This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

Post your links to the latest news.

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

Post Reply
Message
Author
YankeeTarheel
Loquacious
Posts: 4301
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#126 Post by YankeeTarheel » Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:56 pm

hondo2K0 wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 11:34 am
:eh: So now you are out of arguments and other guy must be KKK member ad homminem attack and veiled threat how classy of you
You and those like you are reason why orange guy is the POTUS
Typical. Accuse the accuser. It's a simple fact. If the mods think you're trolling, and, no, I'm not a mod, you get banned. And, IMHO, you're trolling.
"Fascism comes along when the rich people get the generals to help them stay in control." -- Woody Guthrie
My son says: "Don't argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!" -- YT

User avatar
AndyH
Loquacious
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:05 pm
Location: LGC Member San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#127 Post by AndyH » Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:17 pm

FYI...might be interesting to compare/contrast the two deaths that resulted from arguments over handicap parking spaces in Florida.

https://www.patreon.com/posts/two-tales-of-20391408
Jul 30 at 7:00am
Believe it or not, there's been another killing over a handicap parking space, again in Florida. This handicap dispute actually took place two days prior to the one currently in the headlines, but has created news because the victim has died after 10 days fighting for his life in the hospital.
Now I see that just two days prior, on July 18, there had been a separate dispute over a handicap parking spot. In this separate case Oswald Zambrano had parked unlawfully in a handicap spot outside of a day care center, remaining in his car.

Zambrano was approached by Julio Ramos, who castigated Zambrano for his parking misconduct. Zambrano exited his vehicle in the course of the argument, at which point Ramos stabbed him repeatedly with a 4" folding knife. Although Zambrano would remain conscious at the scene long enough to phone his family, he would ultimately spend 10 days in the hospital and then dying of his injuries.
“There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.” Heinlein
You can’t take the Razorback! She is gone and gone and gone!

Mustang
Grizzled Veteran
Posts: 802
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 11:12 pm
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#128 Post by Mustang » Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:55 pm

Mustang wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 11:48 am
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:44 am
Mustang wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:36 am
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:50 pm
WTF didn't Drejka call the police? To get into a shooting fight over a handicapped parking space is just arrogant and stupid. Now he's a killer for no goddam good reason.
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:07 pm

Add this: Would Drejka have been so aggressive if he had NOT been carrying a gun or another lethal weapon?
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Mon Jul 23, 2018 10:24 pm
... But there was no threat to Drejka's life and his SYG defense is bullshit.
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Fri Jul 27, 2018 8:45 am

Without the gun, this, at most, would be a shove in a parking lot. With it, it's a homicide. I have zero sympathy for Drejka and hope he's charged.
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:54 pm
There was an old M*A*S*H episode where Hawkeye gets pissed at a cold-blooded statistican, who then presses charges. While that's going on, the statistician gets wounded in the field and in recovery later says he's dropping charges because a push in a bar doesn't amount to much. That's what this was till Drejka turned it into a homicide. I hope he's charged.

So what you are saying, Tarheel, is that all your prior denunciations of Drejka were made without looking at the most significant piece of evidence...the video. I find that fascinating.

YankeeTarheel wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:15 pm
I actually saw the video for the first time today. No doubt about it: Drejka should be charged, at a minimum, with 2nd degree murder. There was no more danger, no more threat as the other guy was backing away and turning away. He just pulled out his gun and executed the other guy in front of the man's son. There's a scene in "Lee Daniels' The Butler" that is eerily prescient--as a young boy, the protagonist sees his father murdered by his White employer SOLELY for objecting to the guy raping his wife, the protagonist's mother. And absolutely nothing happens to the killer. As, so far, nothing has happened to Drejka.

If I was on his jury and saw that videotape, I'd hang that jury up for a year before I'd give that prick a pass or a slap on the wrist. And no bullshit. "Who you gonna believe: Me or your own eyes?"

Somehow, SYG never seems to apply when it's a BLACK man threatened by a White man. So it is yet again, another underhanded attempt to re-establish Jim Crow and White ABSOLUTE dominance over People of Color.
I take that as a personal insult, mustang, an ad hominem attack.

I based my judgement on the multiple accounts of the event. The video merely confirmed them.
It is evidence, but it is not the only evidence. A jury could easily convict Drejka without ever seeing the video.

I have no idea why you are so willing to give this murderer the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you should explain that.
So you find it insulting when I point out the obvious, Tarheel? Really?

as for:
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:15 pm
I have no idea why you are so willing to give this murderer the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you should explain that.
I defy you to find a single word of support that I've mouthed for Drejka's actions on this forum or any other. Other than my gentle chiding of you, I've made two other posts in this thread. One concerned the use by another member of the term "beyond a shadow of a doubt" and the other was a link to a blog post by Andrew Branca, a noted self-defense legal expert, concerning the unpredictability of juries. I ended that post with a quote from Branca urging people to "make sure the stakes are worth the risks" before using deadly force.

Tarheel, you seem to have made your mind up about an issue before looking at the evidence again

YankeeTarheel wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:50 pm
"GENTLY chiding"? What's next, calling me a snowflake?

I saw you attack me without looking at how I reached judgement before viewing the video.

Yeah, juries are unpredictable. In 1979, in Greensboro, NC, a group of doctors and other professionals from Durham calling themselves the "Communist Workers Party" held a "Death to the Klan" rally in a nice quiet mostly-Black development. A combined group of KKKlukers and American Nazis showed up and a lot of name-calling ensued. CLAIMING the CWP fired the first shot, the racists ran back to their cars, came back and massacred the CWP group. Meanwhile, WTVD, Channel 2 Greensboro, was recording the whole thing.

An FBI "specialist" examining the tape claimed he couldn't determine who fired the first shot....and all the White Nazis and Klukkers were acquitted, in both state and federal trials.

How do I know about this? I lived in Carrboro at the time and we got WTVD, so the video was played all day on that and other local stations.
My point is: a biased or terrified jury won't convict.

https://www.greensboro.com/news/nov-a-d ... d7f09.html
So, Tarheel, you ascribed to me views which I have never expressed and do not possess, based on no evidence whatsoever. When called on it, you...change the subject.

Excuse me for saying so, but this seems par for the course.

User avatar
shinzen
Site Admin
Posts: 17638
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:52 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER:Northern California
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#129 Post by shinzen » Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:53 pm

Let's keep things civil all.
Image

hondo2K0
Been around awhile
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#130 Post by hondo2K0 » Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:54 pm

shinzen wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:53 pm
Let's keep things civil all.
:thanks:

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#131 Post by highdesert » Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:32 pm

A Florida sheriff claimed "stand your ground" essentially prohibited him from making an arrest in a politically charged and racially tinged shooting death, but his fellow Republicans who wrote the law, criminal-court attorneys and even the National Rifle Association are accusing him of misapplying Florida’s self-defense statutes. In explaining why he didn’t arrest the shooter, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri told reporters on July 20 that his hands were tied because the stand-your-ground law “created a standard, that is a largely subjective standard” for the use of deadly force by a shooter. Gualtieri also suggested his office could be civilly liable simply for arresting the shooter, and he stressed how Florida lawmakers last year changed the 2005 law concerning immunity from prosecution. But on each of those three counts — immunity, civil liability and subjectivity — experts say Gualtieri is just wrong.

