Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67616 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 1:47 pm Post subject: Florida Man Won’t Be Charged in Fatal Shooting Under ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law
This is a subject that's been discussed ad nauseam since the death of Trayvon Martin.
In this particular case I think I'm being objective because of the video. It looks as though Markeis McGlockton (shover) was backing away at the sight of Michael Drejka (shooter) gun. The law says you should be in fear of your life. IMO the sight of the gun removed that threat.
I think Drejka should be charged with at least involuntary manslaughter. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Last edited by jodeke on Sun Jul 29, 2018 7:52 pm; edited 3 times in total
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67616 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 3:10 pm Post subject:
Huey Lewis & The News wrote:
>attacker's name was McGlockton
Changed it to shover. Though he did attack. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144461 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 5:59 pm Post subject: Re: Florida Man Won’t Be Charged in Fatal Shooting Under ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law
jodeke wrote:
This is a subject that's been discussed ad hominem since the death of Trayvon Martin.
In this particular case I think I'm being objective because of the video. It looks as though Markeis McGlockton (shover) was backing away at the sight of Michael Drejka (shooters) gun. The law says you should be in fear of your life. IMO the sight of the gun removed that threat.
I think Drejka should be charged with at least involuntary manslaughter.
I don’t think that you or I are qualified to know what he fears and doesn’t fear. That is why the law was written as it was. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Short answer: The sheriff is misinterpreting the law. The standard is objective, not subjective, Did the shooter reasonably fear imminent bodily harm? I would say no.
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52653 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:29 pm Post subject:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Short answer: The sheriff is misinterpreting the law. The standard is objective, not subjective, Did the shooter reasonably fear imminent bodily harm? I would say no.
Exactly. If we all get to determine our own personal level of imminent threat, we may as well tell people they get to kill whomever they want based on their emotions at the time. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Last edited by DaMuleRules on Sun Jul 29, 2018 7:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52653 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:38 pm Post subject: Re: Florida Man Won’t Be Charged in Fatal Shooting Under ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law
venturalakersfan wrote:
jodeke wrote:
This is a subject that's been discussed ad hominem since the death of Trayvon Martin.
In this particular case I think I'm being objective because of the video. It looks as though Markeis McGlockton (shover) was backing away at the sight of Michael Drejka (shooters) gun. The law says you should be in fear of your life. IMO the sight of the gun removed that threat.
I think Drejka should be charged with at least involuntary manslaughter.
I don’t think that you or I are qualified to know what he fears and doesn’t fear. That is why the law was written as it was.
I'm not even a lawyer and I know that's not how it works. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67616 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 7:15 pm Post subject: Re: Florida Man Won’t Be Charged in Fatal Shooting Under ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law
venturalakersfan wrote:
jodeke wrote:
This is a subject that's been discussed ad hominem since the death of Trayvon Martin.
In this particular case I think I'm being objective because of the video. It looks as though Markeis McGlockton (shover) was backing away at the sight of Michael Drejka (shooters) gun. The law says you should be in fear of your life. IMO the sight of the gun removed that threat.
I think Drejka should be charged with at least involuntary manslaughter.
I don’t think that you or I are qualified to know what he fears and doesn’t fear. That is why the law was written as it was.
Not claiming to be qualified to know ones fear. I'm offering an opinion based on the video. Was he afraid, PROBABLY, was his life in danger, I DON'T THINK SO, McGlockton was retreating.
Correction meant ad nauseam _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:29 pm Post subject:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Short answer: The sheriff is misinterpreting the law. The standard is objective, not subjective, Did the shooter reasonably fear imminent bodily harm? I would say no.
in the end, not sure it matters.....the State Attorney makes the final decision on charges, correct?
A few months ago, according to the Tampa Bay Times, Rick Kelly parked his tanker truck in the same handicapped spot and said he was confronted by Drejka.
Drejka walked around his truck, looking for handicapped decals, then demanded to know why Kelly had parked there, the trucker told the Tampa Bay Times. At one point Drejka threatened to shoot Kelly.
“It’s a repeat. It happened to me the first time. The second time it’s happening, someone’s life got taken,” Kelly told the Tampa Bay Times. “He provoked that.”
_________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:17 pm Post subject: Re: Florida Man Won’t Be Charged in Fatal Shooting Under ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law
venturalakersfan wrote:
jodeke wrote:
This is a subject that's been discussed ad hominem since the death of Trayvon Martin.
In this particular case I think I'm being objective because of the video. It looks as though Markeis McGlockton (shover) was backing away at the sight of Michael Drejka (shooters) gun. The law says you should be in fear of your life. IMO the sight of the gun removed that threat.
I think Drejka should be charged with at least involuntary manslaughter.
I don’t think that you or I are qualified to know what he fears and doesn’t fear. That is why the law was written as it was.
It's a law that allows white men to kill unarmed black men and get away with it. If you switch the races, McGlockton would be looking at a lengthy prison sentence right now. The law should be repealed. But it's Florida, so it won't happen.
