The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 20, 2018, 11:49 AM   #51
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,596
It will come down (Like I know) to reasonable doubt, IMHO. Is there a reasonable fear of continuing grievous bodily harm.

As far as the shooter, he will be ruined personally and it is well deserved. I don't buy that going up to a car window and yelling or 'politely discussing' something is the world's best plan. Would he have done it to a car full of males? Doubt it. Also, someone coming up to my car window and 'discussing' is close to being threatening to me. I would probably call the law and think about various options.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old August 20, 2018, 03:24 PM   #52
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,409
To anyone who thinks that this shooter was justified in pulling the trigger for being shoved and falling to the ground, I do have a few comments. Maybe they were already voiced, I read thru half the comments only.

It really doesn't take much to shove someone to the ground. It might not even be called a 'violent' shove. Someones caught off guard and loses their balance, they will fall down. Simple as that. Even a two handed shove might not be enough to be called 'violent'.
Now you might be asking yourself, how does spacemanspiff know this? What life experience might he have to lead him to say something like that?
I spent 10 years working part time as a bouncer. I've been shoved by plenty a drunk, and done my fair share of shoving drunks, or sometimes just plain ol obnoxious jerks who were sober but combative and aggressive. I've done such in the presence of police officers doing walk throughs of the bar. I've had customers that tried to complain about being forcibly removed, in which they did fall to the ground after I shoved them out the door.

If you believe that being shoved to the ground by someone who is NOT DISPLAYING ANY WEAPON justifies the use of deadly force, you are pretty much saying that any person I have removed from the bar, or stepped in and broken up a fight between patrons, you are saying that the vast majority of those people would have been justified in shooting me and any other bouncer I have worked with.

By the letter of the law, being shoved to the ground constitutes an assault. However, in my years spent as a bouncer I learned that if I wanted to press charges against a person who laid hands on me, I needed to be able to show evidence that their contact with me caused me bodily harm. Long gone are the days where you can get someone thrown in jail for just touching you.

Now, it was my job as bar security to do all that. Police recognized that, and so did bar management. But lets go back to the original topic here. Did the shooter in this story have any job he was performing to even mouth off to the woman who parked in a handicapped spot? No. Was he justified in mouthing off? No. Did he know for a 100% fact that it was not a legitimately used handicapped space? No.

Even though she committed the first wrong, the shooters confronting her was also in the wrong. No one won anything except stupid prizes that day.
__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard
spacemanspiff is offline  
Old August 20, 2018, 03:35 PM   #53
Roamin_Wade
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 11, 2018
Location: Baytown, TX
Posts: 122
The only reason that the threat stopped was because of the victim had the gun. If he hadn't produced it, the assault would have continued. If everyone just obeyed the law, this wouldn't have happened. I would have called 911 on the illegally parked car. He very well may have been looking for a fight and he found one. It didn't warrent dying but the first offense was not respecting handicapped laws.
Roamin_Wade is offline  
Old August 20, 2018, 06:58 PM   #54
Rangerrich99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2014
Location: Kinda near Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamin_Wade View Post
The only reason that the threat stopped was because of the victim had the gun. If he hadn't produced it, the assault would have continued. If everyone just obeyed the law, this wouldn't have happened. I would have called 911 on the illegally parked car. He very well may have been looking for a fight and he found one. It didn't warrent dying but the first offense was not respecting handicapped laws.
1) 911 is for EMERGENCIES only. Someone parked illegally is not an emergency, period. It is also not an issue that an ordinary citizen should stick his/her nose into. Should've simply went inside and made the owner/manager of the store aware of the allegedly illegally parked car.

This incident reminds me of the woman who took a couple shots at a guy for stealing someone else's groceries.

Stealing groceries is not justification for shooting someone.

