Florida Concealed Carry banner

21 - 37 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,330 Posts
I'm pretty sure that things happened really fast and the guy laying on his back had "NO" idea what the guy would do next, He already assaulted the guy.
Personally, The shooter should "NOT" have confronted the guy in the first place. He is "NOT" the Parking POLICE.
Ronnie
If he didn't know what the guy would do next, hold him at gun point and tell him to back off. But you don't shoot him like he did and that's why he's found guilty, be broke the law and killed someone without the requisite prongs of deadly force use present.

You don't get to shoot people for what they may do next. It's just that simple
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,918 Posts
And while the jury may be correct, who in their right mind in the heat of the moment has the ability to process split second movements like that and make a fire/don't fire decision with adrenaline running?


Ultimately I think it comes down to the old phrase "An armed society is a polite society."
Anyone who chooses to carry and shoots someone better damn well be able to.

It’s pretty easy for law abiding citizens to get a CCW. Those that choose to do so would be well advised to seek appropriate training.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,595 Posts
And while the jury may be correct, who in their right mind in the heat of the moment has the ability to process split second movements like that and make a fire/don't fire decision with adrenaline running?


Ultimately I think it comes down to the old phrase "An armed society is a polite society."
If one understands A-O-J and does enough thought experiments ahead of time, it can and has been done in countless times in the United States. See the Defensive Scenarios section for lots of thought experiments discussed right here on FCC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,632 Posts
Keep talking about "making the decision that fast" and "he had plenty of time to make the call".

I haven't seen the real-time video in quite some time, only slower motion ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,330 Posts
Keep talking about "making the decision that fast" and "he had plenty of time to make the call".

I haven't seen the real-time video in quite some time, only slower motion ones.
He had enough time to draw it, had enough time to raise it up to eye level, enough time to sight in on the pusher, all while NOT being further attacked. He let his emotions carry forward from his berating the lady in the parking spot to an unlawful escalation of deadly force.

He wasn't drawing while being assaulted, he wasn't bringing the gun to eye level while being assaulted, he wasn't sighting in while being assaulted. Yet he fired on the guy who wasn't any longer an imminent threat taking steps backward not toward the shooter.

Verdict is correct, you can't shoot people because they shove you to the ground. There has to be a continuing attack on your person where it's imminent you fire or be killed or gravely injured.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
851 Posts
I'm pretty sure that things happened really fast and the guy laying on his back had "NO" idea what the guy would do next, He already assaulted the guy.
Personally, The shooter should "NOT" have confronted the guy in the first place. He is "NOT" the Parking POLICE.
Ronnie
The shooter did not confront the guy. He confronted the driver of the car. The guy who got shot bolted from the store and shoved the shooter to the ground.
Who uses violence as the first option when coming upon an argument? I told my wife, if I see her in a heated discussion with some old stranger, I am coming to stop it but decking the guy is not going to be the first thing I do. A big scary younger ex con stepping between the girlfriend and the parking nut would have been enough to make the guy go away. Laying hands on the shooter is what caused his death.
A jury of his peers found the gunman guilty but I suspect he would do it again under the same conditions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,330 Posts
The shooter did not confront the guy. He confronted the driver of the car. The guy who got shot bolted from the store and shoved the shooter to the ground.
Who uses violence as the first option when coming upon an argument? I told my wife, if I see her in a heated discussion with some old stranger, I am coming to stop it but decking the guy is not going to be the first thing I do. A big scary younger ex con stepping between the girlfriend and the parking nut would have been enough to make the guy go away. Laying hands on the shooter is what caused his death.
A jury of his peers found the gunman guilty but I suspect he would do it again under the same conditions.
He didn't deck the guy, he shoved him. The guy fell down. I'll tell this one, but it happened a long time ago [ 1977 ].

Had bought her a new Trans Am fully loaded with Hearst T tops. First rain storm, she came out to go to work and there was 2" of water on the floor, the dash was soaked, seats waterlogged, rugs ruined. We drove it up to the dealer and I was talking to the head sales manager [ who happened to be the owners son about 30 years old ] about they were going to replace all the interior and give us a loaner. He was resisting that idea, and when the wife spoke up about it being brand new and now all the gauges would rust in the dash, he replied snidely "I'm not talking to you, be quiet" [paraphrased ].

I ***** slapped the side of his face as hard as I could and he fell to the ground nearly as he got the word quiet out of his mouth. My reply when he was getting up? Apologize to my wife for being rude and telling her to shut up. Someone inside saw what happened called the cops. The owner came out, it was his son. Asked me why I hit his kid and when I told him what he said, he sent the kid into the shop telling me he'd be handling this personally.

Cops arrived, owner told them everything was okay, sorry to bother them. I got the full interior replaced in the TA. Next time I was in there, the owners kid apologized for his comment to my wife.

So, I get a call from my significant other someone is berating her at the car window while I'm inside shopping, I'm likely to step up, tell them ONCE to back to F off and leave the wife alone. One wrong word or not responding to the order to back off, or continuing to badger the wife/sig other, there's no more warnings, I'm going to make it physical.

