Stand your ground shooting update, Florida. - Page 10

Stand your ground shooting update, Florida.

This is a discussion on Stand your ground shooting update, Florida. within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; In training courses the 21ft rule was drilled into me when drawing from a holster. I guess we need a new rule now. What is ...

Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 289
Like Tree509Likes

Thread: Stand your ground shooting update, Florida.

  1. #136
    Senior Member Array Risasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Great Plains
    Posts
    700
    In training courses the 21ft rule was drilled into me when drawing from a holster. I guess we need a new rule now.

    What is the minimum safe distance from an attacker when you have a drawn gun trained on them? Asking for a friend...



    Pete63 likes this.

  2. #137
    Senior Member Array ugh762x39's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    944
    Quote Originally Posted by BullsI View Post
    I agree with most of what you say, in that he does have a self defense case that most are sympathetic to. Yes, there is no doubt this is true. But what I would say is that if SYG is clearly and convincingly not relevant, then he is by definition at extreme risk at trial, because the same rules that apply to self defense, also apply to SYG. In other words if you can hang your hat on one reason why SYG should be disregarded, then you also probably have good reason to think he's guilty of manslaughter (i.e. did not have a legitimate self defense case).

    The only reason I could see a defense attorney not bringing up SYG pre trial is if he felt the prosecutor could clearly and convincingly shoot it down, thereby tainting the jury pool who just read in the papers the judge felt he wasn't justified. Because it's a lower burden of proof for the prosecutor, the defense might want to wait for a full trial where there is a higher standard (beyond reasonable doubt), where the jurors aren't tainted, where they only need one out of twelve to go their way for a mistrial. That was done in the Zimmerman case, and was wise because Zimmerman at the time would have had the burden to prove SYG, which would have been very difficult. They didn't bring it up, and it worked for them, albeit at a very high economic cost to the system and Zimmerman.
    Since you mentioned Zimmerman and cost, if you claim SYG and win in Florida, isn’t the State then obligated to pay your legal fees?
    "If you can do it, you damn well better be able to look at it!".....Matt Helm

  3. #138
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    33,428
    Quote Originally Posted by ugh762x39 View Post
    Since you mentioned Zimmerman and cost, if you claim SYG and win in Florida, isn’t the State then obligated to pay your legal fees?
    Statute on immunity says this: "The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1)."

    It makes no mention of legal fee award for criminal charges, although it does put the burden of proof on the party trying to overcome the immunity, generally the prosecution.
    ugh762x39 and msgt/ret like this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #139
    Ex Member Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    19,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Risasi View Post
    In training courses the 21ft rule was drilled into me when drawing from a holster. I guess we need a new rule now.

    What is the minimum safe distance from an attacker when you have a drawn gun trained on them? Asking for a friend...



    And the attacker has nothing in his hand/s? What's your best guess on that?

  6. #140
    Senior Member Array Risasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Great Plains
    Posts
    700
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post
    And the attacker has nothing in his hand/s? What's your best guess on that?

    Hands and feet can kill also.

    Recent example: https://www.defensivecarry.com/forum...hal-punch.html

    This felon had already proven intent. He used the opportunity to sucker punch the shooter, and I would argue he clearly had the ability to regroup and attack again.

  7. #141
    VIP Member Array Fizban's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southern State USA
    Posts
    4,086
    Problem with that is, how do you know that busted lip isn’t going to be a death punch, or one that causes permanent damage?
    I know I am preaching to the choir but for the sake of the continuing discussion I will offer:

    The person being attacked will likely always be behind the curve. Judging the merits of a violent encounter is difficult at best but as with anything else, what are the indicators( if any) that this fight is life threatening vs a common dust-up or scuffle. What indications do I have and what nuances cant I articulate that would cause a reasonable person to understand or agree that my life was indeed in jeopardy. Speaking for myself, if the attacker is alone and unarmed, its likely going to have to be something more than spidey sense and a busted lip. If a person has deadly intent, I sure wont demand much proof of that but its going to have to be something I feel that I can reasonably, intelligently and properly convey to others. That's just me and I deal in probabilities not mere possibility.
    Think like a man of action - Act like a man of thought

  8. #142
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,747
    I think one of the keys will be the video we have not been shown. I want to see inside the store before McGlockton came back out. I also want to know what was said inside. I had to do a little searching to find raw video because the edited stuff the networks show does not give context.
    https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=sqPbL_1532105651
    At about thirty seconds a Buick parks and the guy sits in the car for a bit. At about one minute ten he gets out of the car and walks to the door of the store. He holds the door for a woman who got out of her car shortly after he did. While he holds the door he is watching the show over by the handicap space. McGlockton exits the store about ten seconds after the door closed. Buick guy is about three seconds behind McGlockton. He waits at the door until Drejka goes down and then starts towards them, turning away as the weapon is drawn.

