This incident to me appears to be the simple matter of someone thinking they had the right to do something, which the jury determined they simply did not have. I don't know the minute details of the case, but it seems reasonably simple to me - if you can avoid, escape, or de escalate a conflict - this should be your first and best option, so take it. Don't rely on a jury to agree with any semantic nuance of what you think the law may or may not be. I've had plenty of conversations with people who think and claim they have a right to do something and will argue that infinitely - when I'm pretty sure they don't actually have that right and try to convince them otherwise. Usually, this is a losing argument - they have read something, or heard something that solidified that belief - even when there is ample evidence in a significant majority proving otherwise. This guy reminds me of those conversations…
Understanding "Stand Your Ground" Law
- Thread starter Craig_AR
- Start date
- Status
The jury reached a unanimous decison thatthe defendant was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Zimmerman's following and observation of Martin does not constitute provocation, in the legal sense. Far from it. It was entirely lawful, but in 20-20 hindsight, now that we know Martin's violent unlawful reaction, it was clearly not prudent.
Martin attacked Zimmerman and was causing him serious bodily harm from which he could not escape.
See my reply to Styx.
Words to live by!
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,250
No, we don't know that Trayvon acted unlawfully. That's just your opinion that's not based on any known facts. The fact that there were zero witnesses to how the fight started proves my point. Unless you were there, and know something no one else knows, you're just pain wrong. It's entirely plausible that either one of them could have started the fight. We both also know that a not guilty verdict does not necessarily mean the person didn't do it. It sometimes means there wasn't enough proof to convict. In the own words of several of the jury members, the latter was the case. Only Zimmerman and Trayvon would know what truly happened. Everything else is just speculation and opinion.
Last edited:
There was reasonable doubt about the fight origin and how it progressed to a lethal threat to Zimmerman. The rest seems speculation. Zimmerman was an idiot for his actions leading up to this. Whether idiocy is a legal term, I'll leave to others - with an evil grin.
I'm no lawyer (thanks!) but I wonder about the legalities of following someone. If a person for instance follows you in a manner that seems threatening, and you call the law - I would expect the law to talk to that person and cause them to cease that behavior.
I once saw a young woman jogging in our neighborhood. A pickup with very dark windows was slowing down to next to her. She abruptly turned into a side street. Said pickup abruptly turned into the street after her. I abruptly turned right after the pickup that then picked up speed into the development. I doubt the driver lived in that area. If the young lady called the law or I did, if he stopped to 'talk' to her - what is the guiding legal principle? Can you follow someone in that sort of manner? I would be ok if it happened that the guy stopped and 'talked' or accosted her (I'm looking for my puppy), if she drew on him. Would the law?
Was I wrong to make the turn? Nothing happened, the guy sped up and away. It just too weird for me to let it go.
I'm no lawyer (thanks!) but I wonder about the legalities of following someone. If a person for instance follows you in a manner that seems threatening, and you call the law - I would expect the law to talk to that person and cause them to cease that behavior.
I once saw a young woman jogging in our neighborhood. A pickup with very dark windows was slowing down to next to her. She abruptly turned into a side street. Said pickup abruptly turned into the street after her. I abruptly turned right after the pickup that then picked up speed into the development. I doubt the driver lived in that area. If the young lady called the law or I did, if he stopped to 'talk' to her - what is the guiding legal principle? Can you follow someone in that sort of manner? I would be ok if it happened that the guy stopped and 'talked' or accosted her (I'm looking for my puppy), if she drew on him. Would the law?
Was I wrong to make the turn? Nothing happened, the guy sped up and away. It just too weird for me to let it go.
Charlie Martinez
Member
The problem with the Zimmerman case was that it involved a mature White guy shooting a young Black guy. If both men had been Black or both White the case would have never been such a mess.
