What's new

Stand Your Ground

Gameface

1135809
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
Initially the Sheriff ruled this a justified shooting based on Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.



So the eventual shooter, Drejka, begins this confrontation when he approaches a woman who had parked in a handicap parking space. Seeing his girlfriend being aggressively confronted by Drejka, McGlockton comes out of the store and shoves Drejka to the ground.

After Drejka falls to the ground McGlockton doesn't pursue him.

Drejka pulls a concealed firearm and points it at McGlockton, who moves further away from Drejka, now more than 6ft from Drejka.

Drejka, still on the ground, fires a shot into McGlockton's chest. McGlockton dies from the injury.

The prosecutor has overridden the Sheriff and charged Drejka with Manslaughter.

I personally find this to be an interesting case, aided greatly by the fact that it is on video. I don't find it interesting because this is a tough call. In my opinion you can only use deadly force when you are in immediate danger of harm, and the purpose of shooting is to stop the threat.

In this case I believe Drejka felt "You shove me to the ground? I'll show you who you're messing with." He could have stopped the threat, which was well beyond arm's reach at that point, and not acting in a threatening manner, by pointing the gun at him and telling him to leave him alone. He made a decision to fire at the man not to protect his life, but to strike back after having been shoved. That's not what self defense is. That's not what stand your ground is. I find this case interesting because I hope it serves as an example for all the trigger happy concealed carry badasses (I mean, "good guys with a gun") so that they have a better understanding of what self defense is, and more importantly what it isn't.
 
Even The NRA says this guy should be brought up charges.

It also bears mentioning this puke got in a similar dust up with another guy in the same parking lot over the same thing a few months ago. He's been looking for trouble for some time - he got it.

As for the OPs point - absolutely .This law was in desperate need of visual parameters.
 
Agree with everyone else in this thread. Guy shouldn’t have pulled the trigger and should be charged
 
It’s my understanding that this law has created more problems than it’s actually solved. Some in law enforcement have construed this law to essentially absolve all reasonability from the shooter. Which applied to this case when the sheriff admitted that he didn’t think the man was actually threatened with a life or death situation but because the shooter “claimed to feel threatened” it gave him a reason to kill another human being without the possibility of being prosecuted. As if a shooter’s “feelings” superceded evidence.

I haven’t kept up on this case so I don’t know if law enforcement has since changed its mind.

But in all reality, why is this law necessary? If it were repealed today, what would be the pros/cons? Shouldn’t facts matter more than feelings?
 
Last edited:
It’s my understanding that this law has created more problems than it’s actually solved. Some in law enforcement have construed this law to essentially absolve all reasonability from the shooter. Which applied to this case when the sheriff admitted that he didn’t think the man was actually threatened with a life or death situation but because the shooter “claimed to feel threatened” it gave him a reason to kill another human being without the possibility of being prosecuted. As if a shooter’s “feelings” superceded evidence.

I haven’t kept up on this case so I don’t know if law enforcement has since changed its mind.

But in all reality, why is this law necessary? If it were repealed today, what would be the pros/cons? Shouldn’t facts matter more than feelings?
Well, there were stories that in New York City and other liberal hell holes if someone threatened your life and your property you were obligated to do everything in your power to flee, even if you were in your own home. That only once you'd exhausted all possible methods of removing yourself from harm, and you could prove that you'd exhausted all possible methods of escape, could you use deadly force if you absolutely had to. So, there was a movement to give the nod to good guys with guns that they could stand proudly in their home or wherever they might be and protect themself, their family and their property. Otherwise the criminals win as we all cower in the corner worried that if we protect ourselves we'll end up charged with murder or attempted murder or whatever. All the while hooligans are raping our wives and daughters and making off with our flat screen televisions with nary a care in the world.
 
As in the Treyvon Martin case, "Stand Your Ground" should not be allowed as a defense if you are the one that initiated the contact in the first place with no provocation. Even though he was being aggressive with the girlfriend (for something that was none of his business), it isn't unreasonable for her boyfriend to go after the guy who is obviously threatening her.
 
