Understanding "Stand Your Ground" Law

Status
Not open for further replies.
And this is what sucks about this entire system, regardless of the SYG debate. That arrest record is permanent. That guy applies for a job or to lease a home, and that arrest will turn up on the back ground check.
I haven't done the research, but there's likely a process to seal the record. LEO would still be able to see it, but I don't know if a background check for job or lease would turn it up.
 
There are slight differences in how the various states formulate and apply the SYG laws.

That said, at the basic level, SYG just means you don't have to try to get away IF you are where you have a right to be and IF someone attacks you in a situation where you would be justified in using deadly force if you could NOT get away.

It means that if you have to defend yourself with deadly force, the prosecution won't be allowed to argue that you should have run away instead of shooting. All SYG means is that you don't have to start your self-defense case by proving that retreat wasn't a reasonable option.

If the details of the case come down to ANYTHING other than whether or not the person claiming self-defense could have/should have retreated then SYG is NOT a factor.

In this case, the crux of the case is whether or not the shot fired was fired in self-defense (meaning the shooter was reasonably in fear that not shooting would have resulted in his death or serious injury) or whether it was fired illegally (after a reasonable person would have concluded that they were no longer in any danger).

That has nothing to do with whether the shooter could have/should have retreated and so SYG is not a factor in this case.
 
I saw this when it first happened, when the Sheriff filed no charges, and then when the state put pressure on the county to bring charges of manslaughter. It's pretty clear by the video that the shooting was not warranted as self defense, SYG or for any other reason. SYG as I understand it, simply removes the duty to retreat. There still must be an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to justify the use of a firearm in a self defense situation. Once Drejka was on the ground, there was no continuing threat.
As a responsible gun owners, I think it is incumbent upon us to avoid instigating situations that may require a gun to solve.
 
In this current case, Drejka absolutely was the instigator of this conflict.
No. He had had no interaction with the victim before he was attacked.

I dislike SYG because it empowers people to create these scenarios.
It does not and cannot.

Drejka had no business chastising a stranger for illegal parking.
True, but his doing so did not justify his being attacked.

if you're justified in lethal force, you don't need SYG,...
Well, sorta, but that's because of the fact that if you meet all of the other requirements of self defense, but you live where there is a duty to retreat, and you can do so in perfect safety but the evidence indicates that did you not do so, regardless of the reality of the situation, the use of of deadly force will not be deemed not justified.

....if you're not justified, SYG won't save you.
If you meet all of the other requirements of self defense, SYG removes the importance of uncertainty about whether you could have retreated in perfect safety. But if you can, you should do so, regardless of the law.
 
As a retired cop living in Florida I've followed the "stand your ground" issues fairly consistently and noted how the press usually conflates this issue with simple self defense situations. They've muddied the waters in the popular press fairly consistently in my view... As always whether or not a self defense claim in a deadly incident will by justified in court or not will depend on the individual facts of each case and whether or not "stand your ground" applies likewise...

I have noted more than one case where the defense attempted to use "stand your ground" when it was pretty clear that the facts alone would hardly support a basic self defense claim.... Those cases did have a very predictable bad outcome for the shooter...

Being involved in any shooting situation where self defense wasn't simple and very clear would be a bad situation for anyone to be in.
As always, for me... it would have to be because I had no other choice, period - and even then the ride through the court system would not be fun at all in my experience...
 
I followed this case since the beginning. I even know where it occurred.
The are many LONG threads on losts of forums about the whole thing.

Drejka had a VERBAL argument with the deceased girlfriend. Not the deceased. He did not instigate anything against the deceased,The deceased also had a post criminal record (not allowed) But somehow Drejkas past issues were allowed??
A verbal argument with the girlfriend does not give the boyfriend the right to assault him.
So by the ruling he should have just let the bigger younger man slam him to the ground, and await further assault and cower in fear??

The deceased slammed Drejka to the ground. Drejka was "in fear of his life"
What happened in that split second is debatable but unfortunately the case was more political and racial than just stand your ground, and that is just the way it is.
They were not going to have another Travon Martin case.

No one KNOWS what THEY WOULD DO until it actually happens to THEM!
 