The Zimmerman case was REALLY NOT about SYG. Zimmerman was an overweight guy who couldn't have run away from Martin even if he wanted to. The Zimmerman case was about pacifying a highly outraged Black community that is constantly being victimized & manipulated by their Black "leaders" (which are mostly corrupt opportunists) and the Liberal Media which happens to also be quite corrupt & opportunistic.
The race of the individuals involved in any shooting will play a huge role in the way the law handles the case & the outcome. And this applies to police shootings as well.
Zimmerman was released but he went through hell in the process & his life was ruined. The fact is that nobody knows what Martin was really up to & if Zimmerman actually prevented a serious crime from happening by deciding to follow Martin.
The Zimmerman case is a good one to keep in mind if you CC because it could easily happen again.
Anyone that really believes that the law is blind is even blinder.
The Zimmerman case was REALLY NOT about SYG. Zimmerman was an overweight guy who couldn't have run away from Martin even if he wanted to. The Zimmerman case was about pacifying a highly outraged Black community that is constantly being victimized & manipulated by their Black "leaders" (which are mostly corrupt opportunists) and the Liberal Media which happens to also be quite corrupt & opportunistic.
The race of the individuals involved in any shooting will play a huge role in the way the law handles the case & the outcome. And this applies to police shootings as well.
Zimmerman was released but he went through hell in the process & his life was ruined. The fact is that nobody knows what Martin was really up to & if Zimmerman actually prevented a serious crime from happening by deciding to follow Martin.
The Zimmerman case is a good one to keep in mind if you CC because it could easily happen again.
Anyone that really believes that the law is blind is even blinder.
umm.. pretty sure Zimmerman was a Hispanic guy who had been adopted and had a Jewish last name, but identified as Hispanic. The media reported him as White only because they really wanted him to be White for some sick and demented reason.
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,250
IMHO race, the media, and politics were all clouding the judgement of both side. If you ask me and if you take everything Zimmerman did prior, anyone who isn't bais can understand how charges could be and were brought.. If you go by the evidence alone, it's clear that there wasn't enough there to say who was at fault either way. Both whites, blacks, liberal, conservative, gun owners, non gun owners were being manipulated by their leaders, their biases ,their media outlet that they specifically choose to tell them what they wanted to hear. Both sides were doing the same thing while claiming to have the moral high ground... It was turned into a them vs us case, and most formed their opinions accordingly.
In the end, Zimmerman put him self into the situation, his behavior cast doubt on his innocence, and if he had better sense, he wouldn't have had been in that situation to begin with. IMHO, if he was unarmed and didn't have a firearm on him, he would not have put himself in that situation. Did he get away with manslaughter or murder? We may never really know.
What can be learned from the Zimmerman case is, whether your shooting is justified or not, your behavior before the shooting may very well be the reason why your innocence is brought into question.
Last edited:
Tommygunn
Member
The law tried him and found him not guilty. If he's entitled to the presumption of innocence before the trial he ought to be entitled to the same after a NOT GUILTY verdict.
Yes, he made questionable choices. That doesn't mean he automatically loses the right to self defense. A great deal of obfuscation was employed by many during this case including media who edited recordings.
The version of events the jury evidently accepted as fact is not, however, unreasonable, and comports with the time-line of the event. I think in the end it is reasonable to believe (NOT "know" : believe) that Zimmerman is innocent.
In 20/20 hindsight, it's easy to say, perhaps he ought not have a gun. But we don't (yet) have a "DEPT. OF PRE-CRIME" and Zimmerman was as entitled as anyone else to his 2A rights.
Having said that, I can also recognize that Zimmerman did appear over-zealous in many of his actions and employed poor judgement ... because, unfortunatly, it seems that's the self-evident truth at this point in time, like it, or not.
Charlie Horse
Member
When the media kept referring to him as "White Hispanic," my brother in law, a first generation Peruvian-American looked at me and asked "Well now, looks like I COULD be anything if I work hard enough, maybe even Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan!"
