Try running toward and knocking down someone who is speaking to someone else. in whatever manner, and see how iit works for you,
Understanding "Stand Your Ground" Law
- Thread starter Craig_AR
- Start date
- Status
Cute. So you lack an actual argument, then?
Again, I never said McGlockton was justified. It doesn't seem that he is, looking at the video. I said had he been justified. You seem to be having a hard time wrapping your head around hypotheticals. Jesus, you should pay attention to what you're reading before jumping up and pounding your chest to prove yourself right. I never once asserted that Drejka committed assault. I stated that if he had, then the situation would have been different.
As for what actually happened, that linked article about the expert witness shenanigans at the trial had an unedited clip of the incident, and I watched it. I agree with your assessment. If anything, McGlockton's withdraw looks more like he's sizing up Drejka than withdrawing from the altercation.
I'm not sure what parts of what I have posted qualify as "jumping up and pounding my chest" using any reasonable definition of that phrase.
I understand hypotheticals and "if". As I said, I just don't see anything in the video that suggests the "if"/hypothetical put forth actually relates to the situation under discussion. If it's perfectly reasonable to put forth hypotheticals, why would making comments on the applicability of those hypotheticals to the discussion at hand be inappropriate?
Perhaps I misread your tone. It sounded an awful lot like you were trying to correct me on the facts of the case, when I wasn't arguing them. Add to that the fact that Kleanbore is still asserting that you can't use force to stop an assault, even though it's clearly spelled out in the FL law I quoted and that the law on this is at least similar in most US jurisdictions, then maybe I'm just being testy. I'll take your word as to your intent and withdraw the comment.
It relates to the discussion in that you cannot claim self defense if you initiated the conflict in the first place. Kleanbore had stated with some certainty that Drejka hadn't initiated the conflict with McGlockton. I'd replied that had Drejka's argument with the girlfriend risen to the level of assault, then this might not be the case. Then we went down this big, pointless rabbit hole.
alsaqr
Member
Drejka found himself before a jury because the prosecutor and/or grand jury did not believe his story; the judge who bound Drejka over for trial had reservations about his story. i'm not surprised the jury found him guilty.
BTW: The manager of the store adjacent to the handicapped parking space said this about Drejka:
i“I see them all the time. Both of them,” said Ali Salous, who owns the Circle-A food store. “They’re customers. I see them daily.”
Salous says both men involved, including the man who was killed, 28-year-old Markeis McGlockton, are regular customers.
But Salous describes the man who fired the fatal shot, 47-year-old Michael Drejka, as a "hot head" who is often inexplicably concerned about where people park outside the store.
“I told him why don’t you mind your own business, you know what I mean?” said Salous.
About two months ago, Salous remembers Drejka getting into an argument with another customer over parking.
Richard Kelly claims he was that customer.
“He flips out,” said Kelly. “Calls me every N-word in the book. Says that he will shoot me.”"
https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/m...had-confrontations-at-same-store/67-576767176
BTW: The manager of the store adjacent to the handicapped parking space said this about Drejka:
i“I see them all the time. Both of them,” said Ali Salous, who owns the Circle-A food store. “They’re customers. I see them daily.”
Salous says both men involved, including the man who was killed, 28-year-old Markeis McGlockton, are regular customers.
But Salous describes the man who fired the fatal shot, 47-year-old Michael Drejka, as a "hot head" who is often inexplicably concerned about where people park outside the store.
“I told him why don’t you mind your own business, you know what I mean?” said Salous.
About two months ago, Salous remembers Drejka getting into an argument with another customer over parking.
Richard Kelly claims he was that customer.
“He flips out,” said Kelly. “Calls me every N-word in the book. Says that he will shoot me.”"
https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/m...had-confrontations-at-same-store/67-576767176
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,279
Seems like the Michael Drejka and George Zimmerman have something in common... They both strapped a gun to their hips, and then got the courage to go and aggressively look for trouble. Both harassed other citizens. Both ended up being charged. One got off, and IMHO because there was accual video proof, the other was convicted.. Without the video, he very well may have gotten off too.
For most of us who aren't hot heads who look for trouble and who develop a superiority complex when carrying a gun, I really believe we don't have much to worry about.
Last edited:
No. The point is, running at and attacking someone because he is yelling is most unlikely to be judged by others as lawful. Without lawful justification, the act is a criminal use of force.
What would have been required for justification? An objective basis for a reasonable belief that the shouting was part of a pattern that presented an imminent threat of harm would help, if the evidence available later the fact were sufficient.