Being shoved is not grounds for killing someone, regardless of any "stand your ground" law. If you think it is, then you really shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.
Rangerrich99 is offline  
Old August 20, 2018, 09:33 PM   #55
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,649
Quote:
Being shoved is not grounds for killing someone, regardless of any "stand your ground" law. If you think it is, then you really shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but I'd say it depends on additional factors unique to the shoving. And little things like getting your skull cracked against the pavement do kind of matter. There is also the disparity of force issue. A couple of guys in reasonable health and somewhere well below middle age, not a lot of disparity of force, which is one legal reason shooting to stop a bar fight isn't a common approach.

mid 20s youth vs 60-70-80+ year old? Much different. If the shove isn't fatal, the very next blow could well be. If ALL it is, is a shove and nothing else, I'd say shooting isn't justified. ANYTHING else that could be interpreted as hostile changes the equation.

And, every single incident is different enough in particulars that matter, so blanket statements don't cover well.

Simply put, if you intentionally shoot someone you don't have to, you should go to jail. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

If you honestly believe you have to, then you believe you have to. If the jury agrees, you'll go free. If they don't, you'll go to jail.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 20, 2018, 09:47 PM   #56
Rangerrich99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2014
Location: Kinda near Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 993
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
Just playing devil's advocate here, but I'd say it depends on additional factors unique to the shoving. And little things like getting your skull cracked against the pavement do kind of matter. There is also the disparity of force issue. A couple of guys in reasonable health and somewhere well below middle age, not a lot of disparity of force, which is one legal reason shooting to stop a bar fight isn't a common approach.

mid 20s youth vs 60-70-80+ year old? Much different. If the shove isn't fatal, the very next blow could well be. If ALL it is, is a shove and nothing else, I'd say shooting isn't justified. ANYTHING else that could be interpreted as hostile changes the equation.

And, every single incident is different enough in particulars that matter, so blanket statements don't cover well.

Simply put, if you intentionally shoot someone you don't have to, you should go to jail. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

If you honestly believe you have to, then you believe you have to. If the jury agrees, you'll go free. If they don't, you'll go to jail.
I agree with your argument regarding disparity of force, naturally. If the subject was a 100 lb. girl, or a 70 year old (just picked those numbers out of the air), then the disparity of force would be great enough to possibly warrant drawing your gun, and maybe taking the shot. I was speaking to the incident at hand, where we have two adult males of close to the same age group.

I also agree that every incident is different, and there could be all kinds of mitigating factors that could change the actions and legal outcomes of this type of situation. My argument was aimed at just this situation however.

It's possible that let my initial emotional reaction shade my response here. I just get annoyed by these incidents because they make the rest of us lawful CCs look like idiots. And I hate having to explain to my pro-gun control friends that not everyone who carries thinks this guy and those like him did the right thing.

Anyway, 44AMP, you're right and I agree with your points. But in this particular incidence, this guy didn't do the rest of us any favors.
Rangerrich99 is offline  
Old August 20, 2018, 10:30 PM   #57
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,047
There have been any number of cases during which big, tough, unarmed children have beaten little old men half to death. If it had stopped before that first punch, before the aggressive actions became an attack, these people laying in hospitals in comas would be safe.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old August 20, 2018, 10:34 PM   #58
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangerrich99
I was speaking to the incident at hand, where we have two adult males of close to the same age group.
Close to the same age group?

McGlockton was 28 -- Drejka is 47. That's not my idea of the same age group, unless you just classify "adult" as an age group.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old August 20, 2018, 11:36 PM   #59
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 21,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by FITASC
If the person going in was not handicapped, it is a $250 fine in FL.
Very interesting. I was not aware of that. Good information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FITASC
I never said it gave you or anyone the right to use lethal force. Mine had trouble walking, especially over the slightest uneven ground; it was always frustrating to see someone parking - like in this instance - where the handicapped person never left the vehicle so the other person should have parked in a regular spot and walked to the store.
I don't believe your comments could be misinterpreted in that manner. You noted that incorrect information was provided and posted the correct information to set things straight. That's how these discussions are supposed to work.
Quote:
I commented that he might not have been...
The word "might" is indicative of speculation. The statement is identical to saying "I speculated he was not..."

