Posted on 07/25/2018 9:36:45 AM PDT by libstripper
Markeis McGlockton and Michael Drejka both overreacted during their brief, fatal encounter in the parking lot of a Florida convenience store last week. McGlockton overreacted by pushing Drejka to the ground, and Drejka overreacted by drawing a pistol and shooting McGlockton in the chest.
Although it is hard to see how Drejka's use of lethal force could have been justified, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri declined to arrest him, claiming his hands were tied by Florida's Stand Your Ground law. But that is not true, and Gualtieri's misrepresentation of the law has renewed misguided criticism of Florida's approach to self-defense, which contrary to popular misconception does not give a free pass to armed hotheads who claim to have fired out of fear.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
And you clearly have no training in the law of self-defense and the use of deadly force. People have been killed by one punch from an "unarmed man" who first pushed them down.
I read about a witness somewhere else that said the woman was verbally abusive in her language.
EXCELLENT post. I can tell you’ve been trained in the law of self-defense and the use of deadly force.
Florida changed their law to avoid such situations. The threat of force in self defense is treated the same as actually using force in self defense.
You argue like a liberal. Name calling, trying to evoke an emotional response. No one is legally required to brawl with someone intent on brawling, particularly if you are assaulted out of the blue.
“You are adopting the “snowflake standard”
I am if you are carrying a gun.
He was a busybody. Think of someone driving 55 mph in the left hand lane of the freeway.
Not the question. The question is was he legally entitled to kill?
There is a certain protected class of people that believes it has a civil right to violently assault people they feel “disrespected” by and that those other people do not have a civil right to reciprocate in kind.
Nope, I’m not concluding anything.
I am just stating that I do not know the state of mind of the guy who was blindsided and shoved to the ground. There are a whole lot of people posting here who think they do.
Nobody knows how they will react when something like this happens to them. That goes for the guy who decided to shove and the shooter.
If the guy had hit the pavement, hit his head and bled out would he be blamed because he told the idiot Woman to park in another place? You know, he deserved to die because he was a busy body. It goes both ways.
Like I said, just another butt hurt Thread.
Don’t be the lunatic in the first place, without or especially with a gun.
Don’t call strangers out on their bad manners, and don’t be a self appointed cop.
See the term “gray man”... “Oh, don’t mind me, I’m just some nobody passing this way...”
Might save someone a lifetime of suffering.
1. Innocence (I should be innocent in the eyes of the law, and should not be the one who provoked a situation and then claimed self defense when there was a reaction to my provocation)2. Imminence (there should be clearly imminent violence coming my way)
3. Proportionality (I shouldn’t fire a 9mm HST in response to a slap to the face ...and yes, I know for some that’s perfectly okay).
4. Avoidance
The additional legal principle involved is Reasonableness. The perception of a deadly threat must be subjectively and *objectively* reasonable. Simply feeling fear is not enough.
Stand Your Ground strikes the Avoidance principle, and that's all it does.
"On FR ...does not matter much. The man shot was black - or as a poster on this thread said, a ‘thug’ - and I’m sure many in the ‘new FR’ are thus okay with him being shot."
Yeah, I've noticed that. But I don't know what the "new FR" is.
There were several seconds for the shooter to recognize the threat had stopped.
The pictures fails to show the woman getting out of the vehicle same time that Mark comes to shoves the guy down. The guy was not near the woman till she got out the car. He didn’t confront one person they’re two.
That is easy for us to say from the luxurious position of watching the video several times and maybe watching it frame-by-frame from the comfort of our computer monitors.
Maybe it is not so easy for someone who has just been knocked across the pavement and just barely crawled back on their knees to make the same determination.
McGlockton was clearly moving to stomp Drejka when the gun came out. Fear-of-imminent death does not instantly turn off like a light switch - at least for most people.
We all pontificate the what if’s but in the end the Legal System will determine the outcome.
The accusatory nature between FReepers with differing opinions that happens in these (now) multiple threads tells me that nobody really knows what they would have done in this kind of situation.
I can’t imagine physically attacking someone arguing with my Wife and I can’t imagine shooting someone who shoved me to the ground. Just because I can’t imagine it doesn’t mean I might not do something I will regret for the rest of my life.
So the author of this "piece" claims to know what was going through the mind of the man pushed to the ground by a much larger other man?
Really?
And this in "Reason" magazine, huh? They ought to change their name to "Feelings"
Reason magazine, WSJ Editorial pages, even National Review...all have declined significantly over the years and their writers have strayed from objectivity and truth to feelings and emotions.
That's how I go about my business when carrying - do my best to stay away from any confrontation and would rather "brandish" my weapon or fire a verboten warning shot (if safe to do so) before taking a life - even a low-life unless absolutely necessary. Some here seem to be itching for their "chance" but I grew up with weapons and a solid respect for life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.