“Nothing in either the 2005 law or the 2017 law prohibits a Sheriff from making an arrest in a case where a person claims self-defense if there is probable cause that the use of force was unlawful,” said Marion Hammer, Tallahassee’s NRA lobbyist who helped shepherd "stand your ground" through the GOP-led Florida Legislature. “Nothing in the law says a person can sue the Sheriff for making an arrest when there is probable cause,” Hammer added in an emailed statement to POLITICO. Hammer said she didn’t want to discuss the facts of the case, only the law. But her decision to publicly dispute Gualtieri’s claims about "stand your ground" underscores how much gun-rights advocates have grown displeased with the sheriff’s statements in the middle of an election year. Democrats are calling for an end to "stand your ground" and say it has racial overtones. Meanwhile, the politics of guns have shifted to the left after the Feb. 14 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.

Gualtieri’s decision also puts Gov. Rick Scott in an awkward spot. Scott signed the 2017 stand-your-ground immunity bill that Gualtieri singled out. Also, Gualtieri is co-hosting a Tuesday fundraiser for Scott’s U.S. Senate campaign in Clearwater — the very city in which Michael Drejka shot Markeis McGlockton dead on July 19. Another co-host of the Scott fundraiser is Pinellas County State Attorney Bernie McCabe, who now has the final say over whether to charge Drejka. When asked by a reporter last week about Democrats’ calls to end or amend "stand your ground," Scott didn’t answer the question and instead talked about the tragedy and the state’s crime rate. “We are at a 47-year low in our crime rate. But you hate anything like this happening,” Scott said.

In opting not to arrest Drejka, who is white, in the shooting death of a black man, Gualtieri opened himself up to questions of racial bias, said Benjamin Crump, the attorney representing the mother of McGlockton’s children. “This was a cold-blooded murder,” Crump told POLITICO. “This is not self defense. And communities of color, the black community, are very emotional about this issue with these stand-your-ground cases.” The incident occurred at the Circle A convenience store when Drejka confronted McGlockton’s girlfriend for parking in a handicap space. McGlockton left the store, violently shoved Drejka to the ground and approached the fallen man until Drejka pulled his weapon. At that point, McGlockton took about four steps back and appeared to step to the side when Drejka pulled the trigger.

But despite the store’s security camera footage showing McGlockton backing away, Gualtieri made no mention of it during his press conference in announcing his decision not to arrest Drejka. McGlockton “didn’t turn around and run away real fast. And the guy didn’t do anything and say, 'Hey, man, we’re good,' or something. He didn’t do any of that. So it cuts towards this guy’s belief, in his mind, that he’s going to be harmed again, and he had to shoot to defend himself. And those are the facts. And that’s the law,” Gualtieri said. “The law on 'stand your ground' is clear,” Gualtieri continued. “The Florida Legislature has created a standard, that is a largely subjective standard. This is not an objective ‘what I would do, what you would do, what the public would do, what somebody else would do?’ This is more of a subjective standard, and the person’s subjective determination of the circumstance they were in.”

But that’s just not true, according to state Sen. Dennis Baxley, a Republican who sponsored "stand your ground" in 2005 when he was in the Florida House. The law clearly says a person using deadly force in self-defense must “reasonably” believe it’s necessary. “'Stand your ground' uses a reasonable-person standard. It’s not that you were just afraid,” Baxley said. “It’s an objective standard.” And state Sen. Rob Bradley, who sponsored the 2017 legislation that says authorities must show with “clear and convincing evidence” that there are grounds to prosecute a stand-your-ground defendant, made the same statement: “An individual using a gun in self-defense in Florida must have an objective, reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm. This idea that Florida law is concerned about the subjective perceptions of a shooter is wrong.”

Like Hammer, Bradley and Baxley said they didn’t want to comment on the facts of the case. Unlike Hammer and Baxley, Bradley is a lawyer and a former prosecutor. Republican state Rep. Bobby Payne, who carried the immunity bill in the Florida House last year, echoed the others but did speak out about the case after reviewing the video. “Based on what I saw in the video, the assertion of Stand Your Ground was weak, based on the victim's retreat or de-escalation of the event once he saw the gun. No additional fear of great bodily harm or imminent death,” Payne said in a text message to POLITICO. “More investigation is needed and will likely take place. Pursuing the case should be the decision of the State Attorney once received.” Like the legislators, Hammer does not have a law degree. Gualtieri, however, does, but a spokesman for his agency would not comment on the criticisms of his reading of the law.

Former Broward County prosecutor Fausto Sanchez, now an attorney with Diaz, Reus & Targ in Miami, said Gualtieri was so wrong about the “subjective” standard that he felt the need to double check the statute and case law, which calls the standard “objective.” Standard jury instructions for these cases, he said, say the defense is appropriate if a “reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could have been avoided only through the use of that force.” Sanchez said “that’s the objective standard. When the sheriff says he’s taking the shooter’s word for it, that’s incomplete. That’s not the standard.” What’s more, Sanchez said, the sheriff failed to take into account another part of the self-defense statute that says a person can use or threaten “force, except deadly force” if “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.”

So, Sanchez said, there’s “unlawful force” and there’s “deadly force,” which is more serious. In the video of the incident, McGlockton clearly committed a battery and therefore used “unlawful force.” But Drejka used “deadly force” as a response — even though McGlockton was backing away. And because McGlockton had stepped back, Drejka was not “reasonably” in fear of great bodily harm or imminent death. Echoing those comments, Alachua County Public Defender Stacy A. Scott said: “I just don’t agree with the sheriff’s assessment at all. … This is a guess, but I wonder if this is a political tactic on his part because it sounds like he doesn’t like the law.” Indeed, Gualtieri roped in other aspects of "stand your ground" that have nothing to do with a sheriff deciding an arrest in a self-defense claim. Gualtieri mentioned the 2017 law concerning a special hearing to determine immunity in stand-your-ground cases. But that’s an issue for a prosecutor, not an arresting agency like the sheriff’s office. So it’s unclear why he raised it.

