Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wiffleball

Stand your ground law

Recommended Posts

 

I only know what the guy did...not what you seem to think he might do. that's making stuff up.

 

You are the one making things up, you even openly admitted that if he hit him it would be self defense because the force was "equal", the term equal force is never mentioned in the stand your ground law or any law that I know of. So according to your logic if he punches him = self defense - shoots him = murder?

 

Think about how hard McGlockton had to shove him for Drejka to hit the ground. He is a full grown man that is probably around 200lbs. He tossed his ass to the ground and you act like it is out of the question for Drejka to assume more attacks are coming his way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You really think McGlockton wasn't going to hit him again or push him or right when the guy stood back up shove him again? He was backing up to get leverage to hit him.

 

Well, you've at least covered your bases. Based on his hair and clothes, you have declared you know exactly what the victim's intent was. Then you've covered yourself well on his actions. If a black guy makes an aggressive move forward, you can shoot him.....and if a black guy backs up, he is just trying to create leverage for an attack, so you can shoot him.

 

You win this one easy in any court of public opinion and/or law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When idiots collide. All are guilty of stupidity. Black dude because he immediately attacked. Someone with a brain tries to calm the situation down. White guy because while it can't be proved, he was looking for a chance to test stand your ground. Black dude was going to bring it until the gun was pulled and he backed off. White guy hesitated in pulling the trigger. He didn't have to shoot but I see a hung jury because of the law. White guy will be poor the rest of his life paying for legal counsel. Then he gets slapped with civil lawsuit and he does lose that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When idiots collide. All are guilty of stupidity. Black dude because he immediately attacked. Someone with a brain tries to calm the situation down. White guy because while it can't be proved, he was looking for a chance to test stand your ground. Black dude was going to bring it until the gun was pulled and he backed off. White guy hesitated in pulling the trigger. He didn't have to but I see a hung jury because of the law. White guy will be poor the rest of his life paying for legal counsel. Then he gets slapped with civil lawsuit and he does lose that.

 

Even if this black guy hadn't provided the white guy an opportunity to commit murder, the next one or the one after that would have. The story was a guarantee, the only thing that could change was the name of the victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, you've at least covered your bases. Based on his hair and clothes, you have declared you know exactly what the victim's intent was. Then you've covered yourself well on his actions. If a black guy makes an aggressive move forward, you can shoot him.....and if a black guy backs up, he is just trying to create leverage for an attack, so you can shoot him.

 

You win this one easy in any court of public opinion and/or law.

 

He just shoved him to the ground I think he was pretty clear what his intent was and if his intent wasn't to do any harm then his initial reaction shouldn't of been to shove him. Has nothing to do with what color he is, I'd be saying the same thing if his name was Mike instead of Marquis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even if this black guy hadn't provided the white guy an opportunity to commit murder, the next one or the one after that would have. The story was a guarantee, the only thing that could change was the name of the victim.

 

The guy went his entire life without ever being arrested and McGlockton recently got out for armed burglary. Seriously just shut the fock up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As loose as this law was written, I don't think this situation is what was in mind when it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You really think McGlockton wasn't going to hit him again or push him or right when the guy stood back up shove him again? He was backing up to get leverage to hit him. After that yes he does back up when the gun is drawn yes, but the cat is out of the bag at that point, adrenaline is pumping, etc..

 

If he got up and punched McGlockton in your face and the hit killed him, same situation really other than there being a firearm involved, would it be okay then? It seems like you are letting your hatred for guns cloud your judgement.

 

He just violently shoved a guy before he even understood the entire situation. All he knew was that some white boy was talking to his gf and that was enough for him to act like that. If you honestly think it was going to stop there and the guy was going to walk away you are naive as hell.

Guy walks out of the store with his 5yo son and a guy is verbally abusing his gf with infant and toddler children in the back. Fact is that when he pulled the gun he wasn't in immediate threat... Adrenaline isn't an excuse. He is going to jail for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think the guy was just going to walk away? Like "Oh sorry sir, just a misunderstanding." just stop. Right when that guy got up he was going to catch a fist if not before he even got up.

 

Self defense is self defense. Equal force? I've never even heard that term mentioned in any law. Stop just making stuff up.

 

100% guarantee this is a mistrial or not guilty.

 

Once the gun was pull the confrontation would have ended. If the guy still comes after him then you shoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even if this black guy hadn't provided the white guy an opportunity to commit murder, the next one or the one after that would have. The story was a guarantee, the only thing that could change was the name of the victim.

yeah pretty much. White dude has mental issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy walks out of the store with his 5yo son and a guy is verbally abusing his gf with infant and toddler children in the back. Fact is that when he pulled the gun he wasn't in immediate threat... Adrenaline isn't an excuse. He is going to jail for a long time.

