Effect of provocation under Stand Your Ground

[catfish86]

It makes not one whit of difference what a third party felt, and it makes no difference how McGlockton felt or even what he perceived. The only thing that matters is what Jacobs felt. You can intercede and defend a third party but only if that third party would be legally allowed to defend themselves. We don't know who started the verbal interaction.

It doesn't matter what the third person felt but that person's report to the boyfriend does matter. It establishes 1) the mindset in the boyfriend that his girlfriend was in danger and 2) it supports the idea that this belief in the boyfriend was reasonable.

Now it is true that prior incidents don't matter in the moment, but the owner of the establishment reports that the shooter has harrassed people in the past and threatened to shoot them. One report even had him stating that he had told the shooter to leave in the past and not come back. This from a customer and the owner of the store who says it happened more than once. Quite frankly this was a bully who shot somebody who stood up to him.

[WestonDon]

Quite frankly this was a bully who shot somebody who stood up to him.

Exactly. Go around picking fights with people, even verbal fights, and sooner or later someone will be pleased to pay you back with interest. I think it's possible he was armed because he knew this might happen.

[cashman966]

It makes not one whit of difference what a third party felt, and it makes no difference how McGlockton felt or even what he perceived. The only thing that matters is what Jacobs felt. You can intercede and defend a third party but only if that third party would be legally allowed to defend themselves. We don't know who started the verbal interaction.

It doesn't matter what the third person felt but that person's report to the boyfriend does matter. It establishes 1) the mindset in the boyfriend that his girlfriend was in danger and 2) it supports the idea that this belief in the boyfriend was reasonable.

Now it is true that prior incidents don't matter in the moment, but the owner of the establishment reports that the shooter has harrassed people in the past and threatened to shoot them. One report even had him stating that he had told the shooter to leave in the past and not come back. This from a customer and the owner of the store who says it happened more than once. Quite frankly this was a bully who shot somebody who stood up to him.

The boyfriend was an uninvolved third party to this incident between Jacobs and Drejka , it doesn't matter if he thought his girlfriend was in danger. He cannot insert himself into the situation and justifiably assault someone in her defense if she could not do the same. I don't care what his mind set was, it has no bearing on what was happening between Jacobs and Drejka. The woman stepping out of the car indicates to me that she had no reasonable fear or need to defend herself from assault, as such her boyfriend had no justifiable reason to assault Drejka in her defense. Why do you think she left the safety of her car?

But since you brought up what McGlockton's mindset might have been, IMO his mind was made up before he left the store. 'Someone is messing with my woman? I'm gonna mess someone up.' You say Djeka was a bully, McGlockton's record indicates he too was a bully but also shows that he backed that fact up with physical action.

[High Power]

Quite frankly this was a bully who shot somebody who stood up to him.

Exactly. Go around picking fights with people, even verbal fights, and sooner or later someone will be pleased to pay you back with interest. I think it's possible he was armed because he knew this might happen.

The video doesn't show any behavior out of Drejka that appears to be bullying. If anything, the fact that Jacobs exited her vehicle to confront Drejka shows that she was not in fear.

McGlockton, was the one to use physical aggression. He started the fight.

Too many people assume that Drejka was the one that was yelling and acting aggressively. Until anyone knows what was said and how it was said, everything is mere speculation. Drejka's first contact with Jacobs was when he looked for some sort of handicapped sticker on her vehicle. That's what any reasonable person would have done before approaching the driver of an inappropriately parked vehicle.

Like I said earlier, Drejka may have said something like; "I don't know if you realize it but you are parked in a handicapped space."

I've been in plenty of situations involving mixed races to bet that Jacobs probably let out with the F-bombs at Drejka. To repeat, Jacobs got out of her vehicle to confront Drejka. That's a clear indication that she was not in fear.

Now before anyone accuses me of being racist let's get one thing straight. I have worked and lived with people of different colors, races, ethnicity and nationalities and have got along with 99% of them. I've dated a lot of women outside my race and they were all nice ladies. I voted for Allen Keyes when he ran for President. A couple of my favorite radio evangelists are Dr. Tony Evans and Dr. Paul Sheppard. If you don't know who they are then look them up on Google.

For a long time, I went to a church where there were a significant number of biracial families and marriages. I live in a racially mixed neighborhood and I have great neighbors and the kids are very well-behaved, polite and respectful. I really like my neighbors.

So before anyone calls me a bigot they better think twice about it. We should be color blind when it comes to people's race and culture but that's not how life works.

