Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[miketx]

The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.

Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed

What was said ?

The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.

Right after he knocked you down it would.

 

[Marion Morrison]

In b4 the shooter gets a green card from Pam Bondi.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.

They could be as a prelude to an already initiated attack justifying SYG

 

[kaz]

Again, particularly that he continually staged that event.

Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?

What does that mean?

He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions, He used only after being attacked.

Thats my take on it.
The could have walked up and asked what the problem was instead he escalated the tension.

Yes, he could have. But you're talking about the victim, not the shooter, who initiated "the tension."

The odds of any one loop ending in a death was probably low. But he kept repeating the scenario.

If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%

 

[Uncensored2008]

The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.

Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed

What was said ?

The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.

Right after he knocked you down it would.

IF the man had shot as soon as he was knocked down I would agree. But he didn't, he brandished the weapon which had the effect of causing the assailant to flee. He then shot the fleeing assailant.

It will be up to a jury to decide, but I don't find this justifiable.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The store owner's testimony says as much.

Just went back and read the story again....
I didnt see anything like you're stating.
Some other link I'm missing?

Go to the one minute mark of the video

Found it.
Not sure if that'll change anything.
The guy escalated the situation by attacking him.

So you heard the guy was repeatedly confronting people over a parking space (that wasn't his), was angry and hostile, and you think that doesn't matter? Obviously the guy created a loop that would eventually end in someone being dead.

And you defend that? Seriously? Guns are to be used to prevent shootings if at all possible and only be used if necessary. And yet you're defending a situation that was guaranteed to end in someone being killed.

That's not what gun rights are about, it just isn't

Oh I saw it.
But he obviously never pulled his gun before he was attacked.

Talking is one thing attacking is another.

there are other witnesses to the incident besides the video

who knows what else was going on at the time

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let the court and a jury decide.

There will be neither as the shooter was not charged.

I thought it said they were still deciding. He should be charged minimum second degree murder. I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario

And the State Attorney’s Office isn’t going to pursue the matter absent charges filed against Drejka.

 

[kaz]

Again, particularly that he continually staged that event.

Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?

What does that mean?

He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions, He used only after being attacked.

Could his actions be considered baiting someone to attack?

I'd say so.
But that doesnt give the guy the right to attack him.
People have disagreements everyday without resorting to violence.
Not that I agree with the shooting but the law is the law.

No one is saying he had a "right" to attack him.

Look man, the shooter initiated the aggression. Yelling a woman in a parking lot is aggression.

If you have a gun, don't initiate aggression.

Would you teach your children anything else? I grew up in the midwest where guns are common. That's the kind of thing our parents taught us when they taught us to use guns safely

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.

Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed

What was said ?

The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.

Looks black to me.

 

[night_son]

Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.


My opinion:

Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.

I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.

The article and video of the incident are in the link below:

https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/

media link from youtube:

On one hand, the shooter was armed and looking for trouble. On the other, the shooting victim shoved him with enough force to possibly break his sternum. I have to agree with the OP on the grounds that the assault did not continue. However, would the assault have continued had the shooter not drawn his firearm? On the surface it seem at least to me, the situation had stabilized after the weapon was drawn. An interesting case to follow.

In which case you’re just as wrong as the OP.

Florida SYG doctrine doesn’t require the attack to be ‘ongoing’; indeed, the theory of the law is that one may use deadly force to stop an attack, before the assailant has an opportunity to inflict bodily harm or kill the person being attacked.

Now, had McGlockton turned and started running from the incident and Drejka then shot McGlockton, the shooting would likely not have met SYG requirements.

Sometimes the messenger obstructs the message.

 

[OODA_Loop]

But he kept repeating the scenario.

If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%

Challenging someone for parking actions verbally is a lawful act. Lawful with a gun if you have a CCW.

 

[kaz]

Let the court and a jury decide.

There will be neither as the shooter was not charged.

I thought it said they were still deciding. He should be charged minimum second degree murder. I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario

And the State Attorney’s Office isn’t going to pursue the matter absent charges filed against Drejka.

The attorney won't pursue the case without charges. That seems like an obvious and empty statement

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.

They could be as a prelude to an already initiated attack justifying SYG

The "victim" was actually black.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Stand your ground.
Case dismissed.

In my case, that is what happened. There was still a trial.

Not necessarily.
The video itself is enough to not press charges based on Florida law.

And, a court will decide that.

The DA will look at the video and decide if it was self defense.
If he thinks it wasnt there will be a trial and the guy will walk based on stand your ground and fear for his life.

Most DA's will bring a case like this to court.
Politics being what it is, they have to cover their ass.

lol

Not in Florida - not after the Zimmerman debacle.

 

[JoeMoma]

Again, particularly that he continually staged that event.

Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?

What does that mean?

He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions, He used only after being attacked.

Could his actions be considered baiting someone to attack?

I'd say so.
But that doesnt give the guy the right to attack him.
People have disagreements everyday without resorting to violence.
Not that I agree with the shooting but the law is the law.

Both men did things they didn't have the right to do IMO.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.

Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed

What was said ?

The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.

That depends. If it's like "I'm a kill ya" well..


I had a guy one day, when I was out walking my dog, tell me he was gonna shoot my dog and beat my ass.

I was cornered, I said "What'd you say?" He said "I'm gonna" CLICK! STFU punk!

I beat his ass. Then his big old brother grabbed me up in a full Nelson and he hit me with a ring. As he was doing so, I stomped on his brother's toe, then grabbed his arm, rolled backwards and clacked their heads together and ran.

Their skulls were cracked. I wasn't bothering anybody, they should not have fucked with me.

I may have a scar above my eye, but I ain't got no head fractures.

I boxed his ears when he grabbed me in a bearhug, too.

Then punched him a few times in the face.

 

[whitehall]

How is this political? It's a tough call even if you know more than the single paragraph posted.

 

[kaz]

But he kept repeating the scenario.

If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%

Challenging someone for parking actions verbally is a lawful act. Lawful with a gun if you have a CCW.

That doesn't contradict what I said.

So you think initiating hostility with a gun is OK.

You think repeatedly initiating hostility with a gun is OK.

You think repeatedly initiating hostility with a gun on someone else's property is OK.

I believe in the second amendment for self defense. You're arguing the second justifies murdering people with staged scenarios where you initiate the hostility.

There's no overlap there

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Again, particularly that he continually staged that event.

Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?

What does that mean?

He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions, He used only after being attacked.

Thats my take on it.
The could have walked up and asked what the problem was instead he escalated the tension.

Yes, he could have. But you're talking about the victim, not the shooter, who initiated "the tension."

The odds of any one loop ending in a death was probably low. But he kept repeating the scenario.

If the odds of a shooting in one case is 20% and you repeat that scenario 10 times, the odds of a shooting becomes 90%

Thats the thing though.
The guy was known to be a parking lot nazi even the guy in the interview said it.
The guy that was shot had to know this since he was a daily customer.
And is there any liability for the store owner? He said the guy hung out there everyday. If he was a problem why didnt he call the cops and have him removed?

 

[kaz]

Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?

What does that mean?

He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions, He used only after being attacked.

Could his actions be considered baiting someone to attack?

I'd say so.
But that doesnt give the guy the right to attack him.
People have disagreements everyday without resorting to violence.
Not that I agree with the shooting but the law is the law.

Both men did things they didn't have the right to do IMO.

Yes, but the level was completely different.

If you came out and a guy was screaming at your wife in the parking lot, you wouldn't feel your family is physically threatened by that?