Actual legal thoughts on the Florida parking lot shooting....

[Natural Citizen]

He was looking for a fight from the start. We see this quite a bit from irresponsible gun owners. Dunno where the sudden power rush comes from that they think they can go around policing people. I think it's an existing narcissist mental disorder.

Being someone who open carries regularly, the correct action is to always, always, always, try to calm the situation so that resorting to deadly force is unnecessary and avoidable.

That asshole was looking for provocation from the start just by the fact that he confronted the woman the way that he did.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He was looking for a fight from the start. We see this quite a bit from irresponsible gun owners. Dunno where the sudden power rush comes from that they think they can go around policing people. I think it's an existing narcissist mental disorder.

Being someone who open carries regularly, the correct action is to always, always, always, try to calm the situation so that resorting to deadly force is unnecessary and avoidable.

That asshole was looking for provocation from the start just by the fact that he confronted the woman the way that he did.

I have to agree.
It was a handicapped spot, not the end of the world.

 

[Muhammed]

the guy was on the ground and outnumbered.

 

[Syriusly]

If the guy who was shot- shot the shooter instead- would that have been legal?

The guy who shoved the shooter could have made a reasonable case that he was defending his girlfriend from imminent danger from an armed man who was threatening her.

What if he had just shot the guy instead of shoving him?

Stand your ground........

She didn't know he was armed nor did he brandish.

And? The guy certainly was armed- and the girls boyfriend certainly felt he was a danger to his girlfriend.

Why would it have been any different if the boyfriend shot the guy threatening his girlfriend- if he had been armed himself- rather than shoving the guy threatening his girlfriend?

 

[Syriusly]

If the guy who was shot- shot the shooter instead- would that have been legal?

The guy who shoved the shooter could have made a reasonable case that he was defending his girlfriend from imminent danger from an armed man who was threatening her.

What if he had just shot the guy instead of shoving him?

Stand your ground........

No gun was openly presented at the time and the victim hadn't touched the girlfriend. The only physical violence was on the part of the boyfriend. If he had shot the guy instead of shoving him that would be murder since no threat of death or bodily harm from the victim was in evidence.

“A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.”

And if the boyfriend had shot the guy he shoved- why couldn't he have claimed that he felt his action was necessary to prevent great bodily harm to his girlfriend?

According to the law all he needed was reasonable believe- and I think he certainly believed that the guy was a danger to his girlfriend when he shoved him away from her.

Again- looking at Florida's law- what would have prevented this guy from shooting the other guy rather than just shoving him?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Given that McGlockton had just moments before shoved Drejak forcibly to the ground, and remained within a couple of steps distance, close enough for McGlockton to continue his unlawful and potentially deadly force attack, it’s not impossible to conceive that a reasonable person in Drejak’s position on the ground could have perceived that such an imminent deadly force threat was present.

From moment one there has been something about Drejka's body language in that video that has bothered me. He didn't look like someone who believed himself to be under threat.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the guy who was shot- shot the shooter instead- would that have been legal?

The guy who shoved the shooter could have made a reasonable case that he was defending his girlfriend from imminent danger from an armed man who was threatening her.

What if he had just shot the guy instead of shoving him?

Stand your ground........

She didn't know he was armed nor did he brandish.

And? The guy certainly was armed- and the girls boyfriend certainly felt he was a danger to his girlfriend.

Why would it have been any different if the boyfriend shot the guy threatening his girlfriend- if he had been armed himself- rather than shoving the guy threatening his girlfriend?

Why would it have been any different if the boyfriend shot the guy threatening his girlfriend-

Shooting a guy for yelling at your girlfriend isn't justifiable either.

 

[2aguy]

If the guy who was shot- shot the shooter instead- would that have been legal?

The guy who shoved the shooter could have made a reasonable case that he was defending his girlfriend from imminent danger from an armed man who was threatening her.

What if he had just shot the guy instead of shoving him?

Stand your ground........

No gun was openly presented at the time and the victim hadn't touched the girlfriend. The only physical violence was on the part of the boyfriend. If he had shot the guy instead of shoving him that would be murder since no threat of death or bodily harm from the victim was in evidence.

“A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.”

And if the boyfriend had shot the guy he shoved- why couldn't he have claimed that he felt his action was necessary to prevent great bodily harm to his girlfriend?

According to the law all he needed was reasonable believe- and I think he certainly believed that the guy was a danger to his girlfriend when he shoved him away from her.

Again- looking at Florida's law- what would have prevented this guy from shooting the other guy rather than just shoving him?

Considering that the guy did not have his gun out, was not striking the woman in any way..... he could try to make the case but without physical contact and since the guy was standing still at the time.....he wouldn't have a case. The law would have put him in jail....the victim wasn't a threat to anyone at the time of the shove, so shooting him wouldn't have been a protected action either.

You are pretending to make an actual argument but you are failing...

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If the guy who was shot- shot the shooter instead- would that have been legal?

The guy who shoved the shooter could have made a reasonable case that he was defending his girlfriend from imminent danger from an armed man who was threatening her.

What if he had just shot the guy instead of shoving him?

Stand your ground........

