Clearwater stand your ground shooting

[briandg]

I wonder if he will use a temporary stupidity plea, and if it could help?

He seems to have hit his head and he appears to be dazed after the shooting. If it was well handled, he may have a bit of luck claiming that he wasn't in his right mind, that it was not a deliberate action. Get a medical consultant to point to shadows in an x ray and interpret them as damaged spots from the concussion that he sustained when he was thrown to the ground.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by briandg

Turning and running isn't going to be the reaction you get from everyone, I believe that a whole lot of people will freeze in place or retreat while keeping the weapon in sight. He had a car at his back. we can't take the standard that not running constitutes continuation of hostilities.

I agree on reactions, but JohnKSa wrote that the deceased had turned away, and that's not the way I saw it in the video.

As to what constitutes a "continuation of hostilities," I return to the reasonable man standard. We can't view this from the perspective of the security camera. We have to put ourselves in the shooter's shoes. The fundamental question is whether or not HE was justified in believing -- at that moment in time -- that he was in physical danger. Not whether or not he WAS in imminent physical danger, but whether or not he reasonably believed that he was.

You have to put aside the entire parking space issue. That argument was with the woman. She was not the one who attacked the shooter, and she was not the person who was shot. The incident that precipitated the shooting began when McGlockton attacked the shooter -- without preamble, without warning. It was a sneak attack. In fact, the woman chose that moment to get out of her car (where she was safe) and distract the shooter. McGlockton sauntered up with his hands in his pockets, all casual-like, then in a fraction of a second he attacked with no warning. From the shooter's perspective, one moment he's having a verbal dispute with a female, and a moment later he's on the ground, dazed from a sneak attack, and a younger, bigger dude is bearing down on him, apparently intending to inflict further physical damage.

That's what I see when I watch the whole video.

[Aguila Blanca]

Here's a long discussion of the incident, and many seem more supportive of the shooter than most people in this discussion:

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/in...?topic=57863.0

This post pretty well sums up my feelings:

No one got shot over a parking space. No one got shot over race. No one got shot because of someone not minding their own business.

Someone got shot because they engaged in an unprovoked physical altercation with someone. Stop. End credits.

And yes, someone pushing you to the ground? I don't care what physical shape you're in. That's a threat to someone's life and well being.

[K_Mac]

The shooter started the incident by accosting a woman. He then killed a man who came to her aid and who was not pressing the attack. Those are the facts that are relevant in my opinion. A reasonable man does not accost people and then use lethal force when his aggression is challenged.

[jmr40]

I didn't see anything close to "standing your ground". I saw a man defending his wife/girlfriend by shoving someone to the ground with open hands. And depending on exactly what was said between the woman and the shooter it may well have been justified. He may have threatened her, but we don't know that. But it is clear that he turned to walk away and was shot.

The only reason I can come up with for the Sheriff not making an arrest and claiming he couldn't do so because of "stand your ground" laws was political. My guess is that the Sheriff is opposed to these laws and wanted to use this incident to stir up support for having them overturned. I wouldn't "assume" the Sheriff is on our side. Anti-gunners often use examples of irresponsible gun use and try to make it seem like it is the norm in order to get support for more gun control. That is the way I see this.

I think if the Sheriff had been decisive and made an arrest immediately we wouldn't be having this discussion. But his inaction has planted the seeds of doubt. And stirred up opposition to stand your ground laws.

[JohnKSa]

Yes, the assailant did back up a couple of steps. No, he did not turn away before the first shot was fired. He turned after he was hit by the first shot.

At 19 seconds in the video, the man hits the ground.

At 20 seconds in the video, the attacker is close to the man on the ground and facing him. The white emblem on the front of the attacker's shirt is not visible to the camera. The man is sitting up and getting ready to go for his gun. This frame is shown below.



At 21 seconds in the video, the man has obviously gone for his gun and the attacker has already begun to move backwards slightly even though the gun has not been drawn.

At 22 seconds in the video, the attacker has backed off a couple of steps and has turned away. It's clear that he has turned away because the light colored emblem on the front of the his shirt is now obviously visible to the camera.

At 23 seconds in the video, the gun can be seen to recoil with the attacker faced partially toward the camera. The attacker's left foot is in the air taking a step that would turn him farther away from the man on the ground when the shot is fired and the attacker is closer to the store than to the man on the ground.

This frame is immediately before the attacker reacts to the gunshot and is the frame where the gun blurs due to recoil.



I agree with the APS post about WHY the shooting took place. However, that doesn't mean I agree that the shooting was justified.

