Brave 2A-er stands his ground while harassing a family in parked vehicle, shoots dad, is not charged

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

15 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Because that's what they are arguing except replace car with "the right to defend one's self ".

Actually, our position is more accurately described as "the right to defend one's self using means that contain a reasonable expectation of lethality."

[skillzdadirecta]

On 7/23/2018 at 5:07 PM, SFLUFAN said:

Actually, our position is more accurately described as "the right to defend one's self using means that contain a reasonable expectation of lethality."

I actually meant to fully articulate that, my bad. But my point remains the same, if you are defending yourself from an attacker and he dies and the self defense claim is valid, you should be allowed to do so. The problem comes from gun toting cowards putting themselves on positions where they are the antagonists but are able to hide behind defending themselves.  See this situation and The Trayvon Martin thing as perfect examples. Bottom line is there are too many guns in the hands of folks that shouldn't have them. But just because that is the case, saying a citizen absolutely does not have the right to defend themselves, potentially with lethal force, is going waaay too far in the other direction. Also it goes against basic human nature.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

57 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

What? But no one is saying that the individual cannot OWN a car and that right is only reserved for members of the state... is that what you're arguing here? Because that's what they are arguing except replace car with " the right to defend one's self ".

 

I value the collective good, but it cannot come at the explicit expense of the individual.  Humans just dont work that way... we're not fucking ants.

If only we were. They can lift 10 times their own weight. We wouldn't  need guns. 

[johnny]

Solution: the government pays @Spork3245 to teach us Krav Maga 

[Slug]

36 minutes ago, johnny said:

Solution: the government pays @Spork3245 to teach us Krav Maga 

The only thing that stops a bad guy with Krav Maga is a good guy with Krav Maga.

 

 

 

 

 

...or ninjas.

[DarkStar189]

Before we had cameras everywhere I could see this story being like "yeah he shoved me to the ground and kept attacking me so i shot him".  To me the camera shows the guy being shoved to the ground, he pulls the gun out, black guy sees it and takes about 2 steps back and turns to the side, and the guy still pulls the trigger out of anger.  He was "in fear of his life" because he is a jackass. He shouldn't have been shoved to the ground to begin with though.

[atom631]

On 7/23/2018 at 8:37 AM, Slug said:

So no disparity in size/strength or circumstance matters if no other weapon is involved?  Victim is elderly?  5'6 110lb. girl attacked by 6'4 250lb. guy?  No weapons but victim is on the ground and the attack is continuing (repeated kicks, etc.)?  Multiple attackers?

 

i know youre asking hypotheticals..but do you think the old man was justified in that video? 

 

To me, the guy very clearly knocked him to the ground and did not persist. he in fact, started to back up. If the guy advanced  after he had already pushed him and he pulled the gun and he continued, then the shot wouldve been justified. that would actually be standing your ground. 

 

on the flip side of this, should the guy have allowed the old man to continue to harass his girlfriend and children? If he got in the guys face and told him to back off and didnt, would the shove have been more warranted? would that same retaliation still be justified? 

 

what if the woman had a gun and after the old man shot her boyfriend, she shot the old man...because she feared he was going to turn the gun on her and she was standing her ground? 

 

Do you see why this law is fucking stupid? it literally can be interpreted in any fashion and it can be justified. 

[Captain Pickle]

16 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

What? But no one is saying that the individual cannot OWN a car and that right is only reserved for members of the state... is that what you're arguing here? Because that's what they are arguing except replace car with " the right to defend one's self ".

 

I value the collective good, but it cannot come at the explicit expense of the individual.  Humans just dont work that way... we're not fucking ants.

ehhh.  I come from a fairy tale land where we have gun laws and a rare minority own guns.  Thus, we decided killing machines are at odds with the collective good.  There are many fairy tale lands on this earth were this is the case and we do just fine.

[skillzdadirecta]

9 minutes ago, Captain Pickle said:

ehhh.  I come from a fairy tale land where we have gun laws and a rare minority own guns.  Thus, we decided killing machines are at odds with the collective good.  There are many fairy tale lands on this earth were this is the case and we do just fine.

Cool, but again we're not talking about just guns here anymore. They are saying that an individual shouldn't have the right to defend themselves using potentially lethal force AT ALL regardless of the tool or method. So again, is that what you're arguing? Because I would love to know what mythical utopian land you live in that restricts a person's right to defend their life and the lives of their loved ones. This conversation is no longer simply about guns but about a person's fundamental right to ensure their own survival.