When we look at Jacob's and McGlockton's criminal records & actions versus anecdotal evidence against Drejka, a picture emerges of a couple of people who probably think that any white guy who says something to them has an agenda against them. I'm not saying that every African-American has a chip on his or her shoulder. Nevertheless, there are some people who have a chip on their shoulder and if a white guy says something to them that's like waiving a red flag in front of a bull. There are also plenty of whites that think that anyone who is black or Latino that says something to them has an agenda. There are many chips of many different colors.

I had a job as a security guard in college and I saw that attitude first hand. I would address everyone; black, white, Hispanic and Asian as "Sir, Ma'am, Miss, Gentlemen or Ladies." What I got, mostly from the minorities, was a tirade in expletives. I'm not saying that everyone of color has a chip on their shoulder. There are plenty of bigoted white-guys that have disgusted me with the chips on their shoulder.

All of this is a long way of saying that, when I look at the video and the criminal records, I would be willing to bet you a steak dinner that Jacob's and McGlockton were the ones with the chips on their shoulders.

[catfish86]

Correct me if I am wrong Highpower but nobody called you a bigot so why are you defending yourself. This has nothing to do with race in my opinion. For those trying to excuse Drejka's behavior saying we don't know if he was yelling, again, the uninvolved customer, who was there, saw AND heard Drejka, HE thought his behavior was threatening and yet Monday Morning quarterbacks want to discount his opinion.

What is interesting to watch is people first argue that it only matters what Drejka thought in his mind the moment he shot the man, but then what was in McGlockton's mind when he shoved Drejka doesn't matter.

[High Power]

Correct me if I am wrong Highpower but nobody called you a bigot so why are you defending yourself. This has nothing to do with race in my opinion. For those trying to excuse Drejka's behavior saying we don't know if he was yelling, again, the uninvolved customer, who was there, saw AND heard Drejka, HE thought his behavior was threatening and yet Monday Morning quarterbacks want to discount his opinion.

What is interesting to watch is people first argue that it only matters what Drejka thought in his mind the moment he shot the man, but then what was in McGlockton's mind when he shoved Drejka doesn't matter.

You are correct. Nobody has called me a bigot. I just wanted to make sure the record is clear that I'm not a bigot. I've been accused of bigotry in other venues when I've made comments like I made earlier. It's easier to make sure everyone understands me before I have to defend myself.

This should have nothing to do with race but to completely ignore the race factor would be to refuse to acknowledge that it doesn't exist.

When I look at the video, Drejka's actions don't look threatening. The fact that Jacobs got out of her vehicle is a major factor in discounting the un-involved bystander's estimate that Drejka was threatening. She was the one that Drejka was discoursing with NOT the un-involved bystander. If she was, indeed, frightened she would have remained in the vehicle.

So, I really don't care what the un-involved bystander may have felt about Drejka. He or she was not involved with Drejka. It was Jacobs who was invloved; nobody else. She was not frightened. The video is the only objective evidence we have at this time.

The comments made to the media are anecdotal and may not be factual.

The criminal records of all three people; Drejka, Jacobs and McGlokton provide some background. One of them clearly had problems with the law and violent behavior. If Drejka was a PITA to the owner of the store then why weren't the police called on other occasions?

If Drejka, allegedly, threatened to shoot someone on other occasions then why weren't the police called? The answer is probably that whatever Drejka, allegedly, said on other occasions didn't arise to the level of fear necessary to call the police.

If someone want's to contend that prior criminal records don't matter when discussing the right or wrong with this case then comments made about Drejka's alleged prior conduct don't matter as well.

[Mustang380gal]

Correct me if I am wrong Highpower but nobody called you a bigot so why are you defending yourself. This has nothing to do with race in my opinion. For those trying to excuse Drejka's behavior saying we don't know if he was yelling, again, the uninvolved customer, who was there, saw AND heard Drejka, HE thought his behavior was threatening and yet Monday Morning quarterbacks want to discount his opinion.

What is interesting to watch is people first argue that it only matters what Drejka thought in his mind the moment he shot the man, but then what was in McGlockton's mind when he shoved Drejka doesn't matter.

How do we know the bystander thought the behavior was threatening? Maybe he just said that there was an older dude arguing with a woman outside. Maybe he thought it was entertaining. Arguing does not mean threat, necessarily.

It would have been prudent for McGlockton to actually assess the situation before rushing in like a bull in a china shop.

[cashman966]

Correct me if I am wrong Highpower but nobody called you a bigot so why are you defending yourself. This has nothing to do with race in my opinion. For those trying to excuse Drejka's behavior saying we don't know if he was yelling, again, the uninvolved customer, who was there, saw AND heard Drejka, HE thought his behavior was threatening and yet Monday Morning quarterbacks want to discount his opinion.

