Stand Your Ground

Soldato
Joined
8 Nov 2006
Posts
22,966
Location
London
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44917413

Of all stand your ground cases I've read, this really takes the biscuit.

We don't get to hear the side of the dead guy. Seems like an easy way to escape prosecution (in fact the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to say that the killer was not in fear or further harm).

edit:

Link with video.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-ground/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8bef4637e5af

You can clearly see the guy shot him after he was backing off on seeing the gun.

The guy also has a history of initiating confrontations.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
17 Jun 2012
Posts
11,259
Well firstly the laws are the laws. Secondly he could still be charged will probably depend on how good the lawyer arguing the case and how good the state lawyer is. Smells a bit like racism so maybe they can find a connection.

Life can be so cheap.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
8 Nov 2006
Posts
22,966
Location
London
Well firstly the laws are the laws. Secondly he could still be charged will probably depend on how good the lawyer arguing the case and how good the state lawyer is. Smells a bit like racism so maybe they can find a connection.

Life can be so cheap.

I agree it's the law. In fact recently as in the Washington Post article there is a nice part where it also quotes the Sheriff.

Last year, lawmakers shifted the burden of proof from defense attorneys to prosecutors. It has made the law no less controversial.

“Does this law create a situation potentially where people shoot first and ask questions later?” Gualtieri asked. “You can have that discussion. You can have that debate. I don’t make the law. We enforce the law. And I’m going to enforce it the way it’s written, the way the legislature intended for it to be applied, and others can have the debate about whether they like it or not.”

Also as the Sheriff says, can he say for sure that the killer wasn't in fear of bodily harm? No.

In this case the burden of proof is messed up. Any reasonable person would say that once he had the gun out, there was no further danger with the guy actually retreating.

From article linked by WaPo

https://eu.news-press.com/story/new...aw-shifts-burden-proof-prosecutors/102721106/

The Florida Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that defendants have to prove in pretrial hearings that they were defending themselves in order to avoid prosecution on charges for a violent act.

That led Republicans to seek to shift that burden. They argued that it protects a defendant’s constitutional right that presumes they are innocent until proven guilty. But opponents said it will embolden people to shoot to kill, and then claim self-defense knowing that the only witness against them can no longer testify.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
8 Nov 2006
Posts
22,966
Location
London
Guess he won't be getting all uppity and aggressive again.

Depends who you think started it all.

The only reason he got away with it is because, regardless of anything he may have done wrong, all he had to say was that he was in fear of his life.

I could provoke you into taking a swing at me and then shoot you dead.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jun 2012
Posts
11,259
State prosecutors as I'm sure you know have unlimited resources and tend to get to that position as they are very skilled and ruthless. So you really need a Perry Mason to counter punch sort of thing.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
8 Nov 2006
Posts
22,966
Location
London
State prosecutors as I'm sure you know have unlimited resources and tend to get to that position as they are very skilled and ruthless. So you really need a Perry Mason to counter punch sort of thing.

It is also all about politics as well. In 2015 the law was changed to deliberately favour the the shooter here and effectively make it such that the person that got shot having to prove beyond doubt they didn't deserve to get shot.

Prosecutors also have political views and know that the state is Republican.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jun 2012
Posts
11,259
Depends who you think started it all.

The only reason he got away with it is because, regardless of anything he may have done wrong, all he had to say was that he was in fear of his life.

I could provoke you into taking a swing at me and then shoot you dead.

It's a good point you make from our rules and way of life but people time and time again forget that this is America where each state has it's own set of laws with the federal laws above that. It's hard to compare to how we do things. Initially the founding fathers were hellbent on being as different from us as they could be. In some ways they are kind of evolving if you like to becoming more aligned with our approach to legal matters but they still have some whacky laws and ideas riveted through their legal system.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Nov 2005
Posts
24,548
Location
Guernsey
Jacobs said the conversation grew heated, drawing the attention of other store patrons, including McGlockton, who abandoned his snack run. He came out of the store, then quickly closed the distance between himself and the man confronting the mother of his children and shoved Drejka to the ground.
Guessing I would done the same thing and pushed him over if some strange bloke was having a heated argument with my wife or girlfriend in front of there young children...
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
Depends who you think started it all.

The only reason he got away with it is because, regardless of anything he may have done wrong, all he had to say was that he was in fear of his life.

I could provoke you into taking a swing at me and then shoot you dead.

Well it is pretty clear who started it, the boyfriend came out of the shop, didn't even seem to stop to speak to the guy but instead just shoved him onto a concrete floor.

I do think it was excessive to actually shoot, I'm pretty sure the attacker would have backed off and left him as soon as the pistol was drawn, he didn't need to kill him

I guess though their law allows the use of deadly force if attacked like that though and thus why he's not been charged, perhaps the state attorney can take another look at the tape and have a go at charging him, maybe an argument about the guy backing off etc.. just before the trigger was pulled etc.. but I suspect that it would be rather difficult to argue.

