Effect of provocation under Stand Your Ground

[Mustang380gal]

McGlockton being wrong doesn't make Drejka right.

Is one justified for shoving people to the ground for running off at the mouth?

Drejka may indeed have been wrong to start arguing with the woman, but I rather doubt the shove to the ground was legally justified.

Free advice: Don't be a Drejka. Don't go around looking for excuse to use your gun. As they say, the best way to win a gunfight is not to be in it in the first place.

Who said that he is "going around looking for an excuse to use [his] gun"? That is a profoundly unhelpful thing to say. Do you realize that people can use that argument against any one of us who is involved in a self-defense shooting?

[BEAR!]

McGlockton being wrong doesn't make Drejka right.

In Florida it does. He met physical violence with the same.

[DontTreadOnMe]

McGlockton being wrong doesn't make Drejka right.

In Florida it does. He met physical violence with the same.

Fyi that hasn't been settled yet. The prosecutor's office is still considering whether to bring charges. There are many people, including Republican lawmakers who wrote the state's self-defense immunity bill, who disagree with the sheriff's interpretation.

Even if criminal charges aren't brought, Drejka could still lose in the civil arena. This is far from over for him.

[DontTreadOnMe]

Explain to me under what circumstances a verbal argument would give someone the legal right to use physical force please.

It's very easy to argue it in this case. Outside uninvolved parties were so concerned they brought the situation to the attention of the store owner. IIRC the term "harassing a woman" was used. McGlockton goes outside and sees a man near his vehicle, very agitated and yelling loudly. Keep in mind his 5 y.o. son also in the vehicle.

Had Drejka not fired this wouldn't have been a news event at all, even locally, because no prosecutor would charge McGlockton for the shove given that situation.

[Mustang380gal]

No, getting in his face telling Drejka to back off and leave her alone was justified. Shoving a person to the ground is assault and battery, and is in no way justified. Had Drejka touched her or made a move toward her, that would change things. As it is, SHE got out of the car and moved toward Drejka.

Verbal harassment alone does not justify physical assault.

[WestonDon]

Free advice: Don't be a Drejka. Don't go around looking for excuse to use your gun. As they say, the best way to win a gunfight is not to be in it in the first place.

Who said that he is "going around looking for an excuse to use [his] gun"? That is a profoundly unhelpful thing to say. Do you realize that people can use that argument against any one of us who is involved in a self-defense shooting?

In a case like this, where the person claiming self defense initiated the verbal confrontation, I think it is valid to question whether that person would have done so had he not been armed.

[DontTreadOnMe]

Verbal harassment alone does not justify physical assault.

You're objectively wrong. Under Florida law assault does not require physical contact:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind ... 4.011.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

Whether or not Drejka's behaviors fit here we don't know, but given the elevated concern from the 3rd party witness reporting the harassment, his yelling and aggressive demeanor the shover (had he not been shot) could certainly make that argument.

[JustaShooter]

Verbal harassment alone does not justify physical assault.

You're objectively wrong. Under Florida law assault does not require physical contact:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind ... 4.011.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

Whether or not Drejka's behaviors fit here we don't know, but given the elevated concern from the 3rd party witness reporting the harassment, his yelling and aggressive demeanor the shover (had he not been shot) could certainly make that argument.

So, you are saying that under FL law you can physically assault a person who verbally assaults you? I would have to see something more from FL law than the snippet you provided to be able to agree with you.

[bignflnut]

FWIW, (IANAL price of admission) if somebody is angrily F-bombing me and threatening to "mess me up" (Unlawful threat), I would consider that an assault, or certainly the threat of one, to where I would be very cognizant of the hands and body. While a physical altercation has not occurred yet, I would be justified in defending myself, IMHO. Any forward movement by that person would be good enough for me.

[catfish86]

Remember something I said earlier...throwing a paper ball at someone or threatening to constitutes assault in most states. Remember with an Assault you get an A for effort. Battery is when you connect in any form or fashion.

We have the video where Drejka is clearly animated and verbal in relation to a woman in a car. We then have third parties who felt Drejka's actions were threatening and this was passed on to McGlockton, who under the statute has a legal right to use physical force to stop the threat. The statute for assault does not require physical contact for there to be an assault. Once the assault has occurred, Drejka's actions are a crime and his immunity is void.

In laymen's terms, don't start a fight when you are armed then try to claim you were defending yourself. Anybody here suggesting you should behave like Mr. Drejka needs to retake their CHL course.

[BEAR!]