Also, Gualtieri brought up other statutory language that allows a court to give a defendant court costs, attorney’s fees and compensation for income loss “in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution.” But the operative words here are “civil action by a plaintiff.” It doesn’t apply to a sheriff making an arrest. In discussing the case with fellow Republicans who are mystified by Gualtieri’s decision, Florida activist Francisco Gonzalez, director of philanthropy for the conservative journalistic think tank National Review Institute, wondered on Twitter: “Is the Sheriff against ‘Stand Your Ground’ and using it as a political ploy? If so, that would be really disgusting. The guy killed a man and should be charged. Let the court decide whether he can use the Stand Your Ground defense.”

Writing in the National Review, conservative columnist David French also quested Gualtieri’s legal reasoning and said that an “armed citizen should not be mall-copping his way through life, initiating confrontations.” Yet for all of the conservative observations that Gualtieri had a novel interpretation of the law, the sheriff said at his press conference it was clear to him. “I don't make the law,” Gualtieri said. “I enforce the law.”
https://www.politico.com/states/florida ... ims-534054
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
Bisbee
Loquacious
Posts: 4806
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:38 pm
Location: On The Border with no need of The Wall.
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#132 Post by Bisbee » Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:33 pm

Holy cow! This is the perfect political sh*t-storm for Scott Walker and the Republicans. A perfect example of when a little knowledge (of the law) can go a long way in harming you for lack of overall context. Sherriff Bob would have done a better job if he had just acted as Sherriff of some back-water town rather than play "Ironside w a badge" on TV. He really stepped in it big time.

Unless of course the contributor for the National Review was correct wondering if Sherriff Bob is a mole for the Gun Grabbers. That would cast his statements in a completely different light!
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

User avatar
AndyH
Loquacious
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:05 pm
Location: LGC Member San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#133 Post by AndyH » Mon Jul 30, 2018 11:10 pm

The key point is 'probable cause' that the shoot was unlawful. And so far the sheriff did not appear to believe they had probable cause. The rest - including Crump's eternal racism spin - is off the mark. That's not unexpected, since this isn't now and never has been about 'stand your ground'. This is nothing more than political operatives trying to attach their agenda on something that isn't about them. It's politics, not law. And it sure as hell isn't about justice.
“There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.” Heinlein
You can’t take the Razorback! She is gone and gone and gone!

Mustang
Grizzled Veteran
Posts: 802
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 11:12 pm
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#134 Post by Mustang » Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:18 pm

Bisbee wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:33 pm
Holy cow! This is the perfect political sh*t-storm for Scott Walker and the Republicans. A perfect example of when a little knowledge (of the law) can go a long way in harming you for lack of overall context. Sherriff Bob would have done a better job if he had just acted as Sherriff of some back-water town rather than play "Ironside w a badge" on TV. He really stepped in it big time.

Unless of course the contributor for the National Review was correct wondering if Sherriff Bob is a mole for the Gun Grabbers. That would cast his statements in a completely different light!
Hmmm, not seeing the connection between this situation and Scott Walker (presumably the Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin).

Please illucidate.

User avatar
Bisbee
Loquacious
Posts: 4806
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:38 pm
Location: On The Border with no need of The Wall.
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#135 Post by Bisbee » Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:35 pm

Sorry, Rick Scott of Florida. My mistake.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

hondo2K0
Been around awhile
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#136 Post by hondo2K0 » Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:14 pm

AndyH wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 11:10 pm
The key point is 'probable cause' that the shoot was unlawful. And so far the sheriff did not appear to believe they had probable cause. The rest - including Crump's eternal racism spin - is off the mark. That's not unexpected, since this isn't now and never has been about 'stand your ground'. This is nothing more than political operatives trying to attach their agenda on something that isn't about them. It's politics, not law. And it sure as hell isn't about justice.
Cops take in account totality of the facts during whole event in this case mcglokton ran away into gas station after being shot his retreat was unimpeded by drejka so he could do the same as soon as drejka pulled the gun
His girlfriend walked again unimpeded drejka was during that time still on the ground bracing himself with left arm

User avatar
AndyH
Loquacious
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:05 pm
Location: LGC Member San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#137 Post by AndyH » Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:06 pm

NoEyeDeer wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:16 pm
Zimmerman case and pretrial hearing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_o ... _Zimmerman

Defense plans for pretrial immunity hearing
Under Florida law, the use of deadly force against an attacker is permissible in certain situations.[37] The adoption of the Stand Your Ground law in 2005 modified the self-defense law so that a person who reasonably believes he or she must use deadly force to prevent serious injury to him- or herself may lawfully do so without first attempting to retreat from an attacker; prosecution for using deadly force in such situations is prohibited.[38] A defendant in a homicide case who claims to have acted in self-defense may petition the court to grant the defendant immunity from prosecution under these provisions of the law.[39] Legal experts say that in a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show from "a preponderance of the evidence" that he or she acted lawfully, whereas in a trial by jury the burden of proof is on the prosecution, who must show "beyond a reasonable doubt" (a much higher standard than required for establishing "a preponderance of the evidence") that the defendant acted unlawfully.[40][41[/b]

This was under the old statute.
I think we should follow-up on this part of SYG.

As I type this, I'm listening to Andrew Branca's weekly teleconference. He addressed some of the media inaccuracies around this shooting, and one of them is the suggestion that Florida law somehow changed the normal self-defense process when they amended their SYG law. The bottom line is that there remain five major tests or requirements for a self-defense claim. Stand your ground only affects one of those - it doesn't negate the other four. He confirmed that in 49 of 50 states (Ohio is the outlier), when one is charged and uses the affirmative defense (I did it and I had to), the burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove self defense. SYG doesn't change that, and neither does any other Florida law.

The five requirements that must be met in order for someone to claim self-defense are: 1. Innocence, 2. Imminence, 3. Proportionality, 4. Avoidance, and 5. Reasonableness. SYG removes the need for avoidance (the duty to retreat) - and only avoidance.

Thanks again for pointing out the pretrial process. It appears that while Florida's SYG law provides the possibility of a pretrial immunity claim, as do many (most?) other states, the other four requirements for self-defense are required, and it can be denied if the prosecution can present evidence that refutes the self-defense claim. It appears the SYG immunity claim is an available tool, but it's not a 'get out of jail free' card. The pre-trial burden of proof makes sense, as a self-defense claim is an affirmative defense - when one says "I broke the law and I had good reasons", it makes sense that one would need to put those reasons on the table. The prosecution will be showing their hand as well.
Rather than creating a new defense, Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law broadens the scope of a common law self-defense claim by:...

3. Providing potential immunity to defendants where the use of force is shown to fall within the protections of the statute.
http://www.husseinandwebber.com/case-wo ... round-law/

Here's an example pretrial motion to dismiss using Florida's SYG immunity option.
https://fallgatterlaw.com/legal-pleadin ... nd-ground/
“There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.” Heinlein
You can’t take the Razorback! She is gone and gone and gone!