.
The deceased also had a post criminal record (not allowed)
Not known to the defendant at the time.

But somehow Drejkas past issues were allowed??
Relevant to establish mens rea.

The deceased slammed Drejka to the ground. Drejka was "in fear of his life"
The jurors had to decide whether it was reasonable fear.

The attacker had stopped moving and apparently appeared to the jurors--all of them--to no longer constitute an imminent threat of great bodily harm after the initial attack.

What happened in that split second is debatable...
Well, the defense lost the debate.

....unfortunately the case was more political and racial than just stand your ground, and that is just the way it is.
One cannot reasonably conclude that without having sat through all of the jury deliberations.
 
No. He had had no interaction with the victim before he was attacked.

He was in a verbal altercation with the victim's significant other. I don't know how aggressive he was being, or to what level he went with his verbal tirade about the parking, but it's possible the victim thought he was a threat to his SO. I haven't seen the video since the first time it was posted when the case was new, but if the victim told him to back off*, and he didn't, then the victim was possibly justified in using minimal force to push him away. The victim didn't move to follow up after the push, even before the gun was drawn, IIRC. In that case, it seems like a defensive action rather than the initiation of the conflict to me.

*It may be that the victim simply ambushed him with the push, which would lean more the other way, of course. But there's a scenario where the victim isn't necessarily the aggressor.
 
.Not known to the defendant at the time.

Relevant to establish mens rea.

The jurors had to decide whether it was reasonable fear.

The attacker had stopped moving and apparently appeared to the jurors--all of them--to no longer constitute an imminent threat of great bodily harm after the initial attack.

Well, the defense lost the debate.

One cannot reasonably conclude that without having sat through all of the jury deliberations.

Selective quotes of the entire post.

No, the deceased past was not know but he was not a great family man, who found religion and was getting his life back together.

The jurors where not there lying on the parking lot after getting slammed so they had nothing to fear.

All the others who weighed in with their comments seem to have concluded before the trial.

From the article:

Culture of racism
But civil rights activists said the shooting, and the sheriff's delay in arresting Drejka, spoke to a culture of racism within the state of Florida. The National Rifle Association, as well as Republican legislators who helped write the law, disputed the sheriff’s interpretation of it and all five Democratic candidates for governor stood alongside the Rev. Al Sharpton at an Aug. 5, 2018 “Justice for Markeis” rally to call for a repeal of the law.

Al Sharpton has spoken

The subject was previously hashed over and over, it's done.
 
The morning news on Saturday, August 23 presented a headline,
Florida gun owner who claimed self-defense convicted in 'Stand Your Ground' case
The key information in the article is in the third paragraph:
"In surveillance video played for the jury, McGlockton is seen emerging from the store and shoving Drejka to the ground. Seconds later, Drejka pulls out Glock .40-caliber handgun and shoots McGlockton, 28, as he turned away." (emphasis added)​
I think the fact that McGLockton was turning away and moving away from the Drejka made it easy for the jury to decide that Drejka was not protected by the Stand Your Ground law, even though it was McGlocton, not Drejka, who initiated the confrontation. Drejka may have claimed SYG as a defense, but this did not meet the requirements of the law.

I am posting this to prompt discussion on the nuances and requirements of SYG, in FL or elsewhere.
(BTW, here in Arkansas we have a Duty to Retreat; there is no SYG protection in the law.)

Stand your ground does not take away the definition of true SD. That is the same whether or not your state has SYG or DTR. There was no legitimate fear of death or great bodily harm once the victim turned to walk away. Of course it made the decision easy for the jury. Can't see why there is any question about it, other than a Lawyer grasping at straws.
 
He was in a verbal altercation with the victim's significant other. I don't know how aggressive he was being, or to what level he went with his verbal tirade about the parking, but it's possible the victim thought he was a threat to his SO. I haven't seen the video since the first time it was posted when the case was new, but if the victim told him to back off*, and he didn't, then the victim was possibly justified in using minimal force to push him away. The victim didn't move to follow up after the push, even before the gun was drawn, IIRC. In that case, it seems like a defensive action rather than the initiation of the conflict to me.