It would likely have been justified had the man on the ground drawn and fired immediately while the attacker was still in close proximity and still appeared to be engaged in continuing the attack. Once the attacker backed off and turned away things were different.

Deadly force is a preventive measure--it is to prevent serious bodily injury or death. It is never legal to use it to retaliate after an attack is over and the attacker is retreating.

That said, things happen very fast in this kind of a scenario--in this case it was about 4 seconds from the time the man hit the ground to the time the shot was fired. A good lawyer with a good expert witness may be able to convince a jury that everything happened so fast that the shooter was still in fear for his life and didn't have time to fully assimilate the fact that the attacker was retreating. I don't know. All I know is that if I were the shooter, I wouldn't be betting on walking away from this a free man.

[K_Mac]

jmr40 I think you are completely right. Well said.

[Andy Blozinski]

The guy who shot actually had a history of harassing people in the parking lot. AND...bringing firearms into it. It's kind of surprising it didn't get him into lower level trouble earlier.
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/r...documents-show

[briandg]

I read that earlier, and I'm uncertain about what it means, other than he is a fool. It's going to play against him in court. I don't know if his permit would have been pulled after that if it had been reported, but I believe that it should have been.

We've finally gotten laws that preserve the rights of mankind to defend themselves in times of serious danger, and dorkweasles like him are blowing it. I want him to face the consequences to the full extent. he planned and intended to cause trouble, and set himself up to have a gun when he did. That event was eventually going to happen somewhere, almost certainly.

Now, in order to preserve everything that we americans hold dear we need to send him on a long vacation in maximum security.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by briandg

I read that earlier, and I'm uncertain about what it means, other than he is a fool. It's going to play against him in court. I don't know if his permit would have been pulled after that if it had been reported, but I believe that it should have been.

We've finally gotten laws that preserve the rights of mankind to defend themselves in times of serious danger, and dorkweasles like him are blowing it. I want him to face the consequences to the full extent. he planned and intended to cause trouble, and set himself up to have a gun when he did. That event was eventually going to happen somewhere, almost certainly.

Now, in order to preserve everything that we americans hold dear we need to send him on a long vacation in maximum security.

I sort of understand where you're coming from, but I think the result of a conviction will be the opposite of what you seem to expect and hope for. That other forum I linked to is named "Armed Polite Society" after a quote from an author who put forth the notion that ... and armed society is a polite society. Think about that. Many of you are blaming the shooter for instigating a conflict -- but you don't know that he was yelling at the woman. He might have started out being polite and deferential. She could have been contrite, apologized, and moved her car and that would have been the end of the issue. But I'm sure she wasn't polite and contrite, and I'm sure she started mouthing off at him.

All of which has NOTHING to do with the shooting. The verbal interchange was between the shooter and the woman. The physical interchange was between the shooter and McGlockton. When McGlockton came out of the store, he didn't even bother to ask what was going on. All he saw was some white dude talking to his woman, he saw that his woman was angry, so he immediately went into attack mode. Do you think for a moment that he would have attacked if he had foreseen that he might be shot and killed? The unfortunate fact of life today is that too many people think that physical violence is the answer to every little issue. Cutting to the chase, since McGlockton really had no effing idea what was going on and the shooter had no idea that McGlockton was even there, this was NOT an argument between the shooter and McGlockton that went bad. This was, pure and simple, a case of a young thug who initiated an unprovoked physical attack on an older and smaller man, who then used a gun to defend himself.

Once again -- the law calls for the reasonable man analysis. Put yourselves in the shooter's shoes, and then tell us what you would have done.

[JohnKSa]

That other forum I linked to is named "Armed Polite Society" after a quote from an author who put forth the notion that ... and armed society is a polite society. Think about that.

The idea is that everyone is polite because they are afraid they will be killed if they are impolite. Not exactly an ideal we should aspire to. It is, in fact, a form of anarchy in which every person is armed and ready to enforce courtesy via the death of anyone who fails to be properly polite.

Many of you are blaming the shooter for instigating a conflict -- but you don't know that he was yelling at the woman. He might have started out being polite and deferential.

This is a false dichotomy. A person can be obsequiously polite and still start a conflict. It doesn't matter how polite a person is if they are involving themselves in the business of others by usurping the authority of the true authorities and trying to enforce laws that they are not entitled to enforce. That is a recipe for conflict no matter how impeccable the instigator's manners are.

Besides, just as it is speculation to assume he was being impolite, it is speculation to assume he wasn't yelling and was stating his case in the most deferential manner possible. Neither one of those speculations gets us any closer to knowing what happened, nor any closer to anything at all other than, perhaps, closer to being creative fiction writers.

...except that she DID do something wrong.