Joined: 07 May 2014 Posts: 13823 Location: Boulder ;)
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:33 pm Post subject:
What was the skin color of Rick Kelly
Where are images of shooter.. no google.. only 2-3
I say he planed this whole thing
Perfect choice.. woman with children.. and boyfriend or husband runs into store.. start (bleep) with her.. keep it going.. until boyfriend has to do something.. then shoot him as he is backing away.. He planned this and Florida AG better investigate
Very ill-advised for anyone to do anything physical to anyone in Florida with this cowboyish law on the books and the preponderance of armed rednecks in the state. I agree with CI in that it wouldn't surprise me one iota if this guy was packing heat just in case he could shoot someone some day. Not saying the guy should've shoved an older man to the ground, but it's recognized in less backward places that you messing with someone's family could start something physical. Do I think he should be charged with something? Yes. He was in no really imminent threat. When he pulled the gun, the guy took a step back and looked like he was about to let the shove finish it. To actually shoot was way too after the fact in this particular case. If the guy was walking forward and about to kick him or had already attempted to stomp him, then this would've given cause to believe that his life was potentially in danger.
Had his life ACTUALLY been in imminent danger, I have no umbrage for anyone who fires in self-D if they're able to, or for a bystander who saves that person's life by shooting the aggressor. I just call BS on that being the case in this case. The bar should be much higher than THAT. I'm not saying that the killed party wasn't in the wrong for going to that as his immediate remedy, either. Had he just told the guy to F off, he'd probably be alive unless the old coot still would've shot him while crying stand my ground (which could've just as easily been the case considering that the store clerk said the shooter was a nutjob who started arguments with people on the reg). I'm also not naive enough to think that all cases are judged consistently, especially in that state. From some of the dooseys that have come out of Florida, I'm inclined to believe that any case is a complete tossup down there.
I saw a doc a couple months back on another case in a Florida convenience store parking lot where a white guy who parked next to some A-A teens listening to rap got into a verbal altercation with them and he wound up shooting into the car and killing at least one. They put that guy away. He claimed one of them had an object that looked like a gun that he was concealing in his lap, but that was what the defense had to resort to for a "sh thrown at wall to assess its stickniness" ploy. Jury didn't buy it because no evidence was found to support the claim. He started shooting because he told them to turn it down and got an earful in return. This case only differs in that the shooter got knocked down, but that's still a far cry from the claim that his life was in danger the moment he pulled the gun and fired. Yet, he got away. End of the day, law enforcement and the court system are the arbiters of whether the law is for or against a shooter. With incidents like that going unpunished, I'd gtfo of Florida as fast as I would've gotten out of Tombstone, AZ in the 1880s.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 4:43 am Post subject: Re: Florida Man Won’t Be Charged in Fatal Shooting Under ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law
Ted wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
jodeke wrote:
This is a subject that's been discussed ad hominem since the death of Trayvon Martin.
In this particular case I think I'm being objective because of the video. It looks as though Markeis McGlockton (shover) was backing away at the sight of Michael Drejka (shooters) gun. The law says you should be in fear of your life. IMO the sight of the gun removed that threat.
I think Drejka should be charged with at least involuntary manslaughter.
I don’t think that you or I are qualified to know what he fears and doesn’t fear. That is why the law was written as it was.
It's a law that allows white men to kill unarmed black men and get away with it.If you switch the races, McGlockton would be looking at a lengthy prison sentence right now. The law should be repealed. But it's Florida, so it won't happen.
Your first statement is simply ignorant of the facts. The law has been involved in many cases involving multiple races. I can't comment on the case if you switch the races, related to if it would it be a lengthy sentence....I agree that there continues to be a level of prejudice in our legal system, but I have no knowledge of that being or not being the case in this jurisdiction.....but if the races were switched, I am doubtful that it would be on the news, or you would even know about the case.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 4:50 am Post subject:
non-player zealot wrote:
I saw a doc a couple months back on another case in a Florida convenience store parking lot where a white guy who parked next to some A-A teens listening to rap got into a verbal altercation with them and he wound up shooting into the car and killing at least one. They put that guy away. He claimed one of them had an object that looked like a gun that he was concealing in his lap, but that was what the defense had to resort to for a "sh thrown at wall to assess its stickniness" ploy. Jury didn't buy it because no evidence was found to support the claim. He started shooting because he told them to turn it down and got an earful in return. This case only differs in that the shooter got knocked down, but that's still a far cry from the claim that his life was in danger the moment he pulled the gun and fired. Yet, he got away. End of the day, law enforcement and the court system are the arbiters of whether the law is for or against a shooter. With incidents like that going unpunished, I'd gtfo of Florida as fast as I would've gotten out of Tombstone, AZ in the 1880s.
loud music case
I am not sure I follow your point....the case your citing is direct evidence that "stand your ground" is not simply a defense anyone can use to avoid penalty.