User avatar
Evo1
Chatty
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:44 pm
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#138 Post by Evo1 » Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:12 pm

AndyH wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 1:12 pm
Evo1 wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:08 am
AndyH wrote:
Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:19 pm
Evo1 - Branca's a practicing attorney that specializes in self-defense. He's got more than 30 years experience in the trenches, and teaches and writes about self-defense law in all 50 states. I'm going to give his view plenty of credibility until someone with a whole lot more experience comes along.
I'm not arguing his credentials. But he completely disregarded the primary requirement under Florida law, which is necessity. He spends a lot of time trying to make a case (using loaded hyperbole) that a belief in an imminent threat is reasonable. First, if we take away exaggerated statements like "hovering menacingly over him," which he wasn't (moving back and turning away is not "hovering", nor is it "menacing", and being a good 6-8 feet away isn't "over him"), then I disagree that belief in imminence is reasonable. And he admits that it's debatable, even with his hyperbole. He's pitching it the way he'd defend it, but the prosecution, if its any good, would rebut him just as I am.

But notice that Florida law doesn't require a reasonable belief that a threat is imminent. That's a lawyer's distraction. The law requires a reasonable belief that lethal force is necessary; not optional, not acceptable, not expedient, but necessary. There has to be a reasonable belief that you have no other choice (except to try to flee, which SYG takes care of). Here, again, is the relevant text of the Florida law: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 6.012.html
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.
If the circumstances don't support a reasonable belief that you had no choice but to use lethal force, then it doesn't matter if you believe there is an imminent threat or not, so all that time he spends trying to make a case for such a belief is irrelevant. It is, again, a lawyer's distraction. He's previewing how he would defend the case, but in doing so he's intentionally ignoring the actual wording of the law, and it's primary requirement, because that would damage his hypothetical defense. He talks about proportionality, which is certainly often relevant in self-defense cases, but which, like fear, is not at all a part of Florida law. He talks about avoidance, which he admits is irrelevant in this case (so it actually isn't an SYG case at all, just like Travon Martin). He talks about innocence, and, from what we see, he's correct, McGlockton was the initial aggressor, although I'd argue that he was trying to disengage when he was shot. And he discusses reasonableness, which, as he says, is really just a combination of the other four elements he talks about. But Florida law either doesn't require these four elements, or makes them subordinate to the one element he never addresses, which is necessity. It's clearly and explicitly the primary requirement in the above text. All the prosecutor has to do is prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, at the moment he pulled the trigger, it wasn't reasonable to believe that killing McGlockton was absolutely necessary to keep him from seriously injuring Drejka. If they can do that, they convict, and everything else that Branca discusses becomes irrelevant.

I would agree that when he pulled his gun, it was reasonable for him to believe that threat of lethal force was necessary, because McGlockton was still moving toward him and was close. But McGlockton then stepped back and started to turn away before Drejka fired, so that when he pulled the trigger, the actual use lethal force wasn't necessary, and it wasn't reasonable to believe that it was. Watch the video and put yourself in Drejka's place at the moment he pulled the trigger, then ask yourself if you would have believed, at that moment, that you had no other choice but to shoot. That you couldn't, for example, keep pointing your gun at him and order him back while you gained your feet. Unless the answer is 'yes', then I think Branca's wrong, and it won't be that hard at all to prove it wasn't legal self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
I agree that the pieces weren't written very 'clinically'. I do, however, understand why he used 'hovering'. Put yourself on the ground. The guy that just knocked you on your ass is younger, stronger, and taller, and is looking down on your from 3 feet beyond the reach of his arm. He can take a single step and have hands on you again. How do you feel? (To get closer to beating a dead horse, do you grok the significance of the Tueller drill? 21 feet is 1.5 seconds - that's close enough for an attacker to have a knife in your chest just as you draw and get your finger on the trigger. 21 feet is 'mutually assured destruction' - anything closer than that is CQB where the aggressor can kill you with your own gun.) http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tuel ... .Close.htm

I frankly doubt that Branca disregarded a primary requirement under Florida law. I also doubt that the overall structure of the Florida process is significantly different from the rest of the country. I recall Ohio being singled out for having some interesting kinks, but not Florida. Maybe I'm wrong about that. (I've just spent about 20 minutes looking for Branca's book. It's in this place somewhere. If I actually put it on a bookshelf as part of some misguided attempt to 'clean' I'll never see it again. :lol: )

If fear isn't part of Florida law, I wonder why it was brought up so many times in the Zimmerman trial?

Necessity/competing harms isn't a precursor to self defense. First, one has to be in a situation where they face death or great bodily harm. Then they have to make the decision to act or not. It's in the 'what do I do?' portion of the process where one decides that breaking the law is the best option. The 'AOC' and five requirements have to be met in order to qualify the first part (Am I in a self-defense situation?) before necessity becomes a factor. Since the story in the media is that the gun was excessive, it makes sense that he'd begin with the first part of the process. (ETA...hmmm...this probably isn't quite accurate. The media stuff is about 'stand your ground' - or at least that's the label they're applying to the entire process. Standing one's ground is also in 'part 2' - after determining that there's a threat. Also... I keep thinking about what I'd do if I found myself planted on the ground. It'll probably take about 1.5 seconds to draw and cover the threat. It would take me longer than that to get back on my feet. That means I'm subject to being 'dead' or 'great bodily harmed' from someone within 21 feet. As much as I'd want to get back on my feet to open up options, I can see why he went straight for the draw - it was his only tactical option.)

I don't think he's pitching it as he'd defend it. I wouldn't expect a skilled attorney to leave any open holes. As he's doing the same sort of 'armchair' thing we are, I give him credit for showing potential holes. He's educating, not litigating, I guess.

I'll buy the first round when we get together after the trial(s) to see how we did. :beer2:
I would understand "hovering" too, if it weren't for the fact that McGlockton stepped back during Drejka's pause. But give the actual things that happened, "hovering" is inflammatory hyperbole. And the Tueller drill doesn't quite work here since McGlocton wasn't armed, was moving in the opposite direction, and Drejka was on the ground. Plus, Drejka already had his gun pointed at McGlockton ready to fire, so 1.5 seconds was 300% longer than he would have needed to react had McGlockton reversed direction and tried to reinitiate his assault.

Again, read the law. The primary requirement, in plain English, is a requirement for a reasonable belief in the necessity of lethal force. And Branca completely ignored that requirement in his assessment. And you're right, the Florida law isn't that different from the rest of the country. Nowhere is simple fear enough to justify lethal force. That is a straw man created by opponents of the law. In fact, the reason why SYG became a thing is because the ability to retreat is one of the options that make lethal force unnecessary. However, retreat was problematic, because it was difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate that a victim could know he or she could *safely* retreat, even if it was obvious in hindsight. And yet prosecutors would often try to convict using such hindsight, against which defendants had almost no chance to prove necessity. So SYG was passed specifically to remove 'retreat' from the options that could be required before making a claim of necessity. However, necessity is still the standard, even though the ability to retreat doesn't automatically count against it.