[Captain Pickle]

1 minute ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Cool, but again we're not talking about just guns here anymore. They are saying that individual shouldn't have the right to defend themselves using potentially lethal force AT ALL regardless of the tool or method. So again, is that what you're arguing? Because I would love to know what mythical utopian land you live in that restricts a person's right to defend their life and the lives of their loved ones.

the frequency of that happening without a gun is minimal.  I'm not arguing that.  I agree, case by case is how we do it.  but adding guns to the mix makes for more much more frequency and exploits such as this story as an excuse to straight up murder.  It opens the door for people to create scenarios in which murder is valid.   Its guns that make this debate, not knifes/bats/ninja stars etc

[skillzdadirecta]

13 minutes ago, Captain Pickle said:

the frequency of that happening without a gun is minimal.  I'm not arguing that.  I agree, case by case is how we do it.  but adding guns to the mix makes for more much more frequency and exploits such as this story as an excuse to straight up murder.  It opens the door for people to create scenarios in which murder is valid.   Its guns that make this debate, not knifes/bats/ninja stars etc

I don't disagree about the guns... but that's not what I'm arguing. Move past the guns because @sflufan did... that people shouldn't be able to use potentially lethal force when they are legitimately defending themselves. That's what he's arguing. And no, it is not just guns that make the debate. My cousin did time for unintentionally killing a dude with a punch. ONE PUNCH. It was a fair fight but the guy hit his head, refused to go to the hospital and died the next day.  it happens. This debate moved past guns ( which I agree with you guys on by the way) when folks said that the individual should be restricted on how much force they can use to defend their own lives.  Also with the seeming perception that we lack the ability to differentiate between legit instances of self defense and wannabe vigilantes who shouldn't have access to firearms. This guy wasn't in fear for his life, he was a trigger happy piece of shit that was looking for trouble and itching to use his gun and the law protected him because fundamentally our laws are fucked up and skewed to preserve the rights of a specific portion of the population... especially in the South.

[Captain Pickle]

54 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I don't disagree about the guns... but that's not what I'm arguing. Move past the guns because @sflufan did... that people shouldn't be able to use potentially lethal force when they are legitimately defending themselves. That's what he's arguing. And no, it is not just guns that make the debate. My cousin did time for unintentionally killing a dude with a punch. ONE PUNCH. It was a fair fight but the guy hit his head, refused to go to the hospital and died the next day.  it happens. This debate moved past guns ( which I agree with you guys on by the way) when folks said that the individual should be restricted on how much force they use to defend their own lives.  Also with the seeming perception that we lack the ability to differentiate between legit instances of self defense and wannabe vigilantes who shouldn't have access to firearms. This guy wasn't in fear for his life, he was a trigger happy piece of shit that was looking for trouble and itching to use his gun and the law protected him because fundamentally our laws are fucked up and skewed to preserve the rights of a specific portion of the population... especially in the South.

ok without the guns.

 

yes, you can accidentally kill someone but there better be a damn good reason

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, Captain Pickle said:

ok without the guns.

 

yes, you and accidentally kill someone but there better be a damn good reason

Protecting your own life isn't reason enough, accidental or otherwise?

[Slug]

30 minutes ago, atom631 said:

 

i know youre asking hypotheticals..but do you think the old man was justified in that video? 

 

To me, the guy very clearly knocked him to the ground and did not persist. he in fact, started to back up. If the guy advanced  after he had already pushed him and he pulled the gun and he continued, then the shot wouldve been justified. that would actually be standing your ground.

I said this later in the thread, but just to be absolutely clear - I do not think the shooting was justified.  When I asked those questions of SFLU I was just confirming that he meant what he said; that the only situation where lethal force might be justified was if the attacker was armed.  That's all.

The attacker knocked the shooter to the ground and started advancing on him.  The shooter drew his gun.  If he had shot him right at this moment I might feel differently.  But as soon as the weapon was shown, the attacker backed off and began walking away.  As soon as the attacker is moving away the immediate risk of death/serious injury is nullified; showing the weapon was enough to end the threat.  From this point on, firing the weapon was unnecessary and unjustified.  The shooter should've stood up, moved away,  and called the police.

 

 

[Captain Pickle]

54 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Protecting your own life isn't reason enough, accidental or otherwise?

if the evidence shows that your life was at risk and that there was little reason to assume any other course of action could be taken easily, then yes!

 

For example,

 

If you strike a dude in the head with a bat and he falls down unconscious but then decide to wail on his head...then we got a problem

[skillzdadirecta]

5 minutes ago, Captain Pickle said:

if the evidence shows that your life was at risk and that there was little reason to assume any other course of action could be taken easily, then yes!