While it is tragic that he died as a result of this event they weren't exactly saints here, he points out to the woman that she's parked in a disabled space and seemingly gets a whole load of attitude back from her as she kicks off, the guy inside the shop learns that something is happening outside and rather than ask he just goes into full aggression mode and attacks the old bloke... wouldn't be too surprising to learn he's got a criminal past.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
8 Nov 2006
Posts
22,966
Location
London
Well it is pretty clear who started it, the boyfriend came out of the shop, didn't even seem to stop to speak to the guy but instead just shoved him onto a concrete floor.

I do think it was excessive to actually shoot, I'm pretty sure the attacker would have backed off and left him as soon as the pistol was drawn, he didn't need to kill him

I guess though their law allows the use of deadly force if attacked like that though and thus why he's not been charged, perhaps the state attorney can take another look at the tape and have a go at charging him, maybe an argument about the guy backing off etc.. just before the trigger was pulled etc.. but I suspect that it would be rather difficult to argue.

While it is tragic that he died as a result of this event they weren't exactly saints here, he points out to the woman that she's parked in a disabled space and seemingly gets a whole load of attitude back from her as she kicks off, the guy inside the shop learns that something is happening outside and rather than ask he just goes into full aggression mode and attacks the old bloke... wouldn't be too surprising to learn he's got a criminal past.

Lol, what a post. That last sentence summarises your entire post and isn't surprising given your far right posting history.

You suddenly expect perfect rationaility from one person but let it slide for the other.

What would you have said if the woman shot the guy dead? He was verbally attacking a vulnerable woman with small kids. Given it is Florida she could (correctly in this case) have been concerned he was armed and dangerous. Stand your ground would potentially have have protected her if that is how it played out.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 May 2005
Posts
18,049
Location
Lancashire
He was pushed then fell over and the aggressor didn't pose any further threat for a good few seconds before he pulled the gun out. Then instead of just telling him to back off he shot him in cold blood. American laws are crazy.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
Lol, what a post. That last sentence summarises your entire post and isn't surprising given your far right posting history.

far right posting history? WTF??? :D

what is wrong with pointing out that the guy is probably a criminal?

You suddenly expect perfect rationaility from one person but let it slide for the other.

where do I expect that?

What would you have said if the woman shot the guy dead? He was verbally attacking a vulnerable woman with small kids. Given it is Florida she could (correctly in this case) have been concerned he was armed and dangerous. Stand your ground would potentially have have protected her if that is how it played out.

"verbally attacking"?? you really are confused here - approaching someone and pointing out that they're parking in a disabled spot isn't equivalent to physically assaulting someone, in this case shoving someone onto a concrete floor...

the guy got shoved to the ground quite aggressively - that is an attack and that is what the law in that state allows him to defend himself from

no you can't shoot someone because they're pointed out you're in a disabled parking space, he might well have been a bit of a arse about it but that isn't illegal either. He's stood about a meter back from the car, he seems to have approached it, looked for a sticker and then is pointing out that it is a disabled bay... he's not up in her face et.. or banning on the window or trying to open the door. There doesn't seem to be any justification for a shove to the floor nor for your laughable suggestion that she could shoot him and would have been protected.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
8 Nov 2006
Posts
22,966
Location
London
I think you'll find it doesn't take a physical altercation for stand your ground to apply.

I think I'm mistaken the posting history bit though.

You have zero evidence the guy is a criminal.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
I think you'll find it doesn't take a physical altercation for stand your ground to apply.

I didn't claim it did. I don't doubt that there could be a scenario involving death threats, getting up into someone's face etc.. where someone could genuinely be in fear of their life and it perhaps could apply, that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Pointing out someone is in a disabled spot when they shouldn't be, regardless of whether he's being a bit of an arse about it isn't grounds to shoot someone, even in a state like Florida.

You have zero evidence the guy is a criminal.

I didn't claim to have any, I said I wouldn't be surprised if he was.
 
Caporegime
Joined
4 Jul 2004
Posts
30,647
If someone was shouting at the mother of my children, they'd be on the floor immediately. On the other hand if some angry guy pushed me over and I had a gun on me, well...

I can see it from both sides, but I think the law is right here. Either way, America is a crazy place.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Posts
18,532
Location
Aberdeen
Of all stand your ground cases I've read, this really takes the biscuit.

I'm really not seeing the problem here. The situation had gone from verbal to physical, the man was on the ground and perfectly entitled to act in self-defence. Life's not a TV show: if you pull a gun you better be willing to use it; you don't just point it at the other party.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
12,444
We see the guy pull the gun, wait a few seconds, the guy backs off, then he shoots, surely in that time any reasonable person would be able to judge that one is not threatened and the threat is now scared of the gun ?

At the very least he should have his weapons license revoked because he is not responsible to handle a fire arm if he can't tell the difference between someone backing off and lunging for him

But this is America and people are generally too ******* stupid to use common sense in 99% of situations that might get the pulse increasing slightly
 
Back
Top Bottom