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 4:56 am Post subject: Re: Florida Man Won’t Be Charged in Fatal Shooting Under ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law
venturalakersfan wrote:
jodeke wrote:
This is a subject that's been discussed ad hominem since the death of Trayvon Martin.
In this particular case I think I'm being objective because of the video. It looks as though Markeis McGlockton (shover) was backing away at the sight of Michael Drejka (shooters) gun. The law says you should be in fear of your life. IMO the sight of the gun removed that threat.
I think Drejka should be charged with at least involuntary manslaughter.
I don’t think that you or I are qualified to know what he fears and doesn’t fear. That is why the law was written as it was.
Hate to say it but its is the flaw of this law. Fear is subjective, just like pain, and the law hinges on the interpretation of ‘reasonable’ which is determined by where/which community the trial reside
Short answer: The sheriff is misinterpreting the law. The standard is objective, not subjective, Did the shooter reasonably fear imminent bodily harm? I would say no.
in the end, not sure it matters.....the State Attorney makes the final decision on charges, correct?
Correct. The sheriff stirred things up by announcing that the law does not permit him to arrest the shooter. He was wrong, in my opinion, but the sheriff is not the decisionmaker when it comes to prosecution.
After watching the video, I agree that this guy needs to be charged with something.
The man was backing away from him once the gun was pulled, so the "in fear for my life" argument doesn't hold water with me.
The fact that this same guy has been harassing other people there in the past about the handicapped parking spot tells me he was looking for a problem. And of course he found one because he provoked the situation. _________________ Love, Laker Lanny
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67616 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:25 am Post subject:
LakerLanny wrote:
After watching the video, I agree that this guy needs to be charged with something.
The man was backing away from him once the gun was pulled, so the "in fear for my life" argument doesn't hold water with me.
The fact that this same guy has been harassing other people there in the past about the handicapped parking spot tells me he was looking for a problem. And of course he found one because he provoked the situation.
OK I'll say it George Zimmerman!!!. It wouldn't surprise me if this guy shows up in the news for doing something weird/stooopid.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not equating the cases. I'm speaking to the need for notoriety.
Some believe race was the difference for not being charged. Marissa Alexander was sentenced to 20 years for shooting into a wall using stand your ground. She was released on a plea bargin after serving three years.LINK _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
definitely should be charged. Also this law should have been re-evaluated years ago. You cant have CCP cowboys running around provoking people and blasting away at them because they "feared for their life". _________________ (bleep) Kawhi
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:22 am Post subject:
Back when I used to carry, I was taught two really good rules about self defense:
1. The vast majority of self defense is prevention. Use care in entering situations that would elevate your risk, and always seek the way out that causes the least physical harm, which includes walking away from verbal altercations. Never fight any battle that doesn’t have to be fought.
2. Carrying a weapon requires you to be more vigilant about rule one, not less, despite the natural inclination to feel the opposite. When you carry, you carry more than a gun. You carry responsibility for the lives of strangers. Not only shouldnusing your gun be a last resort, it should be an only resort, and only after you took all preventative measures.
When I gave up carrying, I was struck by how hard it was to follow rule two. I found myself avoiding places and behaviors from my carry days as I adjusted to not feeling I had an “answer” to a confrontation.
The stand your ground law is designed to protect people who scoff at these rules. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144461 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:52 am Post subject: Re: Florida Man Won’t Be Charged in Fatal Shooting Under ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law
DaMuleRules wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
jodeke wrote:
This is a subject that's been discussed ad hominem since the death of Trayvon Martin.
In this particular case I think I'm being objective because of the video. It looks as though Markeis McGlockton (shover) was backing away at the sight of Michael Drejka (shooters) gun. The law says you should be in fear of your life. IMO the sight of the gun removed that threat.
I think Drejka should be charged with at least involuntary manslaughter.
I don’t think that you or I are qualified to know what he fears and doesn’t fear. That is why the law was written as it was.
I'm not even a lawyer and I know that's not how it works.
That is how it works, I deal with laws and regulations daily. They are written with purpose, most are written so that a regulator can interpret it to fit their opinions. One jurisdiction sees it one way, another sees it differently. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:58 am Post subject: Re: Florida Man Won’t Be Charged in Fatal Shooting Under ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law
venturalakersfan wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
jodeke wrote:
This is a subject that's been discussed ad hominem since the death of Trayvon Martin.
In this particular case I think I'm being objective because of the video. It looks as though Markeis McGlockton (shover) was backing away at the sight of Michael Drejka (shooters) gun. The law says you should be in fear of your life. IMO the sight of the gun removed that threat.
I think Drejka should be charged with at least involuntary manslaughter.
I don’t think that you or I are qualified to know what he fears and doesn’t fear. That is why the law was written as it was.
I'm not even a lawyer and I know that's not how it works.
That is how it works, I deal with laws and regulations daily. They are written with purpose, most are written so that a regulator can interpret it to fit their opinions. One jurisdiction sees it one way, another sees it differently.
Sounds like you got your law degree at the same school where you studied climate science? _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