 

"Verbally abusing his gf" aka a white guy confronting a black person for doing something illegal?

 

I got a $100 on it right now this is a mistrial or not guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the gun was pull the confrontation would have ended. If the guy still comes after him then you shoot.

yep. That should be a big arguing point in the SYG law during the trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Think about how hard McGlockton had to shove him for Drejka to hit the ground. He is a full grown man that is probably around 200lbs. He tossed his ass to the ground and you act like it is out of the question for Drejka to assume more attacks are coming his way?

Assumption isn't the law. Assumptions can be tainted with bias. The law is objective, imminent grave bodily harm. I don't see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are the one making things up, you even openly admitted that if he hit him it would be self defense because the force was "equal", the term equal force is never mentioned in the stand your ground law or any law that I know of. So according to your logic if he punches him = self defense - shoots him = murder?

 

Think about how hard McGlockton had to shove him for Drejka to hit the ground. He is a full grown man that is probably around 200lbs. He tossed his ass to the ground and you act like it is out of the question for Drejka to assume more attacks are coming his way?

 

You asked me a what if scenario. I answered as briefly as possible. I am not trying to understand Florida's laws..Florida is stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep. That should be a big arguing point in the SYG law during the trial.

 

Assumption isn't the law. Assumptions can be tainted with bias. The law is objective, imminent grave bodily harm. I don't see it.

 

He already assaulted him, why does he need to assault him again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Verbally abusing his gf" aka a white guy confronting a black person for doing something illegal?

 

I got a $100 on it right now this is a mistrial or not guilty.

I say the same and the law will be scrutinized. It's like the catch rule in the NFL right now. Both sides will be arguing about how to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Verbally abusing his gf" aka a white guy confronting a black person for doing something illegal?

 

I got a $100 on it right now this is a mistrial or not guilty.

I'll bet if it isn't a typical gross overcharge. I don't know the law, or what the line is between involuntary manslaughter, and murder... Whether taking out the gun, pointing it, and pausing, constitutes enough time for a deliberate premeditated decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

He already assaulted him, why does he need to assault him again?

Because it is 'imminent' threat.. Meaning in that moment... Not what happened previously.

 

To play devils advocate, what if he tossed the guy to the ground then sprinted away? In your mind what he does doesn't matter... you sign your life away with a push.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll bet if it isn't a typical gross overcharge. I don't know the law, or what the line is between involuntary manslaughter, and murder... Whether taking out the gun, pointing it, and pausing, constitutes enough time for a deliberate premeditated decision.

 

Hey you just let me know $100 on mistrial or not guilty for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it is 'imminent' threat.. Meaning in that moment... Not what happened previously.

 

To play devils advocate, what if he tossed the guy to the ground then sprinted away? In your mind what he does doesn't matter... you sign your life away with a push.

 

Well if he sprinted away he would of had to shoot him in the back and that is mentioned in the stand your ground law.. that would be murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why not just charge him with murder? Why manslaughter?

in my mind its a manslaughter charge unless that pause holding the gun while the victim retreats is enough time to establish premediatation. And if that charge is a hung jury risk, be smart and get the manslaughter conviction.

 

Need precendent that this nonsense is a bastardization of a law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in my mind its a manslaughter charge unless that pause holding the gun while the victim retreats is enough time to establish premediatation. And if that charge is a hung jury risk, be smart and get the manslaughter conviction.

 

Need precendent that this nonsense is a bastardization of a law.

 

So you are going to charge him with a crime that he did not technically commit just so you can get a conviction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well if he sprinted away he would of had to shoot him in the back and that is mentioned in the stand your ground law.. that would be murder.

I didn't read the law, but it would seem preposterous that you have to show your back to a guy holding a gun to you to establish a lack of threat. It doesn't begin to make any sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't read the law, but it would seem preposterous that you have to show your back to a guy holding a gun to you to establish a lack of threat. It doesn't begin to make any sense

 

It is written that way so it isn't left up to opinion so crazy people can't send someone to prison because they have a vendetta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So you are going to charge him with a crime that he did not technically commit just so you can get a conviction?

its not that he didn't commit it. You are parsing intent and premediatation. Whether it was established or not that would compel a charge one way or another

 

 

update: he was charged with manslaughter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is written that way so it isn't left up to opinion so crazy people can't send someone to prison because they have a vendetta.

have to admit i laughed at this... Almost sounds like a troll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why not just charge him with murder? Why manslaughter?

in Florida you can't downgrade if you fail to convict. You have to choose what you believe will get a conviction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in my mind its a manslaughter charge unless that pause holding the gun while the victim retreats is enough time to establish premediatation. And if that charge is a hung jury risk, be smart and get the manslaughter conviction.

 

Need precendent that this nonsense is a bastardization of a law.

 

its not that he didn't commit it. You are parsing intent and premediatation. Whether it was established or not that would compel a charge one way or another

 

 

update: he was charged with manslaughter

 

I understand what you mean't it just the bold is disturbing to me. It sounds like to me you are saying, even if it was murder, lets go after a lesser charge even if he did not technically commit the lesser charge, it gives us a better chance of conviction. Which sounds like to me put this motherfocker in jail at all costs. You should only be able to be charged with the crime you committed and that's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No point in arguing with 90s about this. He made his mind up 3 weeks ago and he's not changing it. Suffice to say that if 999 people say the answer is X, and 1 person says the answer is Y, odds are the person saying Y is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in Florida you can't downgrade if you fail to convict. You have to choose what you believe will get a conviction.

 

I actually didn't know that and I just posted the below. Good law.

 

 

 

I understand what you mean't it just the bold is disturbing to me. It sounds like to me you are saying, even if it was murder, lets go after a lesser charge even if he did not technically commit the lesser charge, it gives us a better chance of conviction. Which sounds like to me put this motherfocker in jail at all costs. You should only be able to be charged with the crime you committed and that's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No point in arguing with 90s about this. He made his mind up 3 weeks ago and he's not changing it. Suffice to say that if 999 people say the answer is X, and 1 person says the answer is Y, odds are the person saying Y is wrong.

 

So when it comes back a mistrial or not guilty am I right then? Because I can wait a few months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see not guilty but I could see a mistrial. Mistrial does not mean the person isn't guilty though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I understand what you mean't it just the bold is disturbing to me. It sounds like to me you are saying, even if it was murder, lets go after a lesser charge even if he did not technically commit the lesser charge, it gives us a better chance of conviction. Which sounds like to me put this motherfocker in jail at all costs. You should only be able to be charged with the crime you committed and that's it.

You are missing my point manslaughter = murder with premeditation.... In this case i made the point that him pausing while the guy retreats could put it in a grey area. at some point theoretically of him pausing and holding the gun it becomes premeditated. I just don't know what that line is legally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are missing my point manslaughter = murder withOUT premeditation.... In this case i made the point that him pausing while the guy retreats could put it in a grey area. at some point theoretically of him pausing and holding the gun it becomes premeditated. I just don't know what that line is legally

 

ftfy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ftfy

ya thanks i did that backwards, hopefully people could figure out my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant believe anyone could watch that video and think the shooter was in any grave imminent danger. :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are missing my point manslaughter = murder with premeditation.... In this case i made the point that him pausing while the guy retreats could put it in a grey area. at some point theoretically of him pausing and holding the gun it becomes premeditated. I just don't know what that line is legally

I think the written SYG law gets him off and Florida has to try and fix it. With a high priced defense lawyer, he smokes anyone the state can provide. Logically he murdered the black dude because the law is written in a way that allowed him to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He just shoved him to the ground I think he was pretty clear what his intent was and if his intent wasn't to do any harm then his initial reaction shouldn't of been to shove him. Has nothing to do with what color he is, I'd be saying the same thing if his name was Mike instead of Marquis.

 

Oh, well if it has nothing to do with what color he is in your mind, then I apologize.

 

A black violent felon shoved him to the ground. What isnt reasonable? You think he was gonna stop there?

 

I mean, I get how you and the shooter would have known this guy you are about to murder is black, but I don't know how you would know his criminal history and use that as justification.

 

 

 

 

The nappy hair, baggy clothes and the first impression of him shoving me would've gave it away for me. I'm sure he shouted some Ebonics no one could understand as well.

 

This part FEELS like color is playing a role, but maybe I'm reading too much into it.

 

:dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh, well if it has nothing to do with what color he is in your mind, then I apologize.

 

 

I mean, I get how you and the shooter would have known this guy you are about to murder is black, but I don't know how you would know his criminal history and use that as justification.

 

 

 

This part FEELS like color is playing a role, but maybe I'm reading too much into it.

 

:dunno:

 

God dude you are such a SJW. Sad excuse for a man. Did I say anything that wasn't true? His hair is nappy, his clothes are three sizes to big and he did violently shove someone. I'd be saying the same thing if the shooter was black or the deceased.

 

Are you trying to imply that I am glad that McGlockton is dead because he is black? If so you can seriously go fock yourself. I know what kind of guy he was and I am just calling it like I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×