But whatever, arguing about what might have or might not have taken place (whether you call it speculation or not) isn't necessary. We can see what DID happen and that's enough to assess the situation accurately.
Quote:
What you describe is illegal in my state and under the ADA.
Yup, it appears to be illegal under FL state law as well. I was incorrect and I appreciate posters providing correct information to set me straight.

However, as you pointed out initially, it's not relevant to the shooting.
Quote:
The law is based entirely on the shooter's belief.
That is incorrect. It is based on the shooter's REASONABLE belief.

"A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes..."

It doesn't matter what a defender believes if that belief is unreasonable. A person who genuinely believes that an unarmed attacker is a deadly danger even while a distance away doesn't hold a REASONABLE belief and therefore the justification isn't there.
Quote:
Following the shove, the assailant then advanced toward him and towered over him. The shooter was undoubtedly somewhat shocked and dazed. Whether or not the assailant intended to follow up the shove with more violence is speculation, but the question is whether the guy lying dazed on the ground was "reasonably" in fear of incurring "imminent death or great bodily harm to himself."
I think that this would all be "reasonable" IF the attacker had continued to stand over the man on the ground or had pressed the attack.

But that's not what happened. The attacker immediately began to back off when the man on the ground reached for his gun, before he could even see what the man was reaching for. And he continued to back off, even turning away before he was finally shot.
Quote:
If you have never been violently assaulted, I respectfully submit that you are not qualified to dismiss the possibility that the shooter did "reasonably" fear for his life.
Realistically, that's exactly the opposite of how this case will be decided. In all likelihood, the way the system works, it will be determined that people who HAVE been violently assaulted will be deemed unqualified to sit on the jury. Guilt or innocence will most certainly not be determined by a panel of people who have been violently assaulted.

The defense lawyer will likely try to make the point that a violent assault can be very disorienting and, depending on his/her ability and on the validity of the point and the presence of evidence, may convince the jury.

I'm not trying to get into the details of how juries are seated, but it's important to understand that it's not reasonable to expect that a jury in a case like this will be composed of, or even include any members who have been violently assaulted.
Quote:
The only reason that the threat stopped was because of the victim had the gun. If he hadn't produced it, the assault would have continued.
Even if that were true--and there's no way to know for certain that it is--it wouldn't make any difference. What does make a difference is what DID happen--that is what will decide the case. Not what we think might have happened or what we speculate could have happened.

What did happen was that the attack was immediately halted and the attacker immediately began to retreat.
Quote:
...I'd say it depends on additional factors unique to the shoving. And little things like getting your skull cracked against the pavement do kind of matter. There is also the disparity of force issue.
Correct. It will depend on the circumstances of the case and how the jury views them. Does a shove always justify deadly force? No. Could it? It could depending on the circumstances.
Quote:
McGlockton was 28 -- Drejka is 47. That's not my idea of the same age group, unless you just classify "adult" as an age group.
The size and age differences combined are enough to give a reasonable person pause. Particularly once the smaller and older person is on the ground. A person standing up has a significant advantage over a person on the ground even if they are otherwise fairly evenly matched.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old August 20, 2018, 11:49 PM   #60
Rangerrich99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2014
Location: Kinda near Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca View Post
Close to the same age group?

McGlockton was 28 -- Drejka is 47. That's not my idea of the same age group, unless you just classify "adult" as an age group.
One guy is in his late 20s, the other mid-to-late 40s, not what I'd call wildly disparate.