    I want to know who is the Buick guy and what (if anything) did he say inside the store.

    I can easily see him being served papers in a wrongful death civil action.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  9. #143
    VIP Member
    Array Pete63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Magnolia, Texas
    Posts
    3,748
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    Thats me! Tail end Charlie
    G-man* likes this.
    NRA Benefactor Life Member
    Live Well, Laugh Often, Defend Yourself
    Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
    This land abounds in ruffians and varmints. Their numbers are legion, their evil skills commensurate.

  10. #144
    Ex Member Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    19,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Risasi View Post
    Hands and feet can kill also.

    Recent example: https://www.defensivecarry.com/forum...hal-punch.html

    This felon had already proven intent. He used the opportunity to sucker punch the shooter, and I would argue he clearly had the ability to regroup and attack again.
    That felon didn't "punch" the shooter, he shoved the shooter. You can argue he had the ability to regroup and attack again, but the video does not show that though he could easily have done so, he did not. Some 3 seconds between the time he shoved the guy to the ground and the time he was shot.

    So let me get this correct, you're willing to shoot someone [ use deadly force ] who MAY punch or kick you simply because he has a pair of hands and a pair of feet?

    You could be head butted and killed or seriously maimed/injured too. Gonna shoot someone because they have a head and COULD head butt you? Same for elbows, knees? It's all so much entertainment reading some of these replies. My guess? Most have never actually had to put someone down with their firearm who was actually an imminent threat to their staying alive.

    msgt/ret likes this.

  11. #145
    Member Array gunenthusiast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    138

    Don't kill the killer

    Quote Originally Posted by Nmuskier View Post
    Oops. So much for the anti self defense criticism of "stand your ground". Looks like it is still illegal to shoot someone in Florida when they are not threatening you.
    This reminds me discussion we had in one CCW class. Someone mentioned that he practices everything including long distance accuracy (say 30 yards). Someone else said, apart from shooting sports, why would you do that. And the person's answer kind of stunned us al.

    Suppose, someone just killed your wife or daughter, he is no threat anymore, he runs away. What will you prefer, to kill the killer and go to jail for the rest of your life, or to live with feeling that you could get him, and didn't and you don't even know who the killer is. The guys said, that is a split second decision, and he doesn't know what his decision will be, but if he decodes to shoot, he should be able to do it with necessary accuracy.

    I'm just spilling more fuel into the fire ;-)

  12. #146
    Ex Member Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    19,639
    Quote Originally Posted by gunenthusiast View Post
    This reminds me discussion we had in one CCW class. Someone mentioned that he practices everything including long distance accuracy (say 30 yards). Someone else said, apart from shooting sports, why would you do that. And the person's answer kind of stunned us al.

    Suppose, someone just killed your wife or daughter, he is no threat anymore, he runs away. What will you prefer, to kill the killer and go to jail for the rest of your life, or to live with feeling that you could get him, and didn't and you don't even know who the killer is. The guys said, that is a split second decision, and he doesn't know what his decision will be, but if he decodes to shoot, he should be able to do it with necessary accuracy.

    I'm just spilling more fuel into the fire ;-)
    Follow the rules of deadly force application. If there's no imminent threat of great bodily harm or to your life, there's really no other lawful choice but to either run him into the ground or give chase till he turns and becomes an imminent threat to you.

    There's lawful use of deadly force and there's everything else.
    Pete63, msgt/ret and riverrambler like this.