"Give me your keys", or "get into the trunk" would likely be convincing, but complaining about parking would likely not serve well at all as evidence the existence of jeopardy.
i'm not sure that there is any credible evidence that Zimmerman either "aggressively looked for trouble" or "harassed" anyone.
As a neighborhood watch person, he saw a person whom he considered suspicious, called it in, unwisely followed to continue reporting the whereabouts of the person, returned to the street, and was attacked there.
Shortly after the trial, there was considerable analysis or tactics, and televised advice to not follow any supeicious person but to stay in a safe place; to call it in without being seen; and to take vido from whare one will not be noticed by the zubjects.
Had Zimmerman done things that way, he would not have been attacked.
If one is threatened, percidves the need o present a weapon or to use one, and acts on that perception there will be plenty to "worry about".
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,127
This is likely the kind of testimony the jury heard that lead to a guilty verdict. I would bet the tables would be entirely different if the shooter wasn't a known hot head.
Right, so we agree.
The causal agency in Pop corn man, I got pushed Man, ZimmerMan is a human primate male dominance dance festival. The nuances are interesting at trial but the pas de deux of male puffery from all the participants stands out.
My other takes:
Thanks to Boom Boom for the https://lawofselfdefense.com/drejka-analysis-when-the-tueller-drills-corrupted/ link
From that:
1. Branca makes excellent points about the prosecution demolishing the Tueller defense through misdirection and misinterpetation. However, I wonder how much that influenced the jury as compared to other factors. Many things go into their decision. I would like to see an empirical test with a mock jury that had a correct interpretation and defense presentation and see if that really made a difference. Is it an issue that we see and Branca saw but was it crucial?
2. The defense's use of their expert Brown, points to the need to get quality defense experts and not buy into claims of being a UOF expert. From looking at Brown's credentials that are available on line - I really don't see a resume of someone who is truly an expert in these issues. I don't see training in such from the folks we know who would do such. Being an NCO in the Marines isn't it, nor does his other work experiences speak to truly analyzing such a complex interaction. One should really make sure that your defense expertise isn't at that level.
Given the fragile nature of gun rights nowadays, carriers (independent of your views on the Constitutionally acceptable conditions for carry) cannot be idiots. The three cases are vivid instances that work against gun rights. Vivid negative instances far outweigh the positives in the mind of many.
My other takes:
Thanks to Boom Boom for the https://lawofselfdefense.com/drejka-analysis-when-the-tueller-drills-corrupted/ link
From that:
1. Branca makes excellent points about the prosecution demolishing the Tueller defense through misdirection and misinterpetation. However, I wonder how much that influenced the jury as compared to other factors. Many things go into their decision. I would like to see an empirical test with a mock jury that had a correct interpretation and defense presentation and see if that really made a difference. Is it an issue that we see and Branca saw but was it crucial?
2. The defense's use of their expert Brown, points to the need to get quality defense experts and not buy into claims of being a UOF expert. From looking at Brown's credentials that are available on line - I really don't see a resume of someone who is truly an expert in these issues. I don't see training in such from the folks we know who would do such. Being an NCO in the Marines isn't it, nor does his other work experiences speak to truly analyzing such a complex interaction. One should really make sure that your defense expertise isn't at that level.
Given the fragile nature of gun rights nowadays, carriers (independent of your views on the Constitutionally acceptable conditions for carry) cannot be idiots. The three cases are vivid instances that work against gun rights. Vivid negative instances far outweigh the positives in the mind of many.
Here's an interesting article on spouting the phrase: I am in fear of my life - as a get out of jail card.
https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/im-in-fear-for-my-life
Some selected quotes:
I've read a case where someone went off to argue with a neighbor and said he would yell it if things went bad to give him an out. Well, he ain't out of jail yet.
https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/im-in-fear-for-my-life
Some selected quotes:
I've read a case where someone went off to argue with a neighbor and said he would yell it if things went bad to give him an out. Well, he ain't out of jail yet.
Yep.
And the presence of a firearm is not necessary. Someone I know took it upon himself to chastise a man who had discarded some refuse in a parking lot. The man, who was accompanied by his young son, shouted back.
When the self-appointed enforcer came back out of the store, he found that his uninsured truck had sustained significant damage. Witnesses told him that the man had rammed it repeatedly with his own truck and driven away.
He seemed peeved. I told him that he was lucky that he had not been stabbed with a knife.