Actually, the fact that she was present in the car for him to confront argues against that premise. As far as I know, there's no law against pulling into a handicapped space and waiting in the car while a passenger goes into the store and buys something.

But, you know, none of that really matters. Literally--you know--because you said so:

All of which has NOTHING to do with the shooting.

But that doesn't mean there are no lessons to be learned from it. Society abhors the kind of person who takes it upon himself (or herself) to try to enforce their own idea of what the law is or they think it should be, or even what it really is when it's not their job. And they REALLY hate it when people like that carry out their personal agenda while armed so that they can feel safer while they go about "poking people with sharp sticks".

Legally carrying a weapon isn't about feeling free to go about confronting people knowing that you can shoot them if they get out of hand. People who think it is are likely to get themselves into a lot of trouble sooner or later.

This was, pure and simple, a case of a young thug who initiated an unprovoked physical attack on an older and smaller man...

Yes, and he should have been prosecuted for it. No doubt he would have been had he not been shot and killed.

In fact, had he pressed the attack after the initial encounter, it's quite likely that there would be no question about the justification of deadly force. But he didn't press the attack. In fact, he was in clear retreat less than a second after the man hit the ground--from the moment that the man on the ground reached for a gun--before the gun was even drawn.

The only problem here is the disconnect between the law says deadly force is for and what some people think deadly force should be for.

It is NOT to be used to punish people who aren't adequately polite. It is NOT to be used to punish people for violently attacking someone. In fact, it's not to punish anyone for ANYTHING they have done, no matter how heinous.

Punishment comes after the fact, and justifiable deadly force is exclusively about preventing an imminent deadly attack or stopping an in-progress deadly attack. Punishment happens after, justifiable deadly force happens immediately before or during. They are two completely different things that happen at different times. They are not the same--they are not intended to be the same.

Punishment is the EXCLUSIVE domain of the justice system. Deadly force laws do not give citizens the right to punish criminals.

Did the attacker deserve to be punished? Yes. Most definitely. But the man he pushed did not have the legal right to determine what the punishment should be, and he certainly didn't have the legal right to mete it out himself.

The attack is not in question. I don't even think there's any serious question about whether or not the attack would have justified deadly force had the deadly force been used to prevent a continuation of the attack. In fact, even without the continuation of the attack, it seems clear that the man on the ground was justified in drawing his gun to prepare to defend himself against a possible continuation of the attack.

But there was no continuation of the attack. The attacker immediately began retreating and even so, 2 or 3 seconds or so after the retreat began, the man on the ground shot him anyway. A jury will now determine if that time interval was too long and I can't say for sure what they will decide because juries can be difficult to second-guess. But if I were the shooter, I wouldn't be optimistic about my chances.

[GarandTd]

JohnKSa, I agree. You have expressed my thoughts and opinions on this better than I ever could.

[FITASC]

Actually, the fact that she was present in the car for him to confront argues against that premise. As far as I know, there's no law against pulling into a handicapped space and waiting in the car while a passenger goes into the store and buys something.

If the person going in was not handicapped, it is a $250 fine in FL. As someone whose first wife WAS handicapped, I also would get ticked when I saw that. (Same for the idiots who park in front of the store in the fire lane)

Maybe the shooter was one who has a handicap and is tired of folks abusing the parking...

[pblanc]

To those who maintain that a perception of a threat in Drejka's mind is sufficient justification for shooting someone dead, consider the following possibility.

Some have described the interaction between Drejka and McGlockton's common-law wife as a "discussion". The information we have suggests that it was much more than that. One account of the incident mentioned that an observer entering the store suggested that the manager might need to call the police, so it was probably pretty heated.

We can't know what was going on in McGlockton's mind, and he won't have a chance to testify in court. But seeing Drejka in a heated argument with his wife, which could only have been initiated by Drejka, and perhaps having heard that the police should be called, might he not have perceived Drejka as constituting an immediate potential threat to his wife?

In that case, if Drejka is justified in having killed McGlockton because he felt threatened, surely McGlockton would be justified in having pushed Drejka away from his wife. Even a shove forceful enough to knock a person to the ground has to be considered less lethal than a gunshot wound to the chest. I think most would agree that physical contact is not required before an individual can be considered to be an immediate potential threat.

Regardless of whether you think the actions of Drejka and the woman prior to the arrival of McGlockton are "irrelevant" to the case, you can bet that Drejka's actions prior to getting shoved by McGlockton will be brought out by the prosecution in the trial.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Besides, just as it is speculation to assume he was being impolite, it is speculation to assume he wasn't yelling and was stating his case in the most deferential manner possible. Neither one of those speculations gets us any closer to knowing what happened, nor any closer to anything at all other than, perhaps, closer to being creative fiction writers.