As in the Treyvon Martin case, "Stand Your Ground" should not be allowed as a defense if you are the one that initiated the contact in the first place with no provocation. Even though he was being aggressive with the girlfriend (for something that was none of his business), it isn't unreasonable for her boyfriend to go after the guy who is obviously threatening her.
Exactly, you could argue that McGlockton was "standing his ground" when he did what I'm sure he felt was defending his girlfriend.
 
No clue what that sherriff was thinking, but it was stupid. Charges should be pressed, and the prosecutor did the right thing.
 
Well, there were stories that in New York City and other liberal hell holes if someone threatened your life and your property you were obligated to do everything in your power to flee, even if you were in your own home. That only once you'd exhausted all possible methods of removing yourself from harm, and you could prove that you'd exhausted all possible methods of escape, could you use deadly force if you absolutely had to. So, there was a movement to give the nod to good guys with guns that they could stand proudly in their home or wherever they might be and protect themself, their family and their property. Otherwise the criminals win as we all cower in the corner worried that if we protect ourselves we'll end up charged with murder or attempted murder or whatever. All the while hooligans are raping our wives and daughters and making off with our flat screen televisions with nary a care in the world.

I would love to read about these stories about places like New York City and other "hell holes" where if people threatened you in your home you were obligated to flee. Could you cite those for me? I honestly don't recall reading about these issues back when I took a few pre law classes. But that was also when these laws first began.

I remember back in the mid-2000s I did some studies on this. And by studies, I mean a few papers and read a few journals. It wasn't extensive, I just needed to get some homework done. At that time gun violence didn't nearly receive as much attention as it does today. Anyway,

Generally speaking, in America, you were allowed to "stand your ground" in "your castle." If someone entered your home without your permission and threatened you, your family, or your property, you were allowed to "stand your ground." And this worked out pretty well. Evidence (you broke into someone's house) superseded your subjective emotions. Meaning, you broke into someone's house and end up being shot? Well, that's your problem!

Now, since the mid-2000s, the NRA and other conservative groups have promoted this idea of "stand your ground" which began in Florida. I want to say it began in 2004, 2005, 2006? It has since spilled over into 15+ states. It is an extension of:

a) culture wars which have engulfed our country. Especially since the partisan realignment of the country reached its apex in 2004. Even Karl Rove admitted such.
b) the NRA's desire to pass ever more gun friendly laws.
c) perhaps the most important, it is a way for politicians to score points by appearing "hard on crime."

What "Stand your ground" does: is it takes this idea of "your castle" and applies it to essentially, wherever you go and your own emotions supersede evidence. So you were pushed in some random parking lot and felt threatened? Well... I guess it's okay that you shot and killed them!

The burden of proof is now on the prosecution to PROVE that you were not acting in self-defense. From what I've gathered, law enforcement hates this law because it escalates rather than deescalates situations. People now use and abuse this law. It would be interesting as well to know "which" people are abusing this law, don't you think? Does anyone think the outcry would've been different had an African American man killed a white man? Hmmm...

This most recent situation is a perfect example of the problems of this law. Why? Because clearly the man wasn't facing a "life or death" situation. But rather than deescalate the situation, he escalates it to murder. You can tell that he's making a cognizant decision to kill. But because he claims that he "felt threatened as if it were a life or death situation" initially it appeared that he wouldn't be prosecuted. Now because he killed someone, now the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to show that he really wasn't facing a life or death situation.

How can a state base such laws on one's subjective emotional feelings?

What are the pros/cons of this law? If it were repealed to would we really be missing out on anything?
 
The dude deserves a bunch of time in prison.

But his girlfriend probably didn't do him any favors by getting into a fight with a lunatic who demanded that she moved parking spots. Sometimes you gotta recognize crazy.
 
I would love to read about these stories about places like New York City and other "hell holes" where if people threatened you in your home you were obligated to flee. Could you cite those for me? I honestly don't recall reading about these issues back when I took a few pre law classes. But that was also when these laws first began.

