarmed man

 

[2aguy]

Again, The dead pusher was measuring up a massive kick to down fat mans head. hitching up pants, leering down, advancing. The Gun came out just before. Pusher then began to drift, they (she was out of car heading for back) had planned to hit him front and back. Prove me wrong.

Easy. Watch the video.

Your imagination is running away with you.

You didn't see what the man on the ground saw..... sorry, sitting in your home is not the same as getting violently attacked and facing a much larger attacker.... You saw a video 50 feet from the attack from a rear angle, that is not the same thing.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Told ya....they are willing to perpetrate an injustice to advance a political goal and stir the race hate..

This is just about race to you? Nothing to do with an abuse of the stand your ground laws?

So if I'm walking down the street and some guy grabs my ass or breasts I can justifiably shoot to kill him because I was in fear that a sexual assault was imminent?

Is grabbing your ass and breasts assault?

It's battery that could place a person in fear of an assault. This is from a Florida defense attorney's website (Florida Law on Self-Defense | Use of Deadly and Non Deadly Force)

Simple Battery
The crime of Simple Battery or Misdemeanor Battery is defined under Section 784.03, Florida Statutes. In Florida, the term battery means:

1. Any actual and intentional touching or striking of another person against that person’s will (non-consensual), or
2. The intentional causing of bodily harm to another person.

• Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim) 8.3

Where there are no aggravating factors or enhancements at play (such as use of a weapon, serious bodily injury, or domestic violence) the offense is known as “simple battery” or “misdemeanor battery.”​

Consent and Mutual Combat
In all Florida prosecutions, it is a required element of battery that the touching at issue occur without the consent of the alleged victim, or “against the person’s will.”

This issue frequently arises in cases where two people engage in a fight, or “mutual combat.” In Florida, ‘mutual combat’ is a recognized battery defense predicated upon both parties assenting to a physical altercation and therefore consenting to be touched as an understood consequence of that altercation. Both parties must be at fault, and the defendant must not be the primary aggressor or initiate the fight. Eiland v. State, 112 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959); A.L. v. State, 790 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

The issue of consent is a jury question, and is examined in light of the surrounding circumstances. Testimony from the alleged victim that he or she did not consent is not required, so long as the state’s evidence can support a jury inference of a non-consensual touching. State v. Clyatt, 976 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 5th Dist. 2008).

In some cases, where proper procedures are followed, evidence of a defendant’s prior violent behaviors toward the victim is relevant to prove his or her intent to commit the crime of battery or the alleged victim’s lack of consent. This is known as “Williams Rule” evidence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple Assault
The definition of simple assault (misdemeanor) is contained in Section 784.011, Florida Statutes. Under the law, an assault occurs when a person, by word or act, makes an intentional threat to commit violence towards another person, has the apparent ability to carry out the threat, and does some act which creates a well-founded fear in the other person that such violence is imminent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Deadly Force
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.​

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Readers split on whether Clearwater shooting was justified under Stand Your Ground law

It wasn't a STand Your Ground shooting...... you have to be able to retreat in a Stand Your Ground case...this is a simple, self defense case.

Self-defense only applies if you are threatened. The guy backed off Shooting him after that is cold-blooded.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Again, The dead pusher was measuring up a massive kick to down fat mans head. hitching up pants, leering down, advancing. The Gun came out just before. Pusher then began to drift, they (she was out of car heading for back) had planned to hit him front and back. Prove me wrong.

Easy. Watch the video.

Your imagination is running away with you.

You didn't see what the man on the ground saw..... sorry, sitting in your home is not the same as getting violently attacked and facing a much larger attacker.... You saw a video 50 feet from the attack from a rear angle, that is not the same thing.

OK, I have been physically attacked many, many times in training. There is simply no excuse for pulling that trigger. You are making up reasons to justify the shooting. There are none.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Readers split on whether Clearwater shooting was justified under Stand Your Ground law

The simple fact is most do not even know what the law of self defense is.

In these high publicity events most are governed by their emotions, prejudice, agenda etc. Not the law of which they have very little knowledge.