I didn't speculate that he wasn't yelling, I commented that he might not have been, and that we don't know -- one way or the other.

The fundamental point is that he -- the shooter -- did not have ANY conflict with the deceased thug. McGlockton didn't have time to even find out what was transpiring between the shooter and the woman. He came out of the store, saw his woman getting in some white dude's face, and immediately went into [sneak] attack mode. The shooter had NO interaction with McGlockton until the moment when McGlockton attacked him.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Actually, the fact that she was present in the car for him to confront argues against that premise. As far as I know, there's no law against pulling into a handicapped space and waiting in the car while a passenger goes into the store and buys something.

What you describe is illegal in my state and under the ADA. I don't know how Florida's law is written.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

But that doesn't mean there are no lessons to be learned from it. Society abhors the kind of person who takes it upon himself (or herself) to try to enforce their own idea of what the law is or they think it should be, or even what it really is when it's not their job. And they REALLY hate it when people like that carry out their personal agenda while armed so that they can feel safer while they go about "poking people with sharp sticks".

Society (or some segments thereof) also abhors "snitches."

[briandg]

John, I can't disagree with anything you said, because you have taken common legal standards and added them to societal standards, and opened the thing up to a very reasonable interpretation of the events as shown by video, and among other things come up with a very reasonable and probably true narrative for the event. Neither of the two thought that pulling in like that would have ended in killing. There may not have been any practical alternative to getting out of the car, if every station was taken and spot was full, and there was no other way of stopping the car. So, a 'reasonable person' would still go ahead and use the handicapped stall to go potty in, and would also pull into the handicapped space and occupy it for a minute or two.

It is NOT to be used to punish people who aren't adequately polite. It is NOT to be used to punish people for violently attacking someone. In fact, it's not to punish anyone for ANYTHING they have done, no matter how heinous.

This is pretty much what I have been trying to say all along, but couldn't find the right words. That wasn't defense, that was exactly what we are seeing in our worst world hot spots. People being killed for small offenses against armed hooligans. This guy was a killer. It was a parking lot altercation that ended in a gunfight, and only the smallest details allowed it to be thought of as a legitimate defensive killing.

Unless he can be proven to be in a damaged or diminished state of mind, what he did, as the camera shows, was to essentially backshoot a man, quite deliberately with obvious forethought. Two seconds is long enough.

We can go through and reframe and reinterpret every fragment of the event, but what was he charged for? This guy was a jackass, he endangered everyone in the area by choosing to pick on a woman with two kids over a matter too small to matter. The natural consequences of his act was that someone behaved illegally to punish him. Those are unrelated. The guy was finished. done and, over, call the cops, file charges.

He was charged because he shot a guy as he was in retreat, without any legal justification. Looking at the charges that were filed, at least the information that was released, that is the very end of the discussion.

Forget everything else. He shot the guy and killed him. The last few seconds when he made that decision are the only things to consider when filing a very simple charge based on a very simple entry in the criminal code that may take up only a paragraph.

Remember this, everyone. The charges are that he shot and killed a man in cold blood, when there was clearly not an ongoing threat. The fact is that the charges are correct, a five second span of video records prove his guilt.

Anyone who disagrees with that or doesn't understand it, and thinks that the law is just a big fuzzy sweater that we can pick through to find what we want is wrong. All of the debris is going to be flushed away by the prosecutor and the defense will even bring up the killer's childhood neglect if necessary. Did he shoot him or not? did the shooting meet the standards? was there any reason that the guy mistakenly believed that the shooting met the standard, and is that mistake acceptable to a jury?

I keep wondering if he bonked his noggin hard enough that it influenced his decision. If he can prove that he was incapacitated and can prove that the incapacitation led to the mistake, he may be found not guilty.

[K_Mac]

FITASC my wife IS handicapped. That does not give me the right to confront idiots in handicapped spots and it doesn't give me the right to use lethal force when confronting an idiot goes bad. As the video shows, ain't nothing good can come of it.

But that doesn't mean there are no lessons to be learned from it. Society abhors the kind of person who takes it upon himself (or herself) to try to enforce their own idea of what the law is or they think it should be, or even what it really is when it's not their job. And they REALLY hate it when people like that carry out their personal agenda while armed so that they can feel safer while they go about "poking people with sharp sticks".

John's above quote is compelling. If you want to go about "poking" folks, leave your weapons at home. Carrying a gun does not qualify or authorize anyone to enforce parking laws or to act as a defender of right and wrong. I believe it increases our responsibility to avoid potentially violent conflict when possible.

[briandg]

I believe that there can be a terribly large problem at the time of a shooting discerning the difference between

oh, crap! I gotta!

and

why, I aughta..!

Even this situation isn't acceptable. a man with a weapon has responsibilities. Chief among those responsibilities is to learn when to shoot Then the armed citizen must use a hell of a lot more smart than this guy did. As has been said before, I believe that he has been a fool from the time that he first picked up a gun and turned himself into whatever sort of hero that he believed himself to be.

But again, wash away this entire nearly five decade history of his life and decide. Did his actions fit within the law as shown below? Consider yourself on a jury, sworn to uphold the law, bound by the laws of society to be true to the law.

Actual florida state laws.

(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(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.

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

There you have it. Simple and in half a sentence. if he or she reasonably believes. I am required, as a jury member, to decide whether his belief is "reasonable". Believing in his own flawed perception of that level of danger isn't good enough.

This has to be incorporated into the minds of every person who carries a gun. It's not enough to be knocked to the ground and think 'oh no, he might come back and hit me again and maybe this time he's going to decide to kill me.'

The only qualifier is that we can seperate the threatened use of force from the actual use of force. It's perfectly legal, as well as reasonable to threaten, even in cases such as this.

[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.

Of course I usually get on the the jerk who brings a full cart into the 10 items or less lane and ask them nicely if they failed first grade math.

[briandg]

A guy who I used to be acquainted with loved to remind everyone that he was 6'5', almost 250 pounds, give or take, and he carried a .45. he was one one of the most obnoxious, pushy, aggressive men I've known. During discussions about carrying in public, he frequently pointed out that when at a bar or restaurant he 'tried to be a little less mouthy' so he wouldn't put himself in the situation of getting in trouble with his gun on his person, or for example, shooting his way out of a brawl that he started by mouthing off.

[pblanc]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

The fundamental point is that he -- the shooter -- did not have ANY conflict with the deceased thug. McGlockton didn't have time to even find out what was transpiring between the shooter and the woman. He came out of the store, saw his woman getting in some white dude's face, and immediately went into [sneak] attack mode. The shooter had NO interaction with McGlockton until the moment when McGlockton attacked him"

We have no idea what McGlockton might have seen through the shop window, or heard through the door as others entered, or heard second-hand from others who had witnessed what was going on in the parking lot.

And one does not require to have had any conflict with an individual under Florida law to use either non-lethal or lethal force to protect another individual from what they reasonably perceive to constitute a threat of imminent use of unlawful force.

"Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes, a person is justified in the use of non-deadly force in self-defense where the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force."

"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."

There have been many recent incidents in which a bystander or bystanders came to the assistance of police officers or citizens whom they perceived to be in immediate danger. In none of them did the good Samaritan(s) have prior interaction with the assailants.

[briandg]

a lot of larger municipalities and some states allow online reporting, and that is better than nothing. It will not result in personal violence.


https://www.parkingmobility.com/

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/park...337141354?mt=8

[44 AMP]

leaving aside, for the moment, everything else...

Shooting an unarmed man at greater than contact distance is a tough sell to justify. Even tougher if there is clear evidence that they were NOT moving into contact distance.

Within his "range" an unarmed man absolutely is a deadly threat. But outside that, he's not.

Its not really that simple in our legal system today, but it ought to be.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by briandg

There you have it. Simple and in half a sentence. if he or she reasonably believes. I am required, as a jury member, to decide whether his belief is "reasonable". Believing in his own flawed perception of that level of danger isn't good enough.

This has to be incorporated into the minds of every person who carries a gun. It's not enough to be knocked to the ground and think 'oh no, he might come back and hit me again and maybe this time he's going to decide to kill me.'

Quite the contrary. The law is based entirely on the shooter's belief. It may be "flawed," but that doesn't automatically make it unreasonable. In this case, the shooter had just been violently shoved to the ground by a sneak attack. 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 such a belief was reasonable under the circumstances. You and others in this discussion don't think so. None of us are on the jury, so we'll have to wait for it to play out in court.

[Edit to add} 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. Unfortunately, I have been violently assaulted, so I have some knowledge and recollection of exactly how the body reacts to an assault, and how totally skewed things like the passage of time become during the fractions of a second that may pass on an objective clock.

[pblanc]

It depends on whether the jury deems the shooter's belief that he was in imminent danger was "reasonable" or not.

You don't just get to say "I thought I was in imminent danger so I shot and killed him" and everyone gets up and goes home.

Drejka may have really, really believed he was in immediate danger at the instant he fired, but if the jury unanimously concludes that belief was unreasonable, he will be convicted of manslaughter.