Here are some other laws on lethal force in other SYG states from all around the country (emphasis added):
Missouri: A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony
Georgia: A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other´s imminent use of unlawful force
Michigan: Sec. 2.  (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:
(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.
Nevada: 1. Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense
Pennsylvania: (a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.
Utah: (1)(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent use of unlawful force.
So a claim of necessity is the standard in the rest of the country as well, not just a claim of fear. As I said, if Branca's assessment was correct, lethal force would be justified in virtually every fist fight as soon as someone got knocked down, as long as it wasn't the person who threw the first punch. This is why opponents of the law created the straw man argument that all you need is fear, which has unfortunately become a common belief, because it makes SYG into a justification to escalate simple fights to lethal confrontations. But that's not what SYG is, because it doesn't remove the requirement of necessity as they claim.

The reason why fear is often mentioned in cases like the Zimmerman case is because fear or imminent danger is one requirement for a claim of necessity. As the Florida statute says:
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
You can't claim to believe that lethal force is necessary (which is the only requirement listed) to stop imminent death if you don't also actually believe there is such a threat. So "fear" or belief that there is a threat, is a prerequisite for a claim of necessity, which you have to show in order to claim self-defense. You can't claim necessity if there was no fear, and you can't claim justification for lethal force unless you can make a claim for a belief in necessity.

I also agree that drawing his gun was a good tactical choice, and even justified. At the moment he hit the ground, I think he actually met the standard of the law. He had just been blindsided, was in a very vulnerable position, and had a larger younger assailant standing over him. I would even say that had he drawn and fired as single act, he would have been legally justified, though still a bit of an overreaction, because McGlockton was right over him and still had forward momentum. But instead he drew on McGlockton and then paused long enough to assess the situation, during which time McGlockton stepped back and started turning away. I know Branca doesn't think McGlockton stepped back far enough to remove fear of the threat, and maybe he's right. But it's harder to argue that reacting to a threat of lethal force by retreating doesn't remove a claim that using lethal force is necessary to stop that threat.

I'll take you up on the beer. Second round is on me :beer2:

User avatar
AndyH
Loquacious
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:05 pm
Location: LGC Member San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#139 Post by AndyH » Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:09 pm

Evo1 wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:12 pm
I know Branca doesn't think McGlockton stepped back far enough to remove fear of the threat, and maybe he's right. But it's harder to argue that reacting to a threat of lethal force by retreating doesn't remove a claim that using lethal force is necessary to stop that threat.
Branca's irrelevant as even our armchair analysis here shows that McGlockton was about 6 feet away. Tueller drill. McGlockton didn't put his hands out, he didn't speak, he didn't move around the car to expand the distance. It appears he did nothing to communicate that he was disengaging.

Not armed? McGlockton was armed with two hands and a slab of concrete or blacktop, he'd already used them once, and was still in range to quickly use them again. Because of that, and because McGlockton only had to move one step forward in order to have hands on the shooter, I expect the shot to be found to be justified.

I've read the law, have attended class on self defense law, and continue to study. I understand where Branca was coming from in his pieces. His book, Ayoob's books, and other pieces on self-defense law provide the rest of the context that enables understanding. Branca was writing from within the legal framework that most people don't yet understand. I think that's a major source of stress when shootings like this happen - folks that don't understand the law trying to gain understanding by parsing stories from various media outlets. It was for me, anyway.

SYG isn't about necessity at all. A claim of self-defense will be judged using five independent components:
1. Innocense
2. Imminence ("AOJ")
3. Proportionality
4. Avoidance
5. Reasonableness

SYG eases or removes number 4 - avoidance - but the remaining four are still required.

Imminence itself has a three-part 'AOJ' test: Ability (Can the aggressor kill or cause me great bodily harm?),Opportunity (Can the aggressor get to me?), and Jeopardy (Does the aggressor with ability and opportunity intend to use them?) Imminence is considered to be time-based (except for things like battered spouse syndrome or kidnapping) but there's no actual time. That's why I think the time it takes for the human decision process and reaction time is important - as is the Tueller drill. Even with a gun drawn, there's at least a 0.7 second delay from seeing someone start to move and commanding the trigger finger to pull. (Have you ever tried to catch the falling dollar bill?) McGlockton was well inside that distance. He could have simply pushed forward and let gravity and his body weight do the rest - and that would be enough to cause great bodily harm at least, and would have likely neutralized the guy's ability to shoot.

Even with SYG taking out number 4 - there are still seven checks that must be met for a self-defense claim to stand. It appears all seven were solid enough that so far there's been no arrest or charge for the shooting.

Anyway, that's how I think the pieces stack. We'll see how it unfolds.
Evo1 wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:12 pm
I'll take you up on the beer. Second round is on me :beer2:
Cool!
“There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.” Heinlein
You can’t take the Razorback! She is gone and gone and gone!

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#140 Post by highdesert » Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:13 pm

The Clearwater man who shot and killed a father of three outside a convenience store in a parking dispute last month — setting off a stand your ground debate that has swept Florida and the nation — has a history of road rage. Since 2012, according to records and interviews, 47-year-old Michael Drejka has been the accused aggressor in four incidents. Investigators documented three cases in police reports. The other was not shared with authorities at the time but involved the same handicap-reserved parking spot outside the Circle A Food Store near Clearwater and another shooting threat.

Two involved allegations of Drejka showing a gun. In another, a trooper accused him of aggressive driving and cited him after a crash when Drejka braked hard in front of a woman driving with two children. Drejka has not spoken publicly in the weeks since he shot and killed 28-year-old Markeis McGlockton. No one has spoken much about him, either. Not family. Not neighbors. Not lawyers. Several alleged victims in previous incidents either declined to comment or could not be reached. Drejka remains, in many ways, an enigma to the public. He has not been arrested.

In the latest stand your ground controversy, Drejka is the key surviving player, yet people don’t even know what he looks like. He’s just a blurry figure on the ground in a grainy surveillance video, arms straight, head tilted as he pulls the trigger. He has no criminal record in Florida and no discernible social media presence.

The police reports describe a man quick to anger, but who always denied he threatened anyone with a gun. Former prosecutors said the earlier cases could possibly be used if Drejka is brought to trial, as evidence that he pulled out his weapon because he was frustrated, not afraid. Twice investigators admonished Drejka, telling him he was fortunate the alleged victims of his road rage did not want to press charges. If they had, an officer once said, authorities could have revoked his concealed carry permit. The two 18-year-olds called authorities when the black truck was still behind them. One said he had stopped at a yellow light about noon on Jan. 10, 2012, and the man in the pickup began to honk and yell out the window. He motioned for the teen to walk back to the truck, according to the 18-year-old, then hung a black handgun out the window, taking out the magazine and putting it on his dashboard alongside another magazine.