40-82
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2013
- Messages
- 527
I doubt very much that what the person in the dark pickup did up to the point where you interceded rose to the level of a crime in any jurisdiction. It was, however, suspicious enough to be of interest, and he may or may not have intended a crime. Your actions very likely did prevent a crime. Of course your actions weren't wrong. You were completely within your rights, although anything you might do to increase the likelihood of a confrontation isn't in the strictest sense in your self-interest.
Most of the time, people long familiar with the carrying of arms recommend avoiding conflicts between unknown parties, but that recommendation comes with a caveat. Sometimes a person of character just can't look the other way.
Fair enough. The media still misled the public in the Zimmerman case and others, which damages their reputation and the nation IMHO.
Good Ol' Boy
Member
The problem with video is that it can be interpreted just like the constitution. In some cases it's pretty indisputable and in others, like this case, it's kind of grey.
I'll tell you what I see in this footage....
1. A guy confronts a person about breaking the law.
2. Another guy interupts the interaction by violently pushing the first guy to the ground. It hasn't been brought up in this thread or anywhere else I've read about this story but Drejka got rocked. This wasn't just a "push" where one gets off balance and falls. As extremely violent shoves go this was a 10.
3. Glockton stands there after Drejka is on the ground, not approaching or retreating. Drejka draws gun and in fractions of a second the trigger is pulled and Glockton realizes the gun and appears to try and retreat.
In a SD situation milliseconds count and things can change just as fast.
Just realize that anyone who carries could end up in the same situation. One millisecond theres a perceived threat and the next, while or after you've pulled the trigger, the threat could cease.
It's a heavy burden, and IMO not always a fair one, to place on a victim, but anyone who carries a firearm WILL bear it if you ever have to use it.
I'll tell you what I see in this footage....
1. A guy confronts a person about breaking the law.
2. Another guy interupts the interaction by violently pushing the first guy to the ground. It hasn't been brought up in this thread or anywhere else I've read about this story but Drejka got rocked. This wasn't just a "push" where one gets off balance and falls. As extremely violent shoves go this was a 10.
3. Glockton stands there after Drejka is on the ground, not approaching or retreating. Drejka draws gun and in fractions of a second the trigger is pulled and Glockton realizes the gun and appears to try and retreat.
In a SD situation milliseconds count and things can change just as fast.
Just realize that anyone who carries could end up in the same situation. One millisecond theres a perceived threat and the next, while or after you've pulled the trigger, the threat could cease.
It's a heavy burden, and IMO not always a fair one, to place on a victim, but anyone who carries a firearm WILL bear it if you ever have to use it.
Last edited:
You responded to a single sentence. "The mere speaking of words" can rise to the level of assault under FL statute (and most jurisdictions in the US, AFAIK), and if it did, then the shove would have been justified. As I said, we don't know (or at least I don't) if this was the case, it was just speculation.
The fact that the spoken word can rise to the level of assault is not evidence that the spoken word can justify the use of force.
Before you can use force, the other person must be unlawfully using, or be about to unlawfully use force or deadly force. In fact, even to threaten force legally, there must be the reasonable belief that the threat of force is necessary to defend against the use, or imminent use of unlawful force by the other person.
Here's the section of FL statutes dealing with the justifiable/legal use of force (not deadly force). There is absolutely nothing in it that suggests that the spoken word (even if it qualifies as assault) can justify the use (or threat) of force against a person. Only the unlawful use of force, or the reasonable belief that the unlawful use of force is imminent can justify using or threatening force.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html
Which is what I said in my first post. I didn't say that it was necessarily the case here, only that it was a possibility. You have yelling. The content of the yelling may have just been argumentative. But if the yelling was threatening, and if the proximity to the vehicle was close enough that the threatening person had opportunity, and if the threatening person was making threatening gestures . . . then yes, the use of minimal force to move the guy away, such as shoving him back, would be justifiable.
It's spelled out right here:
You two are getting worked up about a hypothetical. I'm well aware of use of force law. The fact is, with what was shown on the news coverage (I haven't seen the court transcripts, as I've said), it's entirely possible that the shove was justifiable force. Whether it was or wasn't is irrelevant to the case anyway, it was just a side observation.