Since we are only privy to the video and have no idea what was being said amongst the 3 parties, it's possible if Drejka verbalized an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death AND had the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy to carry out that threat:

It is important to understand that the justification of self-defense will be analyzed under the Reasonable Person Standard. This standard is described by Sean Maloney in his seminar as "what would a reasonable, prudent person have done in the same situation knowing what the defendant knew." The presence of Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy will be analyzed from this standard.

Ability: Ability is most commonly associated with some kind of weapon, whether hands and feet, gun, knife, ink pen or a bag of frozen squirrels (watch Sean Maloney's seminar video above for more on this). In order for use of force to be justifiable under the law, your attacker must have the power — or ability — to cause serious bodily injury or death. He or she must be strong enough and have the capability to do you harm to a level that would justify a deadly force response.

Courts also take into consideration the concept of disparity of force. A large muscular person can have a force advantage over a smaller, less athletic person. A man can have a force advantage over a woman due to size and strength differences. A healthy person can have a physical advantage over a disabled person. A group of attackers can have a force advantage over an individual. Disparity of force can also change while a deadly force encounter is occurring if an injury sustained during the incident renders a defendant less capable of protecting him or herself.

Opportunity: Opportunity is the second component of AOJ that must be demonstrated to a jury to justify the use of deadly force. The person with the ability to attack you with lethal force must also have the opportunity to do so, and do so immediately. Distance or proximity to you is the most important factor regarding opportunity.

A man threatening to kill you with a knife on the other side of a long, high chain link fence may be demonstrating the desire and ability to inflict lethal harm, but does not have the opportunity to do so. A man 200 yards away with a scoped rifle, though far away, does have an opportunity to act with deadly intent. A person banging menacingly on your apartment door shouting threats does not have opportunity. As soon as the door is breached, he does.

Jeopardy: The third component in the AOJ triad is jeopardy. In order to fulfill the jeopardy criteria, you must demonstrate that the attacker clearly indicated that he was going to carry out an attack. Jeopardy speaks to the attacker's intent. This can be either through words such as a direct threat to do harm, or actions, such as moving toward you in a threatening manner, or both. Like opportunity, jeopardy must also be immediate to justify a lethal response, and a defendant must demonstrate that he or she acted in a manner consistent with the Reasonable Person Standard.

It is also important to note that the jeopardy component can change in an instant. If the threat ceases the attack, jeopardy is no longer present.

Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy | Second Call Defense​

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

and how can a juror not know this?....the judge can say you cant consider his past....sorry past actions have a lot to do with his currant situation....

I understand what you're saying but a juror is lawfully only to consider the evidence presented during the trial. That's why when the attorneys are conducting voir dire (preliminary examination of a juror by a judge or counsel) they will ask if the candidate has heard or read about the case in the news because they don't want jurors making decisions on gossip, erroneous information or who have already made up their mind without ever being presented with the evidence.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If he had shot the guy instead of shoving him that would be murder since no threat of death or bodily harm from the victim was in evidence.

But we don't know that....

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

He was looking for a fight from the start. We see this quite a bit from irresponsible gun owners. Dunno where the sudden power rush comes from that they think they can go around policing people. I think it's an existing narcissist mental disorder.

Courage isn't only poured from a bottle for some.

 

[Syriusly]

If the guy who was shot- shot the shooter instead- would that have been legal?

The guy who shoved the shooter could have made a reasonable case that he was defending his girlfriend from imminent danger from an armed man who was threatening her.

What if he had just shot the guy instead of shoving him?

Stand your ground........

No gun was openly presented at the time and the victim hadn't touched the girlfriend. The only physical violence was on the part of the boyfriend. If he had shot the guy instead of shoving him that would be murder since no threat of death or bodily harm from the victim was in evidence.

“A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.”

And if the boyfriend had shot the guy he shoved- why couldn't he have claimed that he felt his action was necessary to prevent great bodily harm to his girlfriend?

According to the law all he needed was reasonable believe- and I think he certainly believed that the guy was a danger to his girlfriend when he shoved him away from her.

Again- looking at Florida's law- what would have prevented this guy from shooting the other guy rather than just shoving him?

Considering that the guy did not have his gun out, was not striking the woman in any way..... he could try to make the case but without physical contact and since the guy was standing still at the time.....he wouldn't have a case. The law would have put him in jail....the victim wasn't a threat to anyone at the time of the shove, so shooting him wouldn't have been a protected action either.

You are pretending to make an actual argument but you are failing...

Oh I am just raising the issue.

The victim wasn't a threat to anyone? How do you know that? Presumably he was bigger than the girlfriend and we don't know if he was making any verbal threats, nor do we know whether the boyfriend saw his gun or not.

Certainly I agree with you that the boyfriend would probably not have been justified for shooting the guy with the gun- but my point is that according to the law- if the boyfriend made the claim- that he was acting reasonably to defend his girlfriend- and the one yelling at his girlfriend was armed at the time- I think the state would have to work hard to overcome the presumption of the law that he was acting reasonably.

 

[OODA_Loop]

And if the boyfriend had shot the guy he shoved- why couldn't he have claimed that he felt his action was necessary to prevent great bodily harm to his girlfriend?

According to the law all he needed was reasonable believe- and I think he certainly believed that the guy was a danger to his girlfriend when he shoved him away from her.

Words do not cause great bodily harm.

Shoving someone into the pavement does.

See the difference ?