  13. #147
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,747
    Just to throw a little more gasoline on the fire.....
    Florida Statutes Title XLVI. Crimes § 776.041. Use or threatened use of force by aggressor

    The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

    (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony;  or

    (2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless:

    (a) Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;  or

    (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.
    Drejka approaches car and initiates contact with occupants. Buick guy watches the show and says something about it inside.
    McGlockton hears comments and responds per
    Crimes § 776.012. Use or threatened use of force in defense of person

    (1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.  A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.  
    As Drejka was the one to initiate the situation it can be argued that he is in fact the "aggressor" and provoked the use of force against him. IF the jury believes that to be the case then McGlockton was legally justified in his actions and Drejka was not entitled to stand his ground but instead was obligated to exhaust every reasonable means to escape before resorting to deadly force.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  14. #148
    Member Array BullsI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    SEPA
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    Statute on immunity says this: "The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1)."

    It makes no mention of legal fee award for criminal charges, although it does put the burden of proof on the party trying to overcome the immunity, generally the prosecution.
    Looks to be so. I had thought criminal was covered too, but guess not.

  15. #149
    Senior Member Array ugh762x39's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    944
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    I don’t think I would have fired either at that point; but.....

    I have to wonder if he (the shooter) was afraid or felt like picking himself up from the ground would have proved further attack from the original offender?
    I have seen this type of mentality before where the attacker will attack again just to enhance the point they made prior, or see it as a further challenge if you attempt to get up in their presence.

    Just surmising, but, if the shooter felt this way, it is possible he felt like putting a bullet in the guy was his only safe way of regaining his footing without catching a foot in the head as he was getting up.

    Certainly by taking the chance to get up and allowing another attack would have significantly reduced the confusion and debate about about this before shooting, it may have placed him in a position of further and more damaging harm, precluding any chance or ability of self defense on his part.

    I believe these things will come up in the defense, and may be the key.

    I have watched the video and read descriptions of the participants.
    1. The female driver that started it all by parking illegally in the handicapped space because she feels that she “has the Right” to park anywhere she wants. Also, a nurse...one that apparently has no empathy for the disabled.

    2. The young, well-built boyfriend who has had run-ins with the Law, before. There were arrests for drug possession, drug possession with intent to sell, resisting arrest and, assaulting a police officer. This meek individual believed that it was perfectly alright to violently assault an older, smaller and, weaker person.

    3. The shooter who had just been struck without warning with such a powerful blow that lifted him bodily off of his feet to land a short distance away on the asphalt of the parking lot. This is a man who has a history of speaking up when he sees perfectly healthy people not just breaking the Law but, being selfishly blind to the needs of the handicapped.

    4. The man in blue who hurriedly exited the store on the heels of the boyfriend and appeared to be backing him up or, just rushing to see a possible fight. This turned out to be the most intelligent man there for, when the firearm was produced, he quickly changed direction and fled.

    The Blue Man may be significant because he appeared to be in a rush so as to not miss anything...the way people are apt to do when they know a fight to be imminent. Questions...How did he know? Why did he and the boyfriend rush out of the store? Did the driver call or text the boyfriend? If she texted, is it still available? What did it say? Obviously something inflammatory enough to make the boyfriend rush out and violently blindside a small and older man. What comments did the boyfriend make aloud that would get Blue Man interested enough to follow him out? Blue Man is also relevant because I believe he is the reason for the shooter’s slight pause between draw and shoot. It appeared that Blue Man’s quick movement drew the shooter’s attention for a second in order to ascertain if there was a 3rd threat...Driver ahead and to his right, Boyfriend looming directly in front and, Blue Man away to his left but moving quickly at first towards him but then veering off at the sight of the firearm.

    I honestly cannot see this guy getting convicted. In the real world, we all can visualize what went down. Most of us know the sequence of events that start these things rolling and where they are headed...

    GF parks where she wants because she’s who she is and ain’t nobody gonna tell her different. GF calls/texts BF to say some scawny old white dude is giving her grief and won’t leave her alone. Get out here and kick his butt!!
    BF gets message and says aloud the he’s gonna go bust some heads and rushes out of the store!
    Blue Man hears the comment and quickly follows the BF out so he doesn’t miss the excitement.
    GF sees BF come rushing out of the store. She then exits the car, drawing Shooter’s attention and making him turn his head away from the on-rushing BF. Tells the Shooter the he’s gonna get his butt kicked if he don’t shut up and mind his own dang business!
    Shooter is violently thrown off his feet by the large, hulking BF who tells the Shooter he gonna stomp him good!
    GF tells BF to go on and stomp his head! Kill that son of a gun! He got no right to tell ME where I can park!!
    Shooter is scared, pulls his firearm and points it at his attacker. Tunnel vision may be setting in but, he catches a flash of blue movement to his left. He takes a quick look and sees Blue Man veering quickly away...no threat. Shooter turns back to his attacker. Did he move? Is GF still yelling instructions to stomp him? Is BF saying he ain’t afraid of no gun? Is BF telling the Shooter where he’s gonna shove that gun? He did move. He sees the gun, why isn’t he running? He’s not afraid of it. GF screaming to kick his butt! He’s too close! I can’t fight this guy. He’s too big. He’s gonna hurt me, bad! He did move! SHOOT!!!

    The language would be a bit more salty and expletive-filled but, the gist is there. This was all set in motion by the GF who felt entitled and had a big man with her that she could let loose on this nosy white dude. Yes, I think race played a part but, only one way. The shooter had a history of telling people who parked in handicapped places that they shouldn’t park there. I don’t think he cares about your color, just that you’re parking in a space reserved others in need.

    Now, some will say that the shooter shouldn’t have said anything to the driver who was parked illegally. Well, that fact is that she was breaking the Law and, he called her out for it. Was it the Right thing to do? I don’t know. That is something each of us decide for ourselves. I do know that what he did wasn’t Wrong. It wasn’t immoral and it certainly wasn’t illegal. Now, I’ve seen cars parked without tags or placards parked in handicapped spaces before but, I cannot remember seeing a driver in the car at the time. If I go to the store and see someone undeservingly park in one in the future, will I say anything? Will any of you? If I come out of said store and see a person with a walker or a disabled Vet struggling ten spaces away in the heat, or the rain, on ice or in snow....
    This used to be a country that looked out for your neighbor and stood up for the weak.
    When did we become a society that frowns down on speaking up?
    "If you can do it, you damn well better be able to look at it!".....Matt Helm

  16. #150
    VIP Member Array G-man*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    18,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    I know I am preaching to the choir but for the sake of the continuing discussion I will offer:

    The person being attacked will likely always be behind the curve. Judging the merits of a violent encounter is difficult at best but as with anything else, what are the indicators( if any) that this fight is life threatening vs a common dust-up or scuffle. What indications do I have and what nuances cant I articulate that would cause a reasonable person to understand or agree that my life was indeed in jeopardy. Speaking for myself, if the attacker is alone and unarmed, its likely going to have to be something more than spidey sense and a busted lip. If a person has deadly intent, I sure wont demand much proof of that but its going to have to be something I feel that I can reasonably, intelligently and properly convey to others. That's just me and I deal in probabilities not mere possibility.
    Certainly.

    Im not speaking for him, but if you will allow a little latitude, here is what he knows for a fact that can be articulated.

    His attacker has displayed a willingness to commit violence up on his person.
    Since his attacker has already showed a willingness and committed to that action, a reasonable person would assume that it may not be over.

    Since “bodily harm” or the fear of it is part of the justified reasons for using deadly force, that condition has already been met.

    Now, what we don’t know that may figure in to it;

    We don’t know what effect the force already used had on the defendant.
    We don’t know if anything was said that would make him reasonably believe further aggressive action on the part of McGlocton was coming.

    We do know that a push, punch, or anything that can have the effect of injury the head, either directly or indirectly, can cause death or serious bodily harm, or, further injury.

    Deadly intent is not a prerequisite to using deadly force.

    Now, for the sake of conversation, what I have done is outline what I believe the defense will use as a line of attack and defense strategy from years of watching this stuff play out in court.

    Im not interjecting myself in his shoes because, of the way I think, I cannot properly analyze it if I did in an object way.

    Its just too easy to say, I would do this or I wouldn’t do that if you don’t have all the pieces.

    Besides, it’s always more fun for me to attempt a critical thinking process:)
    " Blessed is that man, who when facing death, thinks only of his front sight.”
    -Jeff Cooper

    “ Looking around doesn’t cost you anything; and it’s a healthy habit”
    -Joe Foss

Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

state v. fontenot, 50 la. ann. 537, 23 south. 034. 09 am. st. rep. 455; shorter v. people, 2 n. y. 201, 51 am. dec. 280.

Click on a term to search for related topics.