Neverthe less, we are a nation of laws and we are fortunate to have them.

Just look at George Zimmerman a completely innocent man as all the evidence proved but a huge, huge attempt was made to railroad him by Obama, the attorney general eric holder, and the state of florida.

But Z had good lawyers and a honest jury: he was very fortunate in that. Many do not get that and thus innocent people sometimes go to jail or worse.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Inn order to be justified to use deadly force under the law of self defense--- one much reasonably believe their life is in danger and or that they may suffer grievieous bodily harm.
If you believe you were about to be raped and can convince the jury of that then you would probably be exonerated.

But if the jury thinks the guy just wanted a cheap feel then you are in trouble.

Anytime someone uses deadly force their actions come under a microscope ...the investigators must be convinced you acted appropriately or they will reccomend that charges be filed. The jury must be convinced by your argument or you will face jail time. So one must think very quickly and very accuraetly in such situations...and if you make the wrong decision you will suffer the consequences. Bottom line: the use of deadly force is not something to take lightly. The only time you should use it is when you really believe your life is in danger or you are about to suffer grievious bodily harm..

So an intentional battery against me for no reason other than to creep me out so the perpetrator can get his cheap thrills doesn't allow me to use lethal force but a guy who gets shoved after he iinitiates an altercation with a female maybe not realizing that there was a male with her gets to use lethal force on the premise that he was defending himself against an act of battery or even "mutual combat" that doesn't even rise to a felony?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Just look at George Zimmerman a completely innocent man as all the evidence proved but a huge, huge attempt was made to railroad him by Obama, the attorney general eric holder, and the state of florida.

Zimmerman is a lot of things, but innocent is not one of them. There is no such thing as being found "innocent" only that the prosecution tried him on the wrong charges IMO and that they couldn't make their case on second degree murder, therefore the not guilty verdict.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Again, The dead pusher was measuring up a massive kick to down fat mans head. hitching up pants, leering down, advancing. The Gun came out just before. Pusher then began to drift, they (she was out of car heading for back) had planned to hit him front an back. Prove me wrong.

Fire when he begins to approach you....not while he is backing away

Nonsensical comment. The white guy did not even see the black guy coming. The white guy was explaining to the black lady why they should not park in the handicap space when the next thing he knew he was blindsided and down on the ground. Whereupon he looked up saw the black guy standing over him and then drew his pistol and shot. which is covered by the law of self defense.

Most likely he did not see the backward step of the black guy.

The black guy made several mistakes...first of all comitting assault. Secondly when he saw the pistol come out he should have put his hands up or took off running...if he had time to do either...things happend very quickly. He was probably just as supprised to see the pistol as the white guy was to get knocked to the ground.

The black guy waited till he got shot then he took off running, collapsed and died.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Amendments are ok if properly agreed upon, and this by lawmakers whom would review a law that may have been proven weak as in the Mcglockton case down in Florida.

Like Marion said, I also disagreed with the shoot, because the shooter's life didn't appear to be in danger once pulled his weapon regardless of his little anger problem he had in which proved lethal in the end for the poor guy defending his family from the idiot. The video was key in that case, and it exposed the weakness exploited in the law that day.

Not sure what an amendment would look like or read like in order to isolate idiots who slip through the cracks like that, so that will be interesting to see.

Hmmm, how about this maybe --- No amendment to the law, but full prosecution for the shooter whenever see something go wrong like this, because in everything we have or can find idiots that exploit the situations we thought were unexploitable, and the way we protect the laws along with our good people, is that we recognize the problem that occurred specifically in a certain case, and we prosecute in order to preserve our laws and good people whom use our laws properly when they are used ???????????????????

What ‘appeared’ to you or anyone else is legally irrelevant; all that matters is what the person defending himself with deadly force perceives to be a threat – the law assumes that the person defending himself is using deadly force in good faith, and the burden rests with the state to demonstrate otherwise.

Mr. McGlockton made the tragic mistake of using physical force against another, he alone placed his life in jeopardy as a consequence; what was not justifiable was McGlockton’s use of physical force to begin with.