Good Ol' Boy
Member
So what we have all learned here is that those of us who EDC are to hide in the shadows essentially.
Used to be you could call somebody out on their BS decision to do something stupid, although not always necessarily illegal, sometimes it is. Whether or not you carried a gun wasn't even a issue.
Now if we carry a gun we are to be complacent in our environment unless extreme circumstances occur in the fear that any old conversation might escalate to deadly force.
I'm a prime example as today I was having lunch at a restaurant with my wife where there was a single 30 something Male in the booth behind us blabbing about an EX to someone on the phone. In walks a family with young kids that's set right next to both of us. This single Male is loudly cursing like a sailor talking on the phone and I very much wanted to say something about there being kids nearby but I didnt for this exact same reason.
Now I've lived to walk another day as a free man but how better off is society as a whole?
Probably no worse off than it is already headed....
Used to be you could call somebody out on their BS decision to do something stupid, although not always necessarily illegal, sometimes it is. Whether or not you carried a gun wasn't even a issue.
Now if we carry a gun we are to be complacent in our environment unless extreme circumstances occur in the fear that any old conversation might escalate to deadly force.
I'm a prime example as today I was having lunch at a restaurant with my wife where there was a single 30 something Male in the booth behind us blabbing about an EX to someone on the phone. In walks a family with young kids that's set right next to both of us. This single Male is loudly cursing like a sailor talking on the phone and I very much wanted to say something about there being kids nearby but I didnt for this exact same reason.
Now I've lived to walk another day as a free man but how better off is society as a whole?
Probably no worse off than it is already headed....
I think that's an overstatement of the reality of the situation.
It's fine to go about one's business as normal when carrying. In fact, that's ideal. The problem comes when people do things they wouldn't normally because they feel they can fall back on their gun if things go badly.
Now, on the other hand, if a person decides that they want to be the self-appointed parking enforcement for their neighborhood, it doesn't take too much forethought to realize that increases their risk level. If you want to go around confronting strangers in public over the poor choices they make in their daily lives, it's almost a given that enough of that type of behavior will eventually result in some pretty negative outcomes.
IMO, a person who wants to do that kind of thing should do it unarmed. If they want to enforce the law while armed, they need to become official law enforcement officers and receive the training, backup and equipment necessary to do the job properly. I think it's a really bad idea for a person to strap on their gun and then go forth into the world with the idea that they're going to set all the miscreants they encounter on the straight and narrow while relying on their gun to bail them out if they get in over their heads. That is NOT what concealed carry is about, and, IMO, it makes a mockery of deadly force laws.
it's too bad that Popcorn Man did not similarly refrain from complaining about that cell phone.
Well put, but one should not do that kind of thing at all. Doing so while armed simply makes the potential consequences more severe, if one ignores the possibility of being stabbed.
It has been said that an armed society is a polite society. Polite is a very good way to be, armed or unarmed,
BSA1
member
You had other options which you failed to use.
Let the management deal with the issue.
The first and most obvious one is to tell the waitress that you are finding the other persons language offensive and is making you uncomfortable.
If the management does not do so to your satisfaction then you have the option of leaving. When you are leaving tell the manager exactly why you are upset and be sure to mention you will be posting on Facebook about this restaurant.
A key point that you are missing is use of force, whether non-lethal or deadly, should be your last resort. If you were so offended by the loud language that you chose to confront that person resulting in use of force instead of options 1 and 2 then you will most likely find yourself sitting in a Courtroom facing a jury.
Last edited:
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,279
The problem is that many gun owners who would normally take every measure possible to avoid conflict become more emboldened when they have a firearm on them... They're everything but polite and they inflame the situation knowing that they can always fallback on their firearm and claim self defense when and if they picked with the wrong person.
In these situations, I'd always mind my business first and foremost unless someone is being hurt, talk to management, call law enforcement, or just leave the area before I start an altercation.
People tend to respond differently to management and L.E. than they do to busy bodies, and management and L.E. tend to carry themselves more professionally. I know me personally I'm going to be offended if some random citizen comes fussing me out and barking orders at me over what he perceives I'm doing wrong that really isn't any of their concern or business vs L.E. doing it...
Last edited:
This is a very worthwhile discussion, so I'd like to see it drift back to discussion of the legal issues involved with SYG. You know, this being the Legal forum and all. I'll give it a nudge.
And those gun owners are dead wrong. That's the quick road to being an initial aggressor, which usually prevents one from claiming SD.
- Status