Then we are in agreement

[Captain Pickle]

On ‎7‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 10:43 AM, skillzdadirecta said:

Then we are in agreement

[SaysWho?]

Listening to the Sheriff talk about, "Sure, he may have been a jerk or a thorn in people's side," really rubbed me the wrong way.

 

Like... I don't think a guy who murdered someone and threatened weeks ago to shoot another person should be talked about as possibly "a thorn in people's side."

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

23 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

Listening to the Sheriff talk about, "Sure, he may have been a jerk or a thorn in people's side," really rubbed me the wrong way.

 

Like... I don't think a guy who murdered someone and threatened weeks ago to shoot another person should be talked about as possibly "a thorn in people's side."

The thorn is a 9mm

[Kal-El814]

On 7/24/2018 at 9:26 AM, skillzdadirecta said:

Cool, but again we're not talking about just guns here anymore. They are saying that an individual shouldn't have the right to defend themselves using potentially lethal force AT ALL regardless of the tool or method. So again, is that what you're arguing? Because I would love to know what mythical utopian land you live in that restricts a person's right to defend their life and the lives of their loved ones. This conversation is no longer simply about guns but about a person's fundamental right to ensure their own survival.

I want to be clear that when I say the use of lethal force in self defense should be illegal, I do not expect that people in a life threatening situation should be expected to make a measured response when defending themselves. I understand that is not realistic. If someone uses lethal force in self defense and the state elects to not press charges, or it’s determined in court that there was no lethal intent and someone died as the result of someone defending themselves, I’m not inherently opposed to that.

 

That doesn’t change my mind that lethal self defense should be illegal to remove teeth from what I perceive to be the abject nonsense that is castle doctrine, stand your ground, open carry, etc.

 

”I got shoved and I feared for my life, so I shot someone in the chest,” or, “I saw someone on my property so I started shooting,” needs to come to an immediate end, forever, and people that do that need to have their weapons confiscated, destroyed, their right to own a firearm forever purged, and those people need to be on trial for taking someone else’s life.

[Jason]

29 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

If someone uses lethal force in self defense and the state elects to not press charges

 

Putting it solely on prosecutorial discretion is an absolutely terrible idea.

[Kal-El814]

14 minutes ago, Jason said:

Putting it solely on prosecutorial discretion is an absolutely terrible idea.

I’m open to suggestions but I’d rather rely on prosecutorial discretion as opposed to someone’s itchy trigger finger.

[Amazatron]

Florida 'stand your ground' shooter Michael Drejka charged with manslaughter

 

Good, this certainly was not a "self defense" shooting.

[DarkStar189]

 nice.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

Good. And fuck that sherif. 

[SaysWho?]

12 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Good. And fuck that sherif. 

 

It really annoyed me when he said, "He may have been a jerk, he may have been a thorn in people's side, but we're following the letter of the law."

 

Even if I were to grant them that, he's threatened people with a gun before the murder and then straight-up shot a guy. It's quite the euphemism to call that a thorn in people's side.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

A figurative thorn in people's sides and a literal bullet in somebody's chest. The latter deserves more than a shoulder shrug from authorities. 

[CitizenVectron]

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

 

It really annoyed me when he said, "He may have been a jerk, he may have been a thorn in people's side, but we're following the letter of the law."

 

Even if I were to grant them that, he's threatened people with a gun before the murder and then straight-up shot a guy. It's quite the euphemism to call that a thorn in people's side.

 

He's a rascal to be sure, but darn it we just can't stand to see his sad face if we go to arrest him!

[Reputator]

I honestly don't blame the Sheriff. The fault completely lies with the law and the vagueness of how it can or can't be invoked. A shooter only has to claim he was "standing his ground" and then the case has to be investigated. There might be more nuance than that, but that's the gist.

 

The impression I got from the Sheriff's statement was that the guy is a shitty person, but if you want things to change then you better review the law.

[Keyser_Soze]

Stand your ground law is the equivalent of the helmet lowering rule. We can't tell what it is but sometimes you can get away with it and sometimes you cannot.

[DarkStar189]

Saw this thread linked in another post and was wondering what had happened since last year. The shooter was charged with manslaughter at the time and the trial is currently set for August 19th.  I'm curious to the outcome. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/prosecutors-who-charged-michael-drejka-push-back-against-effort-to-disqualify-them-20190625/%3ftemplate=amp

[GeneticBlueprint]

Should be second degree murder.

[Anathema-]

5 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

Should be second degree murder.

 

second amendment murder