I remember back in the mid-2000s I did some studies on this. And by studies, I mean a few papers and read a few journals. It wasn't extensive, I just needed to get some homework done. At that time gun violence didn't nearly receive as much attention as it does today. Anyway,

Generally speaking, in America, you were allowed to "stand your ground" in "your castle." If someone entered your home without your permission and threatened you, your family, or your property, you were allowed to "stand your ground." And this worked out pretty well. Evidence (you broke into someone's house) superseded your subjective emotions. Meaning, you broke into someone's house and end up being shot? Well, that's your problem!

Now, since the mid-2000s, the NRA and other conservative groups have promoted this idea of "stand your ground" which began in Florida. I want to say it began in 2004, 2005, 2006? It has since spilled over into 15+ states. It is an extension of:

a) culture wars which have engulfed our country. Especially since the partisan realignment of the country reached its apex in 2004. Even Karl Rove admitted such.
b) the NRA's desire to pass ever more gun friendly laws.
c) perhaps the most important, it is a way for politicians to score points by appearing "hard on crime."

What "Stand your ground" does: is it takes this idea of "your castle" and applies it to essentially, wherever you go and your own emotions supersede evidence. So you were pushed in some random parking lot and felt threatened? Well... I guess it's okay that you shot and killed them!

The burden of proof is now on the prosecution to PROVE that you were not acting in self-defense. From what I've gathered, law enforcement hates this law because it escalates rather than deescalates situations. People now use and abuse this law. It would be interesting as well to know "which" people are abusing this law, don't you think? Does anyone think the outcry would've been different had an African American man killed a white man? Hmmm...

This most recent situation is a perfect example of the problems of this law. Why? Because clearly the man wasn't facing a "life or death" situation. But rather than deescalate the situation, he escalates it to murder. You can tell that he's making a cognizant decision to kill. But because he claims that he "felt threatened as if it were a life or death situation" initially it appeared that he wouldn't be prosecuted. Now because he killed someone, now the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to show that he really wasn't facing a life or death situation.

How can a state base such laws on one's subjective emotional feelings?

What are the pros/cons of this law? If it were repealed to would we really be missing out on anything?
It was an anecdote passed around in pro gun-rights circles. I have no reason to think it's based on facts.
 
I think stand your ground was a reactionary law to overly aggressive prosecutors poor judgement and not just on guns. IMV the victim in this case had every right to stand his ground against this guy and his actions were not beyond what was reasonable to protect another person. Let's say that instead of firing a gun that this guy called the police. Should the victim be charged or convicted of assualt? I would say no. He was well within his rights to use physical force when this hostile person was abusing someone(his girlfriend).
 
Man he should be working as a parking inspector for the council, he would definitely be charged with murder here and rightly so. Maybe the outcome would have been different if the victim or his 5 year old son had a gun?

I had a guy gob off at me for parking in a parents with prams spot at the local shopping center (my car has a valid disabled sticker on it), he followed me into the post office to gob off, i told him he's a great example to his kids and to take them home before he gets hurt.
 
Should this guys be able to stand his ground with a gun and use on these people harassing and threatening him and his daughter? I think he should.




P.s. look at how disgusting leftists are.
 
Should this guys be able to stand his ground with a gun and use on these people harassing and threatening him and his daughter? I think he should.




P.s. look at how disgusting leftists are.


Couple of things.

1. This dude is a ****ing idiot for intentionally bringing his child to a situation he know would be like this

2. this started with the mis-application of stand your ground. Stop trying to equate the two.
 
Couple of things.

1. This dude is a ****ing idiot for intentionally bringing his child to a situation he know would be like this

2. this started with the mis-application of stand your ground. Stop trying to equate the two.

1. I see, its this man's fault that the mob is attacking him and his child. He should be afraid to walk the streets or bring his child out in public. Right.

2. Your second point made no sense. Im asking a question. Would stand your ground apply to this situation if it were legal in Portland? Its perfectly fine to ask the question here. This guy is probably fearing for him and his daughters life as he is attacked by a mob.

I dont think the guy in the orginal story should be ab3ke to do what he did. He is guilty of murder. But in this case, I think this man should be well within his rights to protect himself with a weapon.
 
Back
Top