The 18-year-old said he drove away with his friend, on U.S. 19 around Sunset Point Road, but the truck followed, then passed. The man slammed on his brakes, the teen recalled, and turned into the parking lot of an Arby’s at Curlew Road. The 18-year-old said he kept driving, but soon the black truck, a Toyota, had returned. The man eventually broke off in a different direction, the teens said, but they had taken down his license plate number. Deputies traced it to Drejka and went to his house in Clearwater, according to the police report. He pulled into the driveway as they were leaving a business card.

Drejka told the deputy the other car had cut him off at State Road 580 and U.S. 19. He said he honked and yelled but did not follow the other car and did not show a gun. He did have one, however, a .40-caliber Glock in his center console. He also had a concealed carry permit. The deputy was skeptical, according to the report, asking Drejka how the teens knew he had a gun. The deputy wrote: "I informed Michael if he had displayed his weapon that he was lucky (the teens) did not wish to press charges."

A Largo police officer was driving later that year when several people in another car pulled up to him on Highland Avenue to make a report. A man in a black Toyota pickup had just threatened one of them with a gun, they said, pointing it out. They drove off, but the officer turned around to follow the truck on Dec. 13, 2012. The driver of the Toyota pulled into a church parking lot before the officer could make a traffic stop. By the time the officer approached, Drejka already held his driver’s license and concealed carry permit in hand.

He said "he had not pointed a gun at the other car," according to a police report, and that the other people were lying, before the officer asked any questions. Drejka had tucked a .40-caliber Glock between his seat and center console. He said he always kept it there while driving, according to the report. The officer asked him to step out of the truck and found a loose bullet near the gas pedal and a loaded magazine below the seat. Drejka wore a holster inside his shorts behind his right hip. "I could still see the impression of the gun in his skin," the officer wrote. Drejka told the officer he honked at the people in the other car but never showed them his gun. He said he did not think they were driving fast enough in a school zone, where the speed limit was 15 mph. The people in the other car, Drejka said, threw up their middle fingers as soon as he honked, and one of them had shouted at him.

The officer wrote that he asked what the man in the other car had said, and "Michael contorted his face while doing a gruff Spanish accent, saying ‘You got a gun in your truck, you got a gun in your truck.’" The officer didn’t believe Drejka and said it would be strange for someone to shout about a gun if they hadn’t already seen it. The officer wrote that there was "no doubt" Drejka pulled his gun. But the victims drove off, so the officer did not arrest him. "I advised him his (concealed carry) permit did not give him the right to exhibit (a gun) because he was ‘flipped off’ for honking at someone," the officer wrote. "I told him a report would be taken and that if the victim was located he could face jail and the loss of his (concealed carry permit)."

A Florida Highway Patrol trooper responded to a car crash at Alt. U.S. 19 and Pennsylvania Avenue less than a year later. A woman in a Ford Edge had crashed into the back of Drejka’s pickup. She had two children, ages 4 and 7, in her vehicle, but no one was hurt. The woman said she was turning and had pulled into the center lane, waiting for the truck to pass, but Drejka said he thought she had almost hit him. He "began to slam on his brakes," according to a crash report, "decreasing his speed quickly in an aggressive manner." The woman smashed into the back of his truck shortly before 3 p.m. Nov. 13, 2013. Drejka "admitted that he was ‘brake checking’" the woman, the trooper wrote. He was cited for stopping or making a sudden decrease in speed without signaling. The woman’s car had to be towed from the scene, according to the report, and the trooper estimated the damage at $8,000.

A couple of months ago, Drejka was in the same parking lot outside the same Circle A Food Store at 1201 Sunset Point Road arguing over the same handicap-reserved space, according to a man who said Drejka threatened to shoot him. Rick Kelly, 31, told the Tampa Bay Times that Drejka circled his tanker truck and confronted him about why he parked there. Kelly asked why it mattered. He recalled that Drejka said his mom (whom records show died in 2007) is handicapped. The argument escalated. Drejka yelled, Kelly said, and used a racial slur. Kelly is black. Drejka is white. Drejka, he said, threatened to shoot him. But the dispute didn’t end there. Drejka called the Clearwater septic tank company Kelly works for to complain, telling owner John Tyler that he didn’t like the way Kelly had talked to him and that he was "lucky I didn’t blow his head off."

Tyler, a gun owner himself, told the Times he was shocked. "I said, ‘I’m sorry you feel that way, that you feel that it’s justified to take someone’s life over a parking space,’" he said. "That was the chilling part about it when I found out who it was with the (McGlockton) situation." Drejka’s case is before the Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney’s Office, which will decide if he should face charges in McGlockton’s death. Pinellas Sheriff Bob Gualtieri declined to arrest him, citing Florida’s stand your ground law. Legal experts said Drejka’s previous road rage incidents could come into play if he is charged, especially if his defense team were to argue stand your ground. The statute applies when a person has reasonable fear for his life or serious injury. Shortly before the shooting, surveillance footage shows, McGlockton pushed Drejka to the ground as Drejka argued with McGlockton’s girlfriend about the handicap-reserved parking space.

Former Pinellas prosecutor Bill Loughery said the other dispute over parking at the store, and the two driving confrontations involving guns, could show Drejka "uses his gun in an unreasonable fashion." "(If) he had a propensity to use or show his gun in unreasonable circumstances, that would definitely affect whether he behaved in a reasonable manner," Loughery said. Bob Dekle, a former prosecutor and professor emeritus at the University of Florida, said prior cases are not always admissible, but prosecutors may argue Drejka’s history offers evidence about his mindset. "If he wasn’t in fear," Dekle said, "self defense is not an issue and stand your ground is not an issue." The state attorney, he said, could use the previous cases to try to prove the shooting was in fact "not a product of fear, but a product of anger."
https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsaf ... _170719109
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

hondo2K0
Been around awhile
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#141 Post by hondo2K0 » Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:25 pm

Irrelevant as he would be on trial for what took place in the parking lot,

User avatar
Bisbee
Loquacious
Posts: 4806
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:38 pm
Location: On The Border with no need of The Wall.
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#142 Post by Bisbee » Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:15 am

He is angry. Caught in a habitual cycle of anger and violence. There is a very good chance that he may do himself in rather than let the world continue to persecute him. This guy has no self control and would not likely do well on the stand.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

User avatar
Evo1
Chatty
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:44 pm
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#143 Post by Evo1 » Fri Aug 10, 2018 5:30 pm

AndyH wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:09 pm
Evo1 wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:12 pm
I know Branca doesn't think McGlockton stepped back far enough to remove fear of the threat, and maybe he's right. But it's harder to argue that reacting to a threat of lethal force by retreating doesn't remove a claim that using lethal force is necessary to stop that threat.
Branca's irrelevant as even our armchair analysis here shows that McGlockton was about 6 feet away. Tueller drill. McGlockton didn't put his hands out, he didn't speak, he didn't move around the car to expand the distance. It appears he did nothing to communicate that he was disengaging.