Not sure why you're so hot to defend this guy anyway. He (Drejka) has a history of not only verbally threatening people, and brandishing his weapon at unarmed people (apparently over that same handicapped parking space, which is just idiotic), but also a history of using racial slurs while doing so. In other words, he's the kind of racist nitwit we should all be trying to avoid and avoid being like in any way, shape or form.
Rangerrich99 is offline  
Old August 20, 2018, 11:52 PM   #61
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 21,803
In all fairness, even racist jerks have the right to self-defense. It may not be intuitive, but even criminals can still retain their right to self-defense while actively engaged in crime--under certain circumstances.

The issue here is whether or not the circumstances of the situation justify deadly force. Not what kind of a person Drejka was, or McGlockton was, or McGlockton's girlfriend was.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old August 21, 2018, 08:17 AM   #62
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 269
Quote:
1) 911 is for EMERGENCIES only. Someone parked illegally is not an emergency, period. It is also not an issue that an ordinary citizen should stick his/her nose into. Should've simply went inside and made the owner/manager of the store aware of the allegedly illegally parked car.
In my jurisdiction 911 is exactly who you call for a vehicle parked in a handicapped space. If you call 311 on that you will be directed to call 911.
Quote:
One guy is in his late 20s, the other mid-to-late 40s, not what I'd call wildly disparate.
What is "wildly" disparate and why would that be a test under the law? Is there some kind of case law that mandates differences in physical capability be "wildly" desperate?

Quote:
Not sure why you're so hot to defend this guy anyway
Well you would not want anyone accusing you of "being so hot to defend" McGlockton's initiation of physical contract with a clear assault and serious violence by throwing a guy on concrete, which certainly could be seen as potential for grievous injury?

It is safe to say most reasonable people don't find either sympathetic.

This case is messy and it is why a trial is needed. None of us knows. The facts and the law have to be applied in a court.
TDL is offline  
Old August 21, 2018, 08:59 AM   #63
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,596
Just as an information point. The Armed Society is a Polite Society quote comes from a Robert Heinlein book which postulates a very nasty culture which was a genetically determined caste system. People wore tatoos of their genetic status and there was a clearly discriminated against genetic underclass. The 'armed' part came from a dueling aspect of young toughs who bossed others around. Not a 'polite' society in our terms.

The hero of the book, in fact, thought the dueling aspect was stupid and was going to abandon being armed and wearing an arm band that announced he could not be challenged in a duel. The flip side was that he had to deter to the dueling culture toughs.
He was convinced by a member of the ruling class not to do that and for grins carried a 1911 instead of the usual ray guns. The latter made neat cauterized holes and usually survivable. His opponents were shocked by 45 ACP impact. Not so nice.

Thus, the mantra, if you know its origin, isn't what you think it is.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old August 21, 2018, 09:13 AM   #64
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,912
I'll put my .02 in. My opinion is a couple of wrongs are here. First off the shooter is NOT the handicap parking police. Did he have a right to say something? Of coarse he did. If he elected to go about his business and not say anything we wouldn't be having this discussion. Should the boyfriend have pushed the shooter? Maybe yes, maybe not. My opinion is this, not being there or being personally involved. Once the man on the ground pulled his gun it appears that the threat/attack stops. If the deceased had taken a step toward the man on the ground I would say he has every right to stop the continuing threat/attack. I would have a hard time finding the shooter not guilty seeing what has been presented so far.
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA NROI Range Officer,
ICORE Range Officer,
,MAG 40 Graduate
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old August 21, 2018, 10:13 AM   #65
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,649
Quote:
Realistically, that's exactly the opposite of how this case will be decided. In all likelihood, the way the system works, it will be determined that people who HAVE been violently assaulted will be deemed unqualified to sit on the jury. Guilt or innocence will most certainly not be determined by a panel of people who have been violently assaulted.
This is, for better or worse, the way our system has evolved. The reality is that if you know /have personal experience about the law, about the case, or about anything involved in the case (such as firearms), have been the victim of a crime, etc.. neither lawyer wants you on the jury. Their reasoning is that they don't want someone who might have a predisposition to be biased, due to their experience.

The reality is that neither lawyer wants anyone on the jury who might know something other than what the lawyers (and the judge) tell them. And, remember that while witnesses testifying are under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, neither the prosecutor, nor the defense attorney take that oath!!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 21, 2018, 10:29 AM   #66
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,047
The definition of belief should be examined, as well as the definition of reasonable belief. Note that 'belief" has absolutely no bearing on what is true and factual. Reasonable belief is a relative term, based on assessment by rational thought by rational people. belief may be based on fact, and in fact may be factual, as well as reasonable, but everyone is a closed system with limited abilities at finding and facts and truth. many people unreasonably believe that they can make no mistakes.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old August 21, 2018, 11:01 AM   #67
pblanc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 561
Terms like "reasonable", "gross", and "wanton" are used in criminal and civil law all the time. There are no precise definitions for these terms.

It comes down to what the jury deems to be reasonable, gross, or wanton.
pblanc is offline  
Old August 21, 2018, 03:15 PM   #68
JN01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 732
Without all the facts (not speculation) it is hard to be certain, but from what has been released, it APPEARS to me that the shooter was not justified in his actions.

I agree that as a gun carrier, one has to be ever more cautious about not instigating any confrontation that might escalate into a force encounter.

However, I does seem like a sad commentary on society today when we are afraid to make even the most innocuous comment about rude, obnoxious, or otherwise socially unacceptable behavior for fear of provoking an assault on one's self.
JN01 is offline  
Old August 21, 2018, 07:01 PM   #69
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,177
One thing I am seeing is a whole lot of speculation and where is and ifs and what was and this maybe.

I think the stand your ground thing was a badly done law. It mucked up things as it became totally subjective. You should be threatened and not feel threatened.

Frankly you are justified in using force if someone else is threatened, but they darn well better have proof.

If you want to police parking spaces, then get a camera, record it and submit it to the police departments. In this case the individual was clearly looking to make it a confrontation and succeeded beyond what he thought (yelling at a woman that is below your in my opinion could be interpreted as stand your ground and she had a right to shoot him)

Getting into brandishing weapons is also a red haring. You can pull a gun and be in the defend yourself mode, but if that changes then you don't have to shoot. In this case, the sight of the gun clearly deescalated it, the shover backed off and was moving away.

I think despite the self created circumstance there was justification to pull the gun.

The nut case had ratcheted himself up tot he point that he was going to shoot the shover, he was just looking for an excuse (and was given it)

Armed Society are not peaceful, they are dangerous.

Trained Police often fail the test, non trained citizens?

WE all know responsible people, we all know dangerously out of control or on the edge people and all of them can have a gun. Just go to the range and watch the gun handling.

Some very nice people scare the be-jesus out of you.
__________________
Science and Facts are True whether you believe it or not
RC20 is offline  
Old August 21, 2018, 07:45 PM   #70
GarandTd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2016
Location: Western PA
Posts: 849
Quote:
Armed society are not peaceful, they are dangerous.
As an armed person, I take offense to that very general statement.
How about "Armed individuals might not be peaceful, they may be dangerous"
We(armed individuals) should not all be lumped into that same category.
__________________
22lr, 20 gauge, 8mm Mauser, 35 Remington, 30-06, 9mm, 380acp

Last edited by GarandTd; August 21, 2018 at 07:48 PM. Reason: Changed "can not" to "should not"
GarandTd is offline  
Old August 21, 2018, 10:34 PM   #71
Dr. Strangelove
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2008
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 1,435
So, someone died because of being parked in the wrong parking space.

Regardless of the outcome of the court case, the moral of the story is clear here (and I've said it many times,and I'll say it again):

A concealed carry permit does not make you a policeman. Don't go looking for trouble. If you are assaulted or threatened, then deal with the threat. Otherwise, mind your own business and go home.

At the end of the day, someone died over a parking spot at a convience store. Justified or not, it's just stupid.
__________________
Just remember, when you pull the trigger, the bullets come out going very, very fast. So make sure to keep the weapon pointing away from you.
Dr. Strangelove is offline  
Old August 21, 2018, 11:35 PM   #72
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,649
Quote:
I think the stand your ground thing was a badly done law. It mucked up things as it became totally subjective.
The "stand your ground law(s)" changed NOTHING regarding the justified (lawful) use of deadly force. What mucked things up is people's misunderstanding of the law based on misleading media labels ("stand your ground"), and BS "expertise" found in bars, locker rooms, and I suppose, these days, on social media.

The entire "stand your ground" soundbyte is misleading. The law doesn't require you to stand your ground, it just removed the legal requirement to retreat (when physically possible) and the spurious prosecution via civil suits if you chose not to retreat. "Reasonable" people are still expected to retreat/de-escalate/de-fuze the situation if possible. All the stand your ground laws do is remove legal penalties if you don't.

Whether or not deadly force is justified, and when are still the same as they were before stand your ground, and is a separate matter under our legal system.

Quote:
Armed Society are not peaceful, they are dangerous.
UNarmed societies are not peaceful, they are dangerous, as well.

Quote:
So, someone died because of being parked in the wrong parking space.
I disagree. This is the same as saying someone died because they got out of bed in the morning. Someone died as a result of a violent attack. You can start the chain of events anywhere you wish, but I look at the event immediately preceding the shot, not the event before that, or further back in time.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 22, 2018, 09:05 AM   #73
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by rc
Armed Society are not peaceful, they are dangerous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
UNarmed societies are not peaceful, they are dangerous, as well.
While true, whether a society is peaceful isn't the point of the observation. The threat of violence can buttress codes of good behavior, exactly as Heinlein's character explains. Early 19th century duelling etiquette had well recognized and socially enforced rules that discouraged casual offense amongst potential participants. Hamilton's death may not have been peaceful, but it wasn't a breach of etiquette.

One element of respect can be a recognition that another has the capacity to do harm, but chooses not to. A harmless person can't make that choice and may not gain the respect one gives a genuinely moral actor.

Whether the fellow in the video reasonably believed that he was subject to great bodily harm or a continuing felonious assault isn't resolved by a silent video. One would need more information to reasonably conclude that the shooter deserves to be ruined, and it should not be the object of a criminal justice system to ruin a person without respect to guilt.

Last edited by zukiphile; August 22, 2018 at 09:23 AM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old August 22, 2018, 09:13 AM   #74
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,912
Quote:
I think the stand your ground thing was a badly done law. It mucked up things as it became totally subjective. You should be threatened and not feel threatened.
Prior to "stand your ground" becoming law in Florida as CCWP holder you were "required by law" worded as "duty to retreat" whenever possible to do so safely.
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA NROI Range Officer,
ICORE Range Officer,
,MAG 40 Graduate
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old August 22, 2018, 12:04 PM   #75
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,630
Stand your ground has nothing to do with this, and the official claiming otherwise is grossly ignorant of the law or deliberately misstating it to serve some agenda.

As for the shooter, if you are an armed person and you shoot an unarmed one with not so much as a scratch on you, there are going to be consequences. You should expect to go to jail, lose your job, lose all your money and most of your possessions, and probably lose some close personal relationships as well. I’m not saying that is just; but you should expect it because it certainly happens in a lot of those cases.

That’s why your threshhold should be “Do I have to shoot now in order to stop my immediate death or serious bodily injury?” Even if it was justified, you might still spend some time in jail and have to spend everything you have and everything you and your family can borrow.

Frank Ettin used to have a list of people who were acquitted in self-defense shootings but lost everything. We’ve probably seen a dozen more since the last time the list was posted. One thing they all have in common: armed person shooting unarmed person. If you can avoid that scenario, you should.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12627 seconds with 9 queries