This guy took so long to get the gun out and up, if he'd done that to me, he'd have been shot before he could get a round off. Today, some 42 years later, that salesman would get ONE warning to apologize to her instead of an instant ***** slap. Time has a way of softening our initial responses apparently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts
Verdict is correct, you can't shoot people because they shove you to the ground. There has to be a continuing attack on your person where it's imminent you fire or be killed or gravely injured.
I disagree. How many cases have we seen where imminent danger had passed, the shooter shot and no chargers were brought? We discussed one such case on this forum a year or so back where the home owner shot and killed the assailant as they were running down the alley; shot in the back mind you. NO CHARGES. I suspect it had a lot to do with his age - elderly and had been robbed in the past.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts
The shooter did not confront the guy. He confronted the driver of the car. The guy who got shot bolted from the store and shoved the shooter to the ground.
Who uses violence as the first option when coming upon an argument? I told my wife, if I see her in a heated discussion with some old stranger, I am coming to stop it but decking the guy is not going to be the first thing I do. A big scary younger ex con stepping between the girlfriend and the parking nut would have been enough to make the guy go away. Laying hands on the shooter is what caused his death.
A jury of his peers found the gunman guilty but I suspect he would do it again under the same conditions.
Wise words.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,669 Posts
I'll tell this one, but it happened a long time ago [ 1977 ].

Had bought her a new Trans Am fully loaded with Hearst T tops. First rain storm, she came out to go to work and there was 2" of water on the floor, the dash was soaked, seats waterlogged, rugs ruined. We drove it up to the dealer and I was talking to the head sales manager [ who happened to be the owners son about 30 years old ] about they were going to replace all the interior and give us a loaner. He was resisting that idea, and when the wife spoke up about it being brand new and now all the gauges would rust in the dash, he replied snidely "I'm not talking to you, be quiet" [paraphrased ].

I ***** slapped the side of his face as hard as I could and he fell to the ground nearly as he got the word quiet out of his mouth. My reply when he was getting up? Apologize to my wife for being rude and telling her to shut up. Someone inside saw what happened called the cops. The owner came out, it was his son. Asked me why I hit his kid and when I told him what he said, he sent the kid into the shop telling me he'd be handling this personally.

Cops arrived, owner told them everything was okay, sorry to bother them. I got the full interior replaced in the TA. Next time I was in there, the owners kid apologized for his comment to my wife.
As long as you're willing to go to jail over someone making verbal comments you don't like then I suppose the above is all good. In Florida you could get up to a year for such shenanigans. You never know when you'll draw a judge that decides to teach you the lesson.

So, I get a call from my significant other someone is berating her at the car window while I'm inside shopping, I'm likely to step up, tell them ONCE to back to F off and leave the wife alone. One wrong word or not responding to the order to back off, or continuing to badger the wife/sig other, there's no more warnings, I'm going to make it physical.
McGlockton should have met Drejka's verbal comments with his own verbal comments. But he didn't. He went straight to physical.

In your scenario above even if the loudmouth keeps spouting off after your one warning, and tells you to go have carnal knowledge of yourself, etc. there's not a damn thing you can do physically without you being the criminal. So long as his conduct is constrained to non-threatening words (which was the situation with Drejka), he can insult your family heritage, tell your significant other what a POS she is for parking in a handicapped spot, etc. and it's all just words. No AOJ, no use of force. AOJ isn't just for use of lethal force, it's for use of any force above "presence".

Now I'm not going to say that I wouldn't want to ***** slap someone giving my wife a verbal hard time, but I carry a gun and it is my moral responsibility to de-escalate, not escalate. And ***** slapping may de-escalate things with some people, but it damn well may escalate them with others. And if it does, you're the initial aggressor, and you cannot claim self defense when he responds physically unless his response is disproportionate. Even if you "win" the fray when he responds to your attack you're still the bad guy and you go to jail and he doesn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,669 Posts
He wasn't drawing while being assaulted, he wasn't bringing the gun to eye level while being assaulted, he wasn't sighting in while being assaulted. Yet he fired on the guy who wasn't any longer an imminent threat taking steps backward not toward the shooter.

Verdict is correct, you can't shoot people because they shove you to the ground. There has to be a continuing attack on your person where it's imminent you fire or be killed or gravely injured.
There does not have to be a continuing attack. Even if the original threat has ceased a new attack may be imminent. All that is required is that you have a reasonable and well founded fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death. When being interviewed by police Drejka said about 50% of what needed to be said to establish such reasonable and well founded fear. Had he had advice of counsel he probably would have said the other 50% and never been charged in the first place.

I don't know what kind of expert witnesses Drejka had, and given a couple colossal mistakes he made in statements to police it probably doesn't matter, but had he kept his mouth shut there could have been ample basis for him to credibly articulate that he feared McGlockton was about to draw and shoot him. The fact that McGlockton was unarmed is irrelevant. Your fear has to be reasonable and well founded. It does not have to be correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
385 Posts
I'm not going g to armchair quarterback this situation. I have no idea what was actually going on in the minds of those involved. I will say that to my view it was a bad shooting. From the moment the shooter rolls around to see his attacker the dead man does not appear to be re-engaging. He looks to have created separation between the vehicle, himself and the shooter. Nice football move, but it got him killed so not a great move. Shooter took a bit of time to draw and get on target. Dead guy sees him drawing and appears to begin to back away. Just my two cents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,632 Posts
For those that see this in black and white.
Pre-existing conditions aside.
Guy 1 pushed another guy 2 down and is approaching guy 2 on the ground.
Guy 2 on the ground draws and doesn't fire.
Guy 1 backs up and now what?

Have a beer, get some ice cream?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,330 Posts
For those that see this in black and white.
Pre-existing conditions aside.
Guy 1 pushed another guy 2 down and is approaching guy 2 on the ground.
Guy 2 on the ground draws and doesn't fire.
Guy 1 backs up and now what?

Have a beer, get some ice cream?
Now what? You have choices.
1. Hold him at gun point until leo's arrive staying on the ground
2. Hold him at gun point until leo's arrive but getting to your feet
3. Once he's backed off, put the gun away and walk
4. Once he's backed off, shoot him

Our convicted felon chose door number 4. The wrong choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,887 Posts
It's Florida. He won't.

-on Tapatalk
 
21 - 37 of 37 Posts
Top