FWIW, (IANAL price of admission) if somebody is angrily F-bombing me and threatening to "mess me up" (Unlawful threat), I would consider that an assault, or certainly the threat of one, to where I would be very cognizant of the hands and body. While a physical altercation has not occurred yet, I would be justified in defending myself, IMHO. Any forward movement by that person would be good enough for me.

So you would shoot someone for F-bombing you and threatening to "mess you up" but you wouldn't shoot them if they shoved you to the ground?

[cashman966]

Remember something I said earlier...throwing a paper ball at someone or threatening to constitutes assault in most states. Remember with an Assault you get an A for effort. Battery is when you connect in any form or fashion.

We have the video where Drejka is clearly animated and verbal in relation to a woman in a car. We then have third parties who felt Drejka's actions were threatening and this was passed on to McGlockton, who under the statute has a legal right to use physical force to stop the threat. The statute for assault does not require physical contact for there to be an assault. Once the assault has occurred, Drejka's actions are a crime and his immunity is void.

In laymen's terms, don't start a fight when you are armed then try to claim you were defending yourself. Anybody here suggesting you should behave like Mr. Drejka needs to retake their CHL course.

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. We don't know what words were exchanged between the two, so it is impossible for us to know if anything said by either party would raise the interaction to the statutory level of assault. Which makes it ridiculous to fill in the blanks with hypotheticals that further one's beliefs on the situation. I will add that McGlockton was in the same boat, in the 6 seconds of the interaction he witnessed, which we have no idea what that was, he filled in a lot of blanks. We do know that Jacobs did not feel threatened enough to remain in the relative safety of her vehicle. Instead of standing her ground she advanced. Which leads me to believe that she had not been assaulted in word, nor did she have a reasonable fear that she was in danger of physical assault.


The real question is what transpired in the 3 seconds from the presentation of the firearm to the firing of the firearm. Did McGlockton's 1 to 3 steps back constitute a retreat? Again we have no clue what was said. If McGlockton said "don't shoot man don't shoot, I'm done." then definitely it was a retreat and Drejka should be charged, however if he said "you better shoot me now cause I'm gonna kill you", well then no, it wasn't a retreat. If he said nothing I don't know which way it would go.

In Laymen's terms don't interject yourself into a situation and physically assault someone in the defense of another unless you know all the facts of the incident.

[High Power]

Remember something I said earlier...throwing a paper ball at someone or threatening to constitutes assault in most states. Remember with an Assault you get an A for effort. Battery is when you connect in any form or fashion.

We have the video where Drejka is clearly animated and verbal in relation to a woman in a car. We then have third parties who felt Drejka's actions were threatening and this was passed on to McGlockton, who under the statute has a legal right to use physical force to stop the threat. The statute for assault does not require physical contact for there to be an assault. Once the assault has occurred, Drejka's actions are a crime and his immunity is void.

In laymen's terms, don't start a fight when you are armed then try to claim you were defending yourself. Anybody here suggesting you should behave like Mr. Drejka needs to retake their CHL course.

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. We don't know what words were exchanged between the two, so it is impossible for us to know if anything said by either party would raise the interaction to the statutory level of assault. Which makes it ridiculous to fill in the blanks with hypotheticals that further one's beliefs on the situation. I will add that McGlockton was in the same boat, in the 6 seconds of the interaction he witnessed, which we have no idea what that was, he filled in a lot of blanks. We do know that Jacobs did not feel threatened enough to remain in the relative safety of her vehicle. Instead of standing her ground she advanced. Which leads me to believe that she had not been assaulted in word, nor did she have a reasonable fear that she was in danger of physical assault.


The real question is what transpired in the 3 seconds from the presentation of the firearm to the firing of the firearm. Did McGlockton's 1 to 3 steps back constitute a retreat? Again we have no clue what was said. If McGlockton said "don't shoot man don't shoot, I'm done." then definitely it was a retreat and Drejka should be charged, however if he said "you better shoot me now cause I'm gonna kill you", well then no, it wasn't a retreat. If he said nothing I don't know which way it would go.

In Laymen's terms don't interject yourself into a situation and physically assault someone in the defense of another unless you know all the facts of the incident.

Bingo! I might add that from looking at McGlockotn's record he looks like he was a bit of a hot-head. And to repeat, Jacobs wasn't fearful of Drejka as she exited her car to confront him. Drejka's body language and actions don't look like a person who is trying to be intimidating.

Everyone that is coming up with assumptions saying that Drejka initiated the confrontation may not consider that he may have began with a friendly reminder that she was parked incorrectly. That's when Jacobs may have responded with "F--- You! and #$#$^ you. Kiss my #$%^" and so on.