This boils down to "what we know" vs "what we know." I wasn't there, so I don't "know" who started the fight. Here's what I do know: SD law consistently bars an initial aggressor from using it as a defense. (Which makes sense, right? You can't start a fight, kill the other guy, then claim SD.) I also know that in a jury trial, the jury is also called "the trier of fact." When the jury has "found a fact," it becomes a fact for legal purposes. We may not "know" that Trayvon acted lawfully with the same certainty as "I know my foot is at the end of my leg because I looked," but we do know that Zimmerman was not found to have acted unlawfully. And while I haven't looked at transcripts lately, I'm pretty confident saying that the jury didn't find that Z was the initial aggressor.
Yep, that's how things go down in courts. Thank goodness, too. I don't really want juries deciding cases on feelings.
At some point, it becomes stalking or harassment.
Well said.
Thats baloney. Even if it was true the argument was with the "girlfriend" not the deceased.
Rehashing the Zimmerman case in the present one is simply not that useful because of the rather odd fact pattern in that case. The current proliferation of internet connected surveillance cameras that allow police access has rendered the neighborhood watch concept less important and now neighborhoods are grouping together to buy license plate reading cameras that are accessible to the police. Just like stores got out of the apprehending shoplifters due to litigation threats, neighborhoods are now using similar technology instead of the risks of personal confrontation. That is now best left to the police for better or worse by almost every large retailer.
In the present case, the THR consensus appears to be that any verbal correction of public misbehavior by others should be avoided as the potential to incite "conflict". The popcorn guy got into it with the guy using a cellphone during a movie if I recollect properly, this present dispute started with an apparently illegal squatting on a disabled parking space, and a recent Texas case dealt with a dispute in an alley between neighbors over a discarded mattress in the trash.
https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/aaron-howard-murder-video/
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/...RQHMh-Vizq9ypj0wy6ITv8-SxGSpStRDC3BxhHJbnexAE
In a similar vein, I recall one distinguished veteran near my hometown who got into it with a neighbor over a placement of a drainage pipe along property lines which escalated into a deadly shooting as well between two guys in the seventies and the distinguished veteran spent his remaining life in prison over a manslaughter charge.
For whatever reason, the outcomes in some of these escalations seems related to what Rory Miller calls the monkey dance where an outsized male desire to dominate in an initial verbal conflict spirals into violence. The honor culture deems any "disrespect" to one's self or especially to others associated with one's self as something worth fighting about. However, the risk is as always that an escalation to deadly force can and does happen when violence is threatened or occurs. When one is dealing with strangers, many of which may live violent lives, a prudent person would be well advised strategically to avoid conflict and resort to security, the police, or other dispute mechanisms rather than risk an escalation. At worst, just walk away from such a dispute and live to another day.
To some degree we have focused on the defendant here and his actions in a legal vein rather than the ill-fated move by the deceased to escalate (moving from verbal conflict to physical violence). Tactically, this is a rather stupid move to pull on a stranger when the option is to get in the car and leave or yell at the woman to roll up the windows and call for security. Robbers for example, often work in groups, where one distracts the attentions of the victims so that the others can get the victims at a disadvantage. The physically assaulted guy could also take the physical action as a challenge and shoot as that is the great equalizer between persons regardless of physique and strength.
The convicted defendant on the other hand had lost a fight and made the wrong decision in the few seconds allotted to him when he pulled the trigger. Whether he did not process the information correctly or fired because he was humiliated and wanted revenge, either way, the jury felt his actions were unreasonable as the threat to him was over. Like Zimmerman's long videotaped interview led to Zimmerman not being called to the stand, the defense lawyer may have felt that the defendant's long interviews with the police would put the defendant at risk on the stand in that the defendant might contradict himself with prior statements to the police. But, the risk in that using a justification defense is that the jury might see the defendant as unwilling to defend to them his reasons.