Not armed? McGlockton was armed with two hands and a slab of concrete or blacktop, he'd already used them once, and was still in range to quickly use them again. Because of that, and because McGlockton only had to move one step forward in order to have hands on the shooter, I expect the shot to be found to be justified.
But McGlockton did step back about as far as he could, given that there was a car behind him, and started turning away. That does signal disengagement, and Drejka took long enough to see it before pulling the trigger. Even the sheriff admits that this pause is a problem for Drejka. He had time to see that McGlockton wasn't immediately continuing his aggression. McGlockton was still moving away at the moment Drejka fired. Again, the Tueller drill is only partially applicable, since Drejka already had his gun on McGlockton, McGlockton was moving away and would have had to reverse his direction to attack, and McGlockton, not armed in the legal sense of the word, would have required a more complicated set of movements to deliver a killing blow than someone armed with a knife would have to make in order to charge and stab a standing target they were facing, which is the Tueller drill scenario. He was moving away and halfway through a turn to his right, making any move toward Drejka impossible without either repositioning his feet first or crossing his right leg over his left, which would have tripped him.

AndyH wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:09 pm
I've read the law, have attended class on self defense law, and continue to study. I understand where Branca was coming from in his pieces. His book, Ayoob's books, and other pieces on self-defense law provide the rest of the context that enables understanding. Branca was writing from within the legal framework that most people don't yet understand. I think that's a major source of stress when shootings like this happen - folks that don't understand the law trying to gain understanding by parsing stories from various media outlets. It was for me, anyway.

SYG isn't about necessity at all. A claim of self-defense will be judged using five independent components:
1. Innocense
2. Imminence ("AOJ")
3. Proportionality
4. Avoidance
5. Reasonableness

SYG eases or removes number 4 - avoidance - but the remaining four are still required.

Imminence itself has a three-part 'AOJ' test: Ability (Can the aggressor kill or cause me great bodily harm?),Opportunity (Can the aggressor get to me?), and Jeopardy (Does the aggressor with ability and opportunity intend to use them?) Imminence is considered to be time-based (except for things like battered spouse syndrome or kidnapping) but there's no actual time. That's why I think the time it takes for the human decision process and reaction time is important - as is the Tueller drill. Even with a gun drawn, there's at least a 0.7 second delay from seeing someone start to move and commanding the trigger finger to pull. (Have you ever tried to catch the falling dollar bill?) McGlockton was well inside that distance. He could have simply pushed forward and let gravity and his body weight do the rest - and that would be enough to cause great bodily harm at least, and would have likely neutralized the guy's ability to shoot.
I've taken the classes, read the books, worked 5 years in LE, etc. Even done the Tueller drill several times, including once in real life against a very large man with two large knives who charged me from under 10 feet away. I didn't get stabbed. The law says that you have to have a reasonable belief that lethal force is necessary, not just that there is an imminent threat. It's part of the reasonableness component you listed. That's why each of these laws says something like "a reasonable belief that lethal force is necessary." If lethal force isn't necessary (or you don't at least have a reasonable belief that it is), it's employment isn't reasonable under the law. That's why every self defense statute includes that phrase explicitly.

For example, in many states (including Florida) the Castle Doctrine gives a person in their home the automatic presumption of an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm if someone breaks into their house while the person is at home. However, there are a number of cases where lethal force was deemed not to be reasonably necessary given the circumstances, despite the presumption of imminent threat, and people have been prosecuted because the lack of a reasonable belief in the necessity of lethal force. Since McGlockton was clearly moving away from Drejka as soon as Drejka drew, and was still moving in that direction when Drejka fired, there was no basis for arguing that lethal force was reasonably necessary in order to stop McGlockton at the moment he pulled the trigger. McGlockton would have had to overcome his own rearward momentum to lunge and fall forward, especially since he was starting to pivot to his own right, away from Drejka, which puts him completely off-balance to make such a move. It would have taken him much longer than Drejka needed to react. And because Drejka waited long enough for him to see all this before firing, he'll have a hard time arguing necessity or, I believe, even imminence.
AndyH wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:09 pm
Even with SYG taking out number 4 - there are still seven checks that must be met for a self-defense claim to stand. It appears all seven were solid enough that so far there's been no arrest or charge for the shooting.
From my experience, the delay is probably bad news of Drejka. This usually means that the prosecutor is taking his time to build as solid a case as he can before he files charges. After all, he has plenty of time to do so. There's no rush to charge him. He'll want to make sure he has his bases well-covered if he decides to prosecute. It's possible that he's letting things die down a bit before saying he won't charge him, but that seems less likely, since that will only cause it all to start over again, and mid-term elections are approaching. So it would be a bad move to spark that all up again. If he wasn't going to prosecute, it would have been politically better to say so right away, and let the decision just be a part of the media hype that already was saying that Drejka wasn't going to be prosecuted. At that point everyone was blaming the sheriff. If he declines to prosecute now, all the attention will be on him alone.
AndyH wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:09 pm
Anyway, that's how I think the pieces stack. We'll see how it unfolds.
Evo1 wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:12 pm
I'll take you up on the beer. Second round is on me :beer2:
Cool!
Obviously we see things a little different. Too bad we can't both be on the jury and continue the debate there.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#144 Post by highdesert » Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:16 pm

I agree Evo1, a few other recent shootings in FL one were decided quickly by police in consultation with the state's attorney or the state attorney issued a statement. The state attorney is probably looking at the case closely. The Pinellas Sheriff said that nothing was said by Drejka and McGlockton after Drejka pulled a weapon, but that's Drejka's statement. The girlfriend was close by in her SUV and there were other people in the area so there may have been words between them.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
AndyH
Loquacious
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:05 pm
Location: LGC Member San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#145 Post by AndyH » Sat Aug 11, 2018 1:12 pm

Seems this is a timely and necessary addition to the discussion:

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=49367
Thereafter, the Wake Forest coach approached Florida Man and punched him, “causing him to fall to the ground and hit his head on the pavement.” He died thereafter in the hospital. The coach, who may have had (and may still have) a case for self-defense or defense of another, was seen on surveillance video walking away from the scene, rather than calling the police as someone with a legitimate self-defense case might do. But the big reason I stopped on my way out of the office to comment on this story today is not the Wake Forest angle, or the self-defense angle, but the fact that the coach was “UNARMED” and yet still killed Florida Man. As I have discussed before — and as is frequently heard in armed self-defense training — someone being “unarmed” and someone not having the ability to kill or maim you are not at all the same thing.
ETA...and this.
"Crimes happen and they happen in the blink of an eye usually when you least expect them," the post read. "If you go about your day unarmed and helpless you are a victim waiting for a crime to happen. ... Get a gun, take a class and refuse to be a victim."
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=49404
“There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.” Heinlein
You can’t take the Razorback! She is gone and gone and gone!