We don't know that. I'm just saying that she could have been loud and boisterous to the point that other witnesses didn't know how to interpret the situation. They may have gone in the store and said that a man and woman are in an argument.

That's when McGlockton may have been making assumptions and his temper over-road his judgment.

Based on what I saw in the video, I would have made the same decision to NOT file charges as well. If I were on the Jury, I'd also vote to acquit.

[bignflnut]

FWIW, (IANAL price of admission) if somebody is angrily F-bombing me and threatening to "mess me up" (Unlawful threat), I would consider that an assault, or certainly the threat of one, to where I would be very cognizant of the hands and body. While a physical altercation has not occurred yet, I would be justified in defending myself, IMHO. Any forward movement by that person would be good enough for me.

So you would shoot someone for F-bombing you and threatening to "mess you up" but you wouldn't shoot them if they shoved you to the ground?

I'm defending that both scenarios are sufficient to a self-defense argument, particularly if you had already attempted to gain distance.

When the words and the threats manifest in physical contact, assuming you didn't escalate/provoke the scenario, I'm all for self-defense. I was attempting to clarify that physical contact is not absolutely necessary and that there exist scenarios where verbal threats can be considered assault under the definition given in this thread, causing a reasonable fear for one's own well being. I think we're all on board that one punch homicides are real, that even a shove can cause heads to bounce off of concrete, tables, pavement, etc (but again, the person being shoved can't have opened the verbal jousting). Being knocked to the ground is, perhaps, a moment too late.

For example, Person I says something and Person W mis-hears it as a "your momma" joke. Person W closes the gap while confronting Person I with clenched fist and raised voice: "what did you say (MF-bomb)?". (Person W at this point cannot claim self defense, produce a weapon, etc) Person I can have a reasonable fear and prepare for a draw, if not produce a weapon (your mileage may vary, again, INAL, just my opinion on self-defense in my own world). With that new input, perhaps the advance ceases, perhaps not. I think then the decision to shoot is still questionable, based on the advance. If Person I retreats and gets shoved, of course producing a weapon is self-defense. If Person I helps close the gap and goes nose-to- nose, who's the aggressor now? Could go either way.

I'll admit to only having a cursory understanding of the Florida Scenario being discussed. I'm not passing judgement on the jury's decision, however...

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

Thanks for letting me take another swing at that one, hope I said it better.

[Mustang380gal]

Bingo! I might add that from looking at McGlockotn's record he looks like he was a bit of a hot-head. And to repeat, Jacobs wasn't fearful of Drejka as she exited her car to confront him. Drejka's body language and actions don't look like a person who is trying to be intimidating.

Everyone that is coming up with assumptions saying that Drejka initiated the confrontation may not consider that he may have began with a friendly reminder that she was parked incorrectly. That's when Jacobs may have responded with "F--- You! and #$#$^ you. Kiss my #$%^" and so on.

We don't know that. I'm just saying that she could have been loud and boisterous to the point that other witnesses didn't know how to interpret the situation. They may have gone in the store and said that a man and woman are in an argument.

That's when McGlockton may have been making assumptions and his temper over-road his judgment.

Based on what I saw in the video, I would have made the same decision to NOT file charges as well. If I were on the Jury, I'd also vote to acquit.

I agree. Well said.

I saw a longer clip that was posted on IN Gun Owners. It looks to me like he was pointing to all of the open spaces closer to the door, and to the ramp that is by the handicapped spot. He did not seem to be gesturing like someone who was angry or threatening.

Also, in a post in one of the 43+ pages, I learned that handicapped tags in FL are not free. They require a doctor visit for a signature that the person needs it, and the tag itself has a fee. It may not be a big fee, but they are not free spaces.

The other thing I learned in the 43+ pages, physical response may be used if there were clear verbal threats of another. Whether he was threatening her at this point, no one is saying. Given that she got out of the car, I would think that unlikely. Certainly, the big guy would not have had time get an understanding of the things being said.

Unfortunately, self-defense situations are not perfectly clear cut. This is a messy one. At work, we describe messy situations that result in harm as "Swiss cheese". All the holes lined up in just the right way. If one person had done just one little thing differently, then the bad outcome would not have happened. This is one of those. She could have parked in a non-handicapped spot; he could have called the cops or ignored her; the nosey guy could have kept his mouth shut and not told the big guy someone was talking to the woman; big guy could have asked what was going on, and told her to get in the car and go; she could have apologized, and moved the car; she could have ignored him. So many options on all of their parts that could have prevented this. Sad that it happened.