What implications are there for Stand Your Ground laws if we leave aside the Zimmerman case? The origination of the Stand Your Ground doctrine comes from injustices where someone was convicted who could not retreat (in perfect safety) from a conflict. Americans placed a lesser value on societal order compared with individual rights than did and do the British. The idea of keeping the King's peace at the expense of individual rights is less compatible with American law and its development and now even the castle doctrine in Britain has shrank to little allowance for people to resist intruders even in their own house. The doctrine is still there in Britain but has so many caveats and exceptions that it creates legal jeopardy for a person acting in their own self defense in their own home.
Thus, a number of jurisdictions revisited the common law doctrine of retreat including the U.S. Supreme Court in several cases around the 1900's to make a break with the British tradition. The doctrine of retreat was used by zealous prosecutors to convict people who did not flee their homes, could not outrun a bullet, etc. because a jury with sympathetic victims could decide that because post hoc, the person could have retreated based on all the facts, they should have decided the same as the jury. Thus, courts in some states via caselaw, Georgia for example, and legislatures in others, Florida and Georgia come to mind, felt that justice would be improved by reducing the discretion that judges and prosecutors via codifying Stand Your Ground in statutory law so that prosecutors and judges could not create an absolute requirement to retreat under all circumstances for defendants before using self defense.
I agree with the Stand Your Ground law because it is not a bar to prosecuting someone for making an unreasonable decision but makes it more difficult for the prosecution and/or a jury to impose an absolute requirement of retreat in every encounter. Unfortunately, just like any other justification defense, it may result in some decisions where a person goes free when some in society feel is an injustice while others see it as a righteous use of force. Absent SYG, you will get people convicted for acting as reasonably as they could but they failed to calculate in seconds to the prosecution and jury's satisfaction whether or not they should retreat. Look up the Harold Fish case in AZ for example which triggered a change in Arizona law. There are a significant number of people that believe shooting someone unarmed itself is unreasonable in almost all circumstances and if you carry a firearm then you are an unreasonable bloodthirsty gun nut because they saw Death Wish on the tv one time. Despite constant admonitions not do do so, too many people try to apply their own standards instead of a legal one on juries and a prosecutor wanting a win will do their best to seat these folks on a jury. Something like an absolute duty to retreat is one of those unjust standards.
However, everything has a consequence and for some folks, the SYG laws cause some folks to ignore other tenets of self defense law which is an aggressor in a situation cannot claim the mantle of righteousness in a self defense situation. A misplaced sense of justice where someone sees an obvious wrong to them and then try to correct the injustice personally can lead to a very bad place including death and incarceration. In essence, that is why we have the court system and law enforcement to act to resolve disputes as their superior strength and numbers make it difficult to claim honor in fighting them. But, to some extent, it is clear that this system has its drawbacks as well, failing to act assertively in some cases, and creating injustices in others. When the system of justice becomes mocked as corrupt and inefficient, then the risk is the return to vigilantism and mob justice where no recourse to the law exists--e.g. anarchy.
Some folks in this thread have more or less argued for the return of the retreat requirement but must be willing to accept that under that doctrine, there will and have been injustices done to individual defendants who made a split second judgment that they could not retreat in perfect safety. Some have argued for more or less the right to confront verbal assaults with physical violence as self defense for others. However, both situations will also result in some deaths and injuries along with injustices in court. There is no perfect solution in law or court decisions that work for every situation that one might encounter in life. The best that one can do is understand the statutory and court interpretations of those statutes and try to avoid conflict whenever one can. If one is unsure of either, then seek reputable training and even those believing themselves to be sure might want the training because your life and liberty is at stake in such a conflict. Foremost, remember a soft answer turneth away wrath--don't get sucked into the monkey dance.
In the present case, the THR consensus appears to be that any verbal correction of public misbehavior by others should be avoided as the potential to incite "conflict". The popcorn guy got into it with the guy using a cellphone during a movie if I recollect properly, this present dispute started with an apparently illegal squatting on a disabled parking space, and a recent Texas case dealt with a dispute in an alley between neighbors over a discarded mattress in the trash.
https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/aaron-howard-murder-video/
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/...RQHMh-Vizq9ypj0wy6ITv8-SxGSpStRDC3BxhHJbnexAE
In a similar vein, I recall one distinguished veteran near my hometown who got into it with a neighbor over a placement of a drainage pipe along property lines which escalated into a deadly shooting as well between two guys in the seventies and the distinguished veteran spent his remaining life in prison over a manslaughter charge.
For whatever reason, the outcomes in some of these escalations seems related to what Rory Miller calls the monkey dance where an outsized male desire to dominate in an initial verbal conflict spirals into violence. The honor culture deems any "disrespect" to one's self or especially to others associated with one's self as something worth fighting about. However, the risk is as always that an escalation to deadly force can and does happen when violence is threatened or occurs. When one is dealing with strangers, many of which may live violent lives, a prudent person would be well advised strategically to avoid conflict and resort to security, the police, or other dispute mechanisms rather than risk an escalation. At worst, just walk away from such a dispute and live to another day.
To some degree we have focused on the defendant here and his actions in a legal vein rather than the ill-fated move by the deceased to escalate (moving from verbal conflict to physical violence). Tactically, this is a rather stupid move to pull on a stranger when the option is to get in the car and leave or yell at the woman to roll up the windows and call for security. Robbers for example, often work in groups, where one distracts the attentions of the victims so that the others can get the victims at a disadvantage. The physically assaulted guy could also take the physical action as a challenge and shoot as that is the great equalizer between persons regardless of physique and strength.
The convicted defendant on the other hand had lost a fight and made the wrong decision in the few seconds allotted to him when he pulled the trigger. Whether he did not process the information correctly or fired because he was humiliated and wanted revenge, either way, the jury felt his actions were unreasonable as the threat to him was over. Like Zimmerman's long videotaped interview led to Zimmerman not being called to the stand, the defense lawyer may have felt that the defendant's long interviews with the police would put the defendant at risk on the stand in that the defendant might contradict himself with prior statements to the police. But, the risk in that using a justification defense is that the jury might see the defendant as unwilling to defend to them his reasons.
What implications are there for Stand Your Ground laws if we leave aside the Zimmerman case? The origination of the Stand Your Ground doctrine comes from injustices where someone was convicted who could not retreat (in perfect safety) from a conflict. Americans placed a lesser value on societal order compared with individual rights than did and do the British. The idea of keeping the King's peace at the expense of individual rights is less compatible with American law and its development and now even the castle doctrine in Britain has shrank to little allowance for people to resist intruders even in their own house. The doctrine is still there in Britain but has so many caveats and exceptions that it creates legal jeopardy for a person acting in their own self defense in their own home.
Thus, a number of jurisdictions revisited the common law doctrine of retreat including the U.S. Supreme Court in several cases around the 1900's to make a break with the British tradition. The doctrine of retreat was used by zealous prosecutors to convict people who did not flee their homes, could not outrun a bullet, etc. because a jury with sympathetic victims could decide that because post hoc, the person could have retreated based on all the facts, they should have decided the same as the jury. Thus, courts in some states via caselaw, Georgia for example, and legislatures in others, Florida and Georgia come to mind, felt that justice would be improved by reducing the discretion that judges and prosecutors via codifying Stand Your Ground in statutory law so that prosecutors and judges could not create an absolute requirement to retreat under all circumstances for defendants before using self defense.
I agree with the Stand Your Ground law because it is not a bar to prosecuting someone for making an unreasonable decision but makes it more difficult for the prosecution and/or a jury to impose an absolute requirement of retreat in every encounter. Unfortunately, just like any other justification defense, it may result in some decisions where a person goes free when some in society feel is an injustice while others see it as a righteous use of force. Absent SYG, you will get people convicted for acting as reasonably as they could but they failed to calculate in seconds to the prosecution and jury's satisfaction whether or not they should retreat. Look up the Harold Fish case in AZ for example which triggered a change in Arizona law. There are a significant number of people that believe shooting someone unarmed itself is unreasonable in almost all circumstances and if you carry a firearm then you are an unreasonable bloodthirsty gun nut because they saw Death Wish on the tv one time. Despite constant admonitions not do do so, too many people try to apply their own standards instead of a legal one on juries and a prosecutor wanting a win will do their best to seat these folks on a jury. Something like an absolute duty to retreat is one of those unjust standards.
However, everything has a consequence and for some folks, the SYG laws cause some folks to ignore other tenets of self defense law which is an aggressor in a situation cannot claim the mantle of righteousness in a self defense situation. A misplaced sense of justice where someone sees an obvious wrong to them and then try to correct the injustice personally can lead to a very bad place including death and incarceration. In essence, that is why we have the court system and law enforcement to act to resolve disputes as their superior strength and numbers make it difficult to claim honor in fighting them. But, to some extent, it is clear that this system has its drawbacks as well, failing to act assertively in some cases, and creating injustices in others. When the system of justice becomes mocked as corrupt and inefficient, then the risk is the return to vigilantism and mob justice where no recourse to the law exists--e.g. anarchy.
Some folks in this thread have more or less argued for the return of the retreat requirement but must be willing to accept that under that doctrine, there will and have been injustices done to individual defendants who made a split second judgment that they could not retreat in perfect safety. Some have argued for more or less the right to confront verbal assaults with physical violence as self defense for others. However, both situations will also result in some deaths and injuries along with injustices in court. There is no perfect solution in law or court decisions that work for every situation that one might encounter in life. The best that one can do is understand the statutory and court interpretations of those statutes and try to avoid conflict whenever one can. If one is unsure of either, then seek reputable training and even those believing themselves to be sure might want the training because your life and liberty is at stake in such a conflict. Foremost, remember a soft answer turneth away wrath--don't get sucked into the monkey dance.
I'd advise you to read the FL assault statute. Here, I'll quote it for you:
So, if the argument rises to the level of assault, it has the following elements:
1. Intent
2. Unlawful threat to do violence
3. Apparent ability to do so
4. Creates a well-founded fear ... that such violence is immenent
Now, let's see what FL law says about using force:
Now, since this is all a rehash of info presented elsewhere in this thread, let me point out to you, since you and others have seemed to missed the point entirely:
I asserted that the shove would have been legally justified if the argument with the girlfriend had risen to the level of assault.
Now, we have an assault defined in FL above.
We have use of force justification defined in FL law right after that.
That use of force justification specifically cites "to defend himself or another."
So, if a young man walks back to his car and finds another man assaulting his passenger, he'd be using reasonable force to push that person back. This isn't rocket surgery.
Note: I'm also not saying that the shooter was committing assault on the passenger. It could have been a simple shouting match/argument. You all also need to understand what hypothetical means.
And how do you know "exactly what was said to the women". Was he just bitching about her parking there. Did he actually "THREATEN" her with some type of violence??
The deceased came out of the store. He had NO idea what was said.
I'm pretty sure you didn't read my entire post. You should go read my entire post. Because I never said or implied any of what you're whining about here.
Excellent commentary on the Florida case by Law of Self Defense attorney, Andrew Branca.
https://lawofselfdefense.com/drejka-analysis-when-the-tueller-drills-corrupted/
https://lawofselfdefense.com/drejka-analysis-when-the-tueller-drills-corrupted/
The fact that the girlfriend didn't try to leave the scene even though she was in a car, and, in fact, got out of her car and got closer to Drejka even though she could have stayed in the relative safety of her car, speaks volumes to her state of mind. I don't see any actions on either the part of McGlockton or his girlfriend that suggest they were in any fear at all of Drejka. I see actions on both their parts that suggest they were angry at him.
- Status