What is interesting to watch is people first argue that it only matters what Drejka thought in his mind the moment he shot the man, but then what was in McGlockton's mind when he shoved Drejka doesn't matter.

And once again it does not matter what was in McGlockton's mind. You continue to ignore that HE WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE SITUATION. He interjected himself into it. He cannot intercede as he did by physically assaulting Drejka unless Jacobs had a fear that she would be physically assaulted and that she did not start or escalate the altercation. As far as I know none of that has been established. However we do know that she left the safety of her car. Something, IMO, a reasonable person in fear of assault would not do. So without the fear, there is no need for the use of physical force to defend herself, so there is no legal justification for McGlockton to use physical force.

That leaves us with Drejka and what a reasonable person who was blindsided by a larger younger assailant who continued to advance upon him as he lay on the ground after the assault would do.

What I find interesting is you continue to argue as if McGlockton was a 1st party participant, he was not. As such it does not matter what he thought or perceived about the the 6 seconds of the altercation he witnessed as a third party.

You also continue to ignore the fact that Jacobs left the safety of her car. Is that what a reasonable person would do if they feared someone OUTSIDE of their vehicle was about to physically assault them?

[DontTreadOnMe]

And once again it does not matter what was in McGlockton's mind. You continue to ignore that HE WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE SITUATION. He interjected himself into it. He cannot intercede as he did by physically assaulting Drejka unless Jacobs had a fear that she would be physically assaulted and that she did not start or escalate the altercation.

That's the law in Ohio. Ohio has very strict laws on self-defense. IMO arguably the most strict in the country. That isn't how it works in Florida:

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.

So all that was required was for McGlockton to have a reasonable belief that force was necessary to prevent imminent unlawful force by Drejka. So what was in McGlockton's mind was, in fact, 100% relevant.

[Mustang380gal]

But how many times have we discussed that we may not know all of the variables when we walk into an argument between 2 people? That's exactly what McGlockton did. He could not possibly have evaluated the situation from the time he walked out the door directly to Djeka and shoved him to the ground. How could he have determined that Jones was being threatened?

Don't tell me the guy who walked in told him, and that is why he is justified. A prudent person would have gone and seen whether the guy was lying or telling the truth. And a prudent man probably would have asked what was going on before hands were laid on another person.

[High Power]

And once again it does not matter what was in McGlockton's mind. You continue to ignore that HE WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE SITUATION. He interjected himself into it. He cannot intercede as he did by physically assaulting Drejka unless Jacobs had a fear that she would be physically assaulted and that she did not start or escalate the altercation.

That's the law in Ohio. Ohio has very strict laws on self-defense. IMO arguably the most strict in the country. That isn't how it works in Florida:

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.

So all that was required was for McGlockton to have a reasonable belief that force was necessary to prevent imminent unlawful force by Drejka. So what was in McGlockton's mind was, in fact, 100% relevant.

Even if he did believe he could use force, he made the wrong decision because the key word in the statute is "reasonably." He made the wrong decision because he either had the incorrect information or he was a hot-head who thinks with his fists instead of his head.

Based on the video, again, Jacobs was not in any fear because she exited the vehicle and because Drejka was not exhibiting any violent actions.

If this is ever brought to trial, any witnesses testifying to McGlocton's state of mind will only be speculating. If I were Drejka's attorney I would be objecting based on speculation.

You left out 776.012 (2) which states:

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.

A trier of fact could also conclude, based on the video evidence, that Drejka made the correct decision to shoot McGlockton. The fact that McGlockton backed up a step was irrelevant.

Some may disagree with that. To those that disagree, I'd like to ask you if you have ever been violently attacked, hit, shoved or kicked. If so, don't tell me that your mind and entire body wasn't in a survival mode.

Drejka had enough reason to believe he was going to get his brain kicked in. If I were him, I probably would have shot McGlockton despite the fact that he backed up one step. Drejka was not looking at McGlockton's feet. He was aiming for his chest. Not only that, after the shove, Drejka hits the pavement on his right side. It looks like he may have banged his head on the pavement. That's a very real possibility.

Take a bang on the head sometime and tell me how it feels, what you see and what you're thinking about the person that did it too you.

This video is prime example of why we need a stand-your-ground-law in Ohio. People like McGlockton, who think they can just act with their fists need to learn that there is a very real possibility that their actions have deadly consequences.

If we were ever to have another stand-your-ground-law introduced in the Ohio legislature, you can bet the anti-gunners will bring up Treyvon Martin and McGlokton. Good! We need to take care of their objections which rely on speculation and not facts.

What we see in the video is real-world experiences when it comes to self-defense situations. We need to let the fence sitters know what it is like when someone hits, kicks or shoves you. It is not like the movies.

Fortunately, the medical community is enlightening the rest of us about the dangers of receiving a concussion. With that in mind, we need to realize that person who is in the process of being beaten, kicked or shoved doesn't think or feel the same way that a person watching a video does. The people that are critical of Drejka aren't taking the physiological aspects of mind and body into account when a person is attacked.

Here is a half hour video of the press conference with the Pinellas County Sheriff. The Sheriff, rightly concludes, that Drejka acted appropriately. I don't have time to comment on the Sheriff's statements but urge everyone to watch the video and listen to what he says.

https://www.wtsp.com/video/news/local/p ... 67-8195803

Here is the raw video of the shooting.

https://www.wtsp.com/video/news/raw-pin ... 67-8195620

[Tiberius]

The prosecutor decided to charge Michael Drejka with manslaughter.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/shooter-flori ... d=57151343" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


According to the Tampa Bay Times, Drejka has a history of engaging people in traffic, making threats, and brandishing his firearm.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsaf ... _170719109" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The police reports describe a man quick to anger, but who always denied he threatened anyone with a gun. Former prosecutors said the earlier cases could possibly be used if Drejka is brought to trial, as evidence that he pulled out his weapon because he was frustrated, not afraid.

Twice investigators admonished Drejka, telling him he was fortunate the alleged victims of his road rage did not want to press charges.

The two 18-year-olds called authorities when the black truck was still behind them.

One said he had stopped at a yellow light about noon on Jan. 10, 2012, and the man in the pickup began to honk and yell out the window. He motioned for the teen to walk back to the truck, according to the 18-year-old, then hung a black handgun out the window, taking out the magazine and putting it on his dashboard alongside another magazine.

A Largo police officer was driving later that year when several people in another car pulled up to him on Highland Avenue to make a report.

A man in a black Toyota pickup had just threatened one of them with a gun, they said, pointing it out. They drove off, but the officer turned around to follow the truck on Dec. 13, 2012.

A Florida Highway Patrol trooper responded to a car crash at Alt. U.S. 19 and Pennsylvania Avenue less than a year later.

A woman in a Ford Edge had crashed into the back of Drejka’s pickup

Drejka "admitted that he was ‘brake checking’" the woman, the trooper wrote.

A couple of months ago, Drejka was in the same parking lot outside the same Circle A Food Store at 1201 Sunset Point Road arguing over the same handicap-reserved space, according to a man who said Drejka threatened to shoot him.

[DontTreadOnMe]

But how many times have we discussed that we may not know all of the variables when we walk into an argument between 2 people?

Two strangers maybe. These weren't 2 strangers to him. You can't honestly tell me that you think ... no you know what I'm not even going to engage you on this any more. If you can't see the difference between engaging two compete strangers vs. a person confronting someone's spouse and 5 y.o. son then IMO you're incapable of having a genuine discussion about this.

[DontTreadOnMe]

Even if he did believe he could use force, he made the wrong decision because the key word in the statute is "reasonably." He made the wrong decision because he either had the incorrect information or he was a hot-head who thinks with his fists instead of his head.

Based on the video, again, Jacobs was not in any fear because she exited the vehicle and because Drejka was not exhibiting any violent actions.

I see where you're going, but 'reasonable' <> 'correct'. A person can reasonably read a situation and still be wrong about it.

You left out 776.012 (2) which states:

I left it out because it's about deadly force and immaterial to McGlockton's actions. Whether it's material to Drejka's will now be up to a judge/jury to decide.

[DontTreadOnMe]

The prosecutor decided to charge Michael Drejka with manslaughter.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/shooter-flori ... d=57151343" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm less surprised by this news than I would've been last week, because I read an article linked from Greg Ellifritz's Weekend Knowledge Dump, by a Florida criminal defense attorney. For anyone who wants a better understanding of Florida's self-defense immunity law and the procedures around it, and why this delay was consistent with charges ultimately being filed, it's a good read: https://orlandocriminallawyer.blogspot. ... e.html?m=1


Trigger warning: Even as a self-defense attorney with a specialty in firearms law, he clearly reads this incident as a bad shoot. So if you can't handle someone challenging your preconceptions - even if it's someone with a lot of experience directly in the field - you probably shouldn't click that link.