User avatar
AndyH
Loquacious
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:05 pm
Location: LGC Member San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#146 Post by AndyH » Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:28 pm

I'll donate $40 to the LGC if he's convicted.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ma ... er-n900181
The man who fatally shot a father over a parking space in Florida — leading to renewed scrutiny over the state's "stand your ground" law — was arrested Monday and charged with manslaughter, state prosecutors said.

The State Attorney's Office announced a warrant had been issued for Michael Drejka, 47, in the death of Markeis McGlockton, 28, on July 19. Drejka was booked into the Pinellas County Jail with a bond issued at $100,000.
“There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.” Heinlein
You can’t take the Razorback! She is gone and gone and gone!

User avatar
AndyH
Loquacious
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:05 pm
Location: LGC Member San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#147 Post by AndyH » Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:57 pm

https://www.patreon.com/posts/manslaughter-in-20738632
Drejak has a potential, if marginal, justification claim of self-defense here. The key issue is whether his decision to fire the shot was made while Drejak held a reasonable perception of an imminent deadly force attack. Keep in mind that “deadly force” is defined to include not just force capable of causing death, but also force capable of causing serious bodily harm.

Given that McGlockton had just moments before shoved Drejak forcibly to the ground, and remained within a couple of steps distance, close enough for McGlockton to continue his unlawful and potentially deadly force attack, it’s not impossible to conceive that a reasonable person in Drejak’s position on the ground could have perceived that such an imminent deadly force threat was present.

Of course, it’s also not impossible to conceive that a reasonable person in the same position would not have perceived an imminent deadly force threat at that moment, hence the self-defense claim being marginal.

Clearly, if McGlockton had advanced on Drejak, an imminent deadly force threat would have been reasonably perceived. Similarly, if McGlockton had fled at the sight of the gun and been shot in the back while running away, not even a marginal claim of self-defense could be made. By merely taking a step or so back, and then remaining close enough to again attack, the circumstances became more ambiguous.

It’s worth keeping in mind, as well, that at trial the prosecutors will need to convince a unanimous jury, likely of six jurors in Florida, that they have disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the legal standard in 49 states (all except Ohio), and a high legal standard.

Even prior to trial, however, the state must be prepared to disprove self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. That’s because at his discretion Drejka can request a self-defense immunity hearing, make a prima facie case of self-defense (definitely possible on these facts), and compel the state to disprove that claim by the legal standard of clear and convincing evidence.
“There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.” Heinlein
You can’t take the Razorback! She is gone and gone and gone!

EdC
Been around awhile
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:09 pm
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#148 Post by EdC » Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:57 am

Drejka's been charged with manslaughter:

https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsaf ... _170853729

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#149 Post by highdesert » Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:57 am

Andy had a link to the announcement at #146, but Tampa Bay Times does a through job in their articles.
McCabe [State Attorney Bernie McCabe] said Monday that his office "reviewed everything, and we filed the charge we think we can prove." "I’m comfortable that we moved expeditiously to review the case," he said.
McCabe declined to elaborate on his decision, citing the pending case, but Drejka’s arrest warrant, obtained by the Tampa Bay Times, provides new details.

It follows the same timeline outlined by authorities. The encounter between the two men started when Drejka, of 1116 Charles St., confronted McGlockton’s girlfriend, Britany Jacobs, about why she had parked in a handicap-reserved parking space without a decal at the Circle A Food Store on Sunset Point Road. Two of the couple’s children were with Jacobs in the car, which was idling with the windows up. Their third, 5-year-old Markeis Jr., was inside with his dad.

A witness, indicating that Drejka "appeared confrontational," according to the warrant, told McGlockton about the heated argument outside and said he might want to get involved. Surveillance video shows the rest. McGlockton left the store, walked up to Drejka and pushed him to the ground. Drejka then pulled out a Glock .40-caliber handgun and shot McGlockton. He told deputies they didn’t speak but he saw McGlockton twitch toward him and was in fear of further attack. The warrant notes what McGlockton’s family and their lawyers have pointed out to show that Drejka’s fear wasn’t reasonable.

"Drejka steadies the firearm with both hands," it says. "McGlockton immediately backs up when confronted with the firearm. As he backs up to his vehicle he begins to turn towards the front of the store away from the shooter." It also notes investigators used a scanner that helps capture measurement and distance to find that Drejka was about 12 feet from McGlockton when he fired.

Several questions must be considered in deciding whether someone can be protected under the law when they use force: Was the person acting lawfully? Did the person have a right to be there? And was the person in reasonable fear of serious injury or death? State legislators revised the law last year to put the onus on prosecutors to disprove a stand your ground claim instead of on defense attorneys to prove one. That would be hashed out at a pre-trial immunity hearing.

But first, Drejka, who could face up to 30 years in prison, would have to file a motion to dismiss the charge under a stand your ground defense. Both McCabe and Gualtieri said they have not heard from any lawyers on behalf of Drejka.
His arrest warrant notes three out of four of the prior cases. Two were road rage incidents documented by law enforcement in which he was accused of showing a gun. A third was an argument a few months ago over the same parking space in which Drejka confronted another man, Richard Kelly, who said Drejka threatened to shoot him.
State Sen. Darryl Rouson called for a special session to address stand your ground, an effort that failed last week. On Monday, Rouson, a St. Petersburg Democrat, praised prosecutors for being "thoughtful and deliberate."

"Everybody and their blind relative could see that something was wrong on the part of the shooter and a shove should not elevate one to a death sentence," Rouson said, adding that "the law as applied by the Sheriff’s Office was at least confusing and at best unclear." Given the situation, he said manslaughter is likely the "best and highest charge" prosecutors could pursue.

First-degree murder would require "evidence of prior planning," said Bob Dekle, a former prosecutor and law professor emeritus at the University of Florida. Prosecutors pushing second degree murder on Drejka would need to show he acted in a depraved manner, with "complete disregard for human life." Manslaughter, however, might be an easier case to prove to a jury, Dekle said, especially given that McGlockton pushed Drejka before the shooting. Attorneys, he said, might be best served to think of a grade-school mindset. "He hit me first works better with juries than it does with parents and kindergarten teachers," Dekle said. "Juries can be kind of sympathetic to that stuff."

Michele Rayner, who is representing McGlockton’s parents, agreed during a news conference Monday that manslaughter was the right call.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

BKinzey
Chatty
Posts: 1726
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: This is not what "stand your ground" is supposed to be for

#150 Post by BKinzey » Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:19 pm

I'm not surprised he was charged and I won't be surprised if he is convicted.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest