Sheriff called parking spot shooting legal under ‘stand your ground’ laws. Prosecutors disagreed.

Great, so if someone walks up, cracks you over the head with a baseball bat, then takes a step back, remember you can't do anything about it.

 

So for you hitting someone with a baseball bat is the same as pushing someone? You were raised great I must say.

But lets make a comparison, the claim is afte the push he felt threatened, ok you pass me in the street and shove me I stumble and fall , I am scared and kill you and go scottfree because as you know, I was scared after that "violent attack" so I have every justifiaction to shoot you.

 

The statute has indeed been read. And it does not say anything that actually supports or otherwise lends credibility to the position being established by yourself. No matter how many times it is cited by yourself, it does not change that it does not prove you are factually correct.

Which means absolutely nothing from a legal standpoint. Deadly force does not require a weapon to be presented for an assault to qualify as deadly force.

Which again means nothing. Drejka had no way of knowing that McGlockton was not reaching for a weapon at that specific moment, nor did he have any way of knowing that McGlockton was giving up and not going to pursue further violence against himself.

If McGlockton had the mental capacity and time to do all of the above, why did he not make an effort to surrender? Why did he turn in a suspicious manner that could have been used to facilitate drawing a weapon if one had been present?

Drejka had already been subjected to deadly force just five seconds prior to the shot being fired, and the one who initiated deadly force was still in the immediate area. Pray tell, how much more imminent can one actually get?

How much of the above theory being presented on the part of yourself stems from cases where the person being accused of murder was already subjected to deadly force? This was not a push, this was a violent shove with malicious intent. Legally speaking it is no different than if McGlockton walked up to Drejka and stabbed him in the parking lot.

For all that has been said on the part of yourself, all that has been presented to try and demonstrate that Drejka simply could not have been in reasonable fear for his life at the moment of discharge, none of it has done anything to demonstrate a legal standard where someone who has been subjected to deadly force cannot legally respond in turn simply because the assailant is not continuing the assault at that specific moment in time. McGlockton had already demonstrated an intent to either harm or otherwise kill Drejka the moment the shove was executed, why should Drejka be legally required to believe the threat no longer existed simply because McGlockton was not attacking at the moment of discharge?

Once deadly force has been administered, it cannot be taken back, the injury sustained cannot be recalled and made as if nothing happened. Once deadly force was deployed against Drejka, he was justified in shooting McGlockton since his mere presence in the immediate area constituted a continued threat.

 

You must've missed it when I explained earlier.

 

It's not different at all.

Being shoved violently from the side is more likely to result in injury.

And yes, if you violently shove someone onto the concrete they can be killed or seriously injured, which qualifies it as a valid usage of self defense.

I wouldn't shove anyone or hit them with a baseball bat. I keep my hands to myself unless someone attacks me.

 

Oh I see. Your defense is that he turned into the gun. Very clever.

Still won't work.

A man was violently attacked until he pulled his firearm.

Having already been attacked, and the attack pressed while he was on the ground, he decided to shoot.

Criminal sees gun, criminal knows what's going to happen, criminal tries to flee.

None of that matters, even if it is true.

Would you like me to show you the video again of a 5 foot tall asian lady shooting at 4 different people all fleeing in different directions once she capped one of them?

 

Ok you can push me and I can hit you with a baseball bat, we will see who gives up first.

As I said :

But lets make a comparison, the claim is afte the push he felt threatened, ok you pass me in the street and shove me I stumble and fall , I am scared and kill you and go scottfree because as you know, I was scared after that "violent attack" so I have every justifiaction to shoot you.

Scary precedent for anyone living there.

 

Thats total BS, he got pushed and then the victim stepped back and was even out of reach and unarmed.

There never was an attack let alone it lasted until he pulled his gun and shot.

 

The guy obviously didn't know how to live in America. He should have stayed in Europe.

 

This article explains why everything in America is based on race. https://theundefeated.com/features/michael-drejka-teen-mom-and-the-cost-of-white-fear/ Whites tend to think that they are special and consequently have the right to get away with their violent acts against black people. Theres no such thing as equal rights and equal justice in America.

 

The entire above statement is factually incorrect, as well as intellectually dishonest. Drejka was not pushed, he was shoved. He was subjected to an attack that has killed other individuals in other circumstances, making it nothing less than deadly force. Nor did McGlockton willingly disengage from the attack after shoving Drejka to the pavement, rather he was forced to halt when he realized Drejka was armed.

Beyond that matter, Drejka had already been subjected to deadly force, and the one who did so was still in the immediate area, and was making no effort to convey the fact that he was not going to attack further. Drejka was under no legal obligation to simply let McGlockton walk away and not respond in turn.

 

We are not perfect but we are not apartheid South Africa either.

 

It's even worse over there - more sheep for the wolves.

EWN/Reuters, 'VIOLENT SCOURGE' ON LONDON STREETS AS MURDER FIGURES OVERTAKE NEW YORK, A 17-year-old girl died after she was found with gunshot wounds in Tottenham, north London, and a man was fatally stabbed in south London on Sunday., 4/3/18.
http://ewn.co.za/2018/04/03/violent-scourge-on-london-streets-as-murder-figures-overtake-new-york

 

You can attack me if you'd like, but it won't be a bat you'll need to worry about.

 

Well as you said, you can respond by showing me, after all thats the same in your bubble.

 

I'm guessing you're familiar with the "knock out" game?

I am, and I'm going to assume anyone trying to attack me is trying to seriously injure me. Too many people are getting beaten to death while walking down the street now for it not to be a reasonable concern when attacked.

The point of physically attacking someone, is, after all, to cause injury to the other person.

I'm not going to try and read their mind about how far they're willing to go.

I'm just going to act.

 

I guess you are not familiar with the concept of a comparison.

 

You can compare all you want.

That guy ambushed that man, from the side, and shoved him so violently his feet left the ground and he flew several feet across the concrete.. Hits from the side are more dangerous than shoves from the back.

Anyone who does that has just committed a potentially lethal or serious injury attack. How many steps he takes after doesn't matter.

I'm not going to wonder if the guy that just attacked me, who only stopped because he saw a gun, is no longer a threat.

As long as he's remotely capable of hurting me, I'm going to make sure he's incapacitated to where he's no longer a threat.

 

It doesn't lend itself to the proposition that you had the wrong standard? How so when what I corrected you on is literally what I quoted you?
Also: the statute clearly outlines that threat of force and use of force are only authorized so long as they are reasonable when employed. They are only reasonable if the person force is employed on reasonably constitutes an imminent threat to life and limb. When the assailant is unarmed and fleeing, its not generally reasonable to use deadly force on them any longer.

It goes to the calculation of what an imminent threat is under the facts as we find them. The person has no way to harm if they are not physically within reach and they are not only out of reach but moving the opposite direction, away from you, and turning to flee. These are highly relevant facts, whether you're pushing for justified self defense or not. The position of the threat, where its moving and how, these are relevant facts. Explain how the positioning, vector, velocity, etc of the perpetrator you're using force on is irrelevant for an analysis of whether use of force was reasonable or not in your opinion if you disagree.

No way of knowing? He's got eyes on ffs and McGlockton's hands remain visible the entire time. He does not dive in his waistband or grab at his pockets etc. Assert specific facts on the tape to the contrary, use time stamps so they are easy to find. He has to have facts to articulate "I thought he was going for a weapon BECAUSE " and those facts have to make it reasonable to assume McGlockton 1) had a weapon 2) was drawing that weapon.

Because instinct is FIGHT/FLIGHT not FIGHT/FLIGHT/AMICABLE SURRENDER LIKE WE'RE LINE INFANTRY OFFICERS IN THE NAPOLEONIC ERA UNDER A WHITE FLAG. He was fleeing. Why did he turn to flee? Because you can run away faster when you're not backpeddling. Because the car was to his left and right was the only way he could turn.

Well since in this case the assailant was unarmed and upon threat of deadly force discontinued his assault, and he was not in arms reach nor was he moving toward arms reach but rather fleeing in the opposite direction of towards arm's reach from the moment the pistol was produced to the moment he was shot, to get imminent he'd have to be continuing his initial assault instead of having abandoned it to flee. Which I've already explained to you. Perhaps five times now. The one who initiated was still in the area, but out of range to actually cause harm and actively fleeing, having discontinued his assault at the threat of deadly force against him. He'd have to be continuing his assault, say by moving toward the defendant or informing the defendant that he was going to remove that firearm from his possession and rape him with it or words to that effect. Since he was instead fleeing and had previously discontinued his assault, his threat was no longer imminent.

You realize use of force cases generally revolve around facts exactly like we find ourselves faced with? Someone attacks someone else, that someone else employs deadly force. How about this: Since what you claim is so obviously the law, and you claim to have done copious research to have discovered this fact, why don't you present your copious research to the class and you can make me look real silly? Eh?

Legally speaking it is a bit different. Stabbing someone is per se deadly force, like shooting someone. Pushing someone to the ground CAN be ARGUED TO BE deadly force but is not per se deadly force. Regardless, that push knocked him to the ground putting him in a reasonable fear of great bodily harm while the assault continued, allowing the use of force statute to apply to protect any reasonable use of force required to halt that assault, from no threat and no force, to just threat, to deadly force. Here, he produced threat of deadly force and that was sufficient to stop the assault. Both yourself, and vman12 have admitted that production of the weapon caused the assault to stop. Both of you have also admitted the dead man was moving away from the defendant when shot. After the assault was stopped by threat of deadly force, no further escalation of force is authorized unless it be in response to the assailant renewing their assault. So if he'd backed up, then stopped backing up and come back toward him: justified. Lacking those facts, or ones which would make it reasonable to assume that's what he was about to do, such as backing up, stopping then saying "**** this I'm going to **** you up"? Not justified.

Because that's how the use of force statute is set up. The law in the jurisdiction rules that way, that when someone is no longer an imminent threat force is no longer authorized. They're not imminent if they've discontinued their assault and are fleeing, such as in this case. You yourself admit threat of force stopped the attack and the perp was in flight when shot. That means under the use of force statute that applies in this jurisdiction, it wasn't a justified use of force.
I'm sorry, but there is not a tit for tat Tag you're it formula for use of force in Florida (nor any US state I'm aware of) where the use of deadly force at one time authorizes the same in response at any time in the future. Use of force, or the threat of same, is always only ever allowed so long as it is reasonably required to STOP THE ASSAULT AGAINST YOUR PERSON/Fellow Citizens/Sometimes Property depending on state and context. Once that assault stops, and you've both admitted threat of force stopped it and caused the perp to flee, you can't use more force than you'd already produced to stop the assault. So you produce a firearm, you can (and should) keep it out until the person is no longer visible as they sprint for the hills. That doesn't mean you get to escalate without reason and shoot at them because they're running away but they're too slow for your taste.

You want to think its silly or wrongheaded? You're perfectly entitled to that opinion, and I encourage you to write a legislator about it if you're a Florida citizen. Something tells me you're not though as you're not even familiar with basic US civics principles like separation of powers or federalism. When you asked earlier could people in the US use force in response or not, when the proper question would contemplate the state laws in question since they are the ones that apply to use of force it lead me to believe you're a foreign national.

 

If a shove to the ground can kill someone, it is deadly force. A, individual cannot reasonably be considered unarmed if they are capable of inflicting deadly force, regardless of whether or not they possess a physical object that would constitute a weapon.

Beyond that matter, McGlogkcton was not in the act of retreat until after he was shot. Even if he was, there has been nothing cited upon the part of yourself that would show an individual who has already been subjected to deadly force, cannot legally return deadly force against the assailant simply because the assailant was not engaged in a continued attack at that exact moment in time.

If such a doctrine actually exists, then actually cite it or otherwise be quiet. Either prove conclusively, beyond reasonable doubt that such a nonsensical interpretation is actually based on existing law, or stop presenting it for consideration.

Law enforcement training has proven that a suspect can easily cross a distance of twenty one feet faster than a law enforcement officer can draw their firearm from its holster and respond to the attack unfolding in front of them. This means anyone within twenty one feet who has already deployed deadly force constitutes an imminent threat to the intended victim of the assault. And as McGlockton was far closer to Drejka than twenty one feet, his mere presence constituted a continued threat to Drejka.

In law enforcement encounters, even if a suspect is in the act of surrendering, law enforcement officers will still physically restrain the suspect to make it physically impossible for them to retaliate in case they choose to go back on their surrender and reengage in violence.

If McGlockton was indeed turning prior to the moment of being shot, this act of movement is enough to give reason to believe that he would be reaching for a weapon, as he is intentionally using his body to obscure the sight of what his right hand is doing. There are reasons that law enforcement will instruct suspects to keep their hands visible, and make no sudden movements for any reason. McGlockton was obscuring his hand and engaged in sudden movements, giving reason to believe he was going to retaliate.

And Drejka had no way of knowing with absolute certainty that McGlockton was not utilizing the turn to facilitate drawing a weapon to retaliate. If it is believed otherwise, demonstrate otherwise.

McGlockton was shot in the chest, from the front, while facing Drejka. He was not fleeing at the time of the incident, no matter how many times the claim is falsely repeated.

It is not possible to present a legal doctrine that does not exist. And in the research that has been performed, nothing has been found to suggest that one who has been subjected to deadly force, is legally prohibited from returning the use of deadly force simply because the assailant is not continuing the attack at that specific moment in time.

Until there are court cases where the judge and the court have actually ruled that being subjected to deadly force does not warrant or justify the use of deadly force for the purpose of self defense in response on the part of the victim, no legitimate argument is actually had on the part of yourself.

The shove constitutes deadly force, because the definition of deadly force includes force that a reasonable person would believe capable of causing great bodily harm, and there is not a reasonable person who can argue that being shoved to the pavement is no big deal, and amounts to nothing of significance. Drejka was subjected to deadly force, no different than if he had been stabbed or shot at.

The assault was not stopped in the sense that the threat no longer existed. There is a significant different from a threat being neutralized, and a threat being paused.

Then show the individuals that have been convicted of using deadly force, after being subjected to deadly force just seconds earlier, simply because the assailant was not currently engaged in further attack at that specific moment in time. If such is how the law in the united states does indeed exist, then demonstrate such as being the case. Show that it is more than the faulty interpretation of yourself, and instead is based on established legal precedent. Show where being subjected to deadly force is not legal ground to use deadly force in response.

Then actually show where such has been held by the courts. Show that even if someone has been subjected to deadly force, they cannot legally deploy deadly force if the assailant is not physically continuing the attack at that specific moment in time, even if the moment in question is just seconds after the deadly force was used against them.

Off topic and irrelevant.

 

Except its not recognized as per se deadly force like a knife or a gun are. It instead must be proven that such was deadly force, to the satisfaction of the jury. It is not something they can simply be instructed to assume.

Unarmed: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unarmed
You don't get to make up definitions for words. He was not possessed of a weapon. He was bare handed. He was therefore "unarmed".

Except both yourself and Vman have admitted multiple times that the threat not only stopped him from his assault but also sent him into flight.

I have: See the statute. You also claim to have done copious research, so why don't you show where your theory is supported in statute or case? If such exists, cite it or accept the statute as the controlling authority and shut your yap.

1) Dreijka has his gun out. 2) you yourself have admitted, and vman as well, multiple times each, that not only does drawing down make him stop his assault, it also causes him to immediately backpeddle and turn to flee. 3) since he's FLEEING he's no longer an imminent threat. 4) If you disagree, point to the statute where it includes your within 21' feet = fair ****ing game standard, or provide caselaw for the same proposition.
Additionally: Dreijka ain't a cop so he's going to have a hard time using a law enforcement argument as justification for his actions.
Also: You've failed to state how the positioning, direction of travel, momentum, intent of the assailant are somehow irrelevant to a use of force analysis. You fail.

On the next point: Your failure to cite specific instances of behavior which would make reasonable the assumption that 1) McGlockton was armed and 2) was going for that weapon, is noted for the lack of argument that it is. You fail. As to your assertion: His right hand remains visible. You fail.

He doesn't need to know that with absolute certainty, and I don't have to prove that. I have to prove that because the assailant had, as you freely have admitted multiple times and so has vman, stopped their assault and backpeddled several steps and turned to flee before he was shot, that it was no longer reasonable to fear he was an imminent threat to life and limb.
Proving that I have proven manslaughter, which is what Dreijka is charged with. Open. Shut.

Again: See the tape, and your own and vman's multiple admissions that yes threat of force stopped the assault and caused the assailant to backpeddle and turn to flee. You failed to cite specific facts from the tape otherwise earlier. I assume you will fail to do so here as well.

"How about this: Since what you claim is so obviously the law, and you claim to have done copious research to have discovered this fact, why don't you present your copious research to the class and you can make me look real silly? Eh?" So I asked you that and you respond with "

So you admit you cannot provide any evidence for your theory that its a tit for tat, I get to get you back no matter the changed circumstances in between use of force standard? And you still think you want to argue?

See the statute precious. Its rather clear. You might also present some of your copious research showing what you think is right. If you're right, there should be case after case after case to pound me with. Why don't you?

The shove constitutes a forcible felony, opening up the statute so long as the threat is imminent and force used in response is reasonable. Even if it were per se deadly force, the initial assault was discontinued by threat of deadly force and the assailant was fleeing when shot. As stated multiple times: Its not a tit for tat standard. Show otherwise since it is your claim that it is.

The guy doesn't have to become your bosom companion, magically teleport away, or get killed for the imminent threat to be past tense. What was the danger? Physical contact. When the gun is pulled, what does the assailant do? Stop, backpeddle and turn to run away. When he stops how far away is he? Vman says 10'. When he gets shot how far away is he? Still farther away than 10'. He was moving AWAY from the defendant, and the threat was in physical contact which he is now even less capable of then when he stopped and has in fact given you no indication that he is resuming his unlawful attack. He is in fact fleeing. He is in fact no longer an imminent threat.

I've cited the statute and cases already. You've done nothing but allege a tit for tat standard, and make the laughable argument that within 21' they're always fair game.

 

For everything that has been said, or otherwise claimed, on the part of yourself, none of it appears to actually be based on established law and legal precedent within the united states. Until such time it is actually proven in a conclusive manner, that there exists a legal doctrine within the united states, holding in unambiguous terms that an assault victim who has been subjected to deadly force, is legally obligated to let their assailant leave the area after committing the assault, there is nothing had on the part of yourself except mere opinion, analyzed from the perspective of one who was not only not present at the time, but has never actually been subjected to the violent nature of reality.

 

I'll take your response for the quitting the field that it is. Too bad you couldn't cough up a single bit of all that research you're supposed to have done proving how you're right.

 

Supreme Court says you cannot use deadly force unless deadly force is being threatened against yourself or another.

Even cops are forbidden from using deadly force upon a fleeing suspect unless it is justified.

 

The shove to the pavement in this case amounts to deadly force, as such assaults have resulted in numerous individuals dying as a result. The simple fact Drejka did not die from the assault is irrelevant, as not everyone who is shot or stabbed dies either. Even if the assault is not severe enough to be immediately deadly, the threat of great bodily harm is sufficient to qualify as deadly force.