*It may be that the victim simply ambushed him with the push, which would lean more the other way, of course. But there's a scenario where the victim isn't necessarily the aggressor.

I was going to reply to Kleanbore's comments, mostly in disagreement, but you've done such a good job of it here, I will leave it alone, other than to say "Yeah, what he said."
 
Justifiable use of deadly force has always had well-defined limitations on its application. Besides fear of death and/or great bodily injury, justifiable use of deadly force must be a response to threats an aggressor directs towards you. However, if you instigate an altercation, (which the defendant did by verbally confronting the female driver), and find yourself on the loosing end of the fight (the victim was prevailing), you cannot use deadly force and claim self defense because the victim’s aggression was in response to the defendant’s initial confrontation with the female driver. Culpatory evidence. i.e., firing as the victim retreated diminished the defendant’s claim of self defense and probably assisted the jury in their verdict determination.
 
Last edited:
Exacerbated was the wrong word in my above response. I should have used diminished the defendant’s claim of self defense.

Better proof reading required on my part.
 
He was in a verbal altercation with the victim's significant other.
He was unwisely, but lawfully, chastising her for having parked in a handicapped spot.

...but it's possible the victim thought he was a threat to his SO.
The mere speaking of words would not be sufficient in a defense against a charge of assault and battery.

...he was not a great family man, who found religion and was getting his life back together.
Does not matter one whit.

Stand your ground does not take away the definition of true SD. That is the same whether or not your state has SYG or DTR
Treu fact--it relates only to a duty to retreat.

if you instigate an altercation, (which the defendant did by verbally confronting the female driver),
He did not.

...you cannot use deadly force and claim self defense because the victim’s aggression was in response to the defendant’s initial confrontation
The defendant had beens speaking to a third party, and he was certainly not the initial aggressor.

I was not on the jury, but I saw the same video that they did. I would think that the defendant's goose was cooked by the two second delay between his presentation of his firearm and his shooing of the victim, during which the victim stoped and stepped back.

...firing as the victim retreated.... probably assisted the jury in their verdict determination.
That was likely it.

The jury had to take into account the defendant's condition at the time he fired. It is possible that had the attack been sufficiently injurious, it could have contributed to his reasonable fear, as judged by reasonable persons in the same circumstances. Bu he waid "just fine, thank you" immediately afterward, in so many words, and that possible defense went out the window.
 
Justifiable use of deadly force has always had well-defined limitations on its application. Besides fear of death and/or great bodily injury, justifiable use of deadly force must be a response to threats an aggressor directs towards you. However, if you instigate an altercation, (which the defendant did by verbally confronting the female driver), and find yourself on the loosing end of the fight (the victim was prevailing), you cannot use deadly force and claim self defense because the victim’s aggression was in response to the defendant’s initial confrontation with the female driver. Culpatory evidence. i.e., firing as the victim retreated diminished the defendant’s claim of self defense and probably assisted the jury in their verdict determination.

I think you're mostly spot on here. This situation was entirely of the defendant's own creation. However, as I wrote earlier, at one time, before SYG came into law, Florida justified lethal force if someone had initiated a conflict, but then tried to escape. The way it was taught to me, and then applied to this present scenario, had Drejka fled, and McGlockton continued to attack, only then would Drejka be justified, even though he initiated the conflict. This, of course, in a pre SYG law timeframe.
 
The defendant had beens speaking to a third party, and he was certainly not the initial aggressor.

You've made this claim a few times in this discussion, and it bothers me. I was going to ignore it, in large part because you're a moderator, and I don't wish to tangle with you, but I'm going to be honest here, your thoughts on this, combined with your gun ownership, gives me pause. Indeed, I find it downright frightening.

You appear to be making a case that a person can yell and scream at someone all they want, and that person and his or her own family are expected not to object or react-that they must simply accept the offensive behavior. Furthermore, you appear to be making a case that a person can be so offensive to another so as to provoke a confrontation, and then be justified in ending a human life.

Extending that logic, it's okay to wave a confederate flag and then kill a person who takes it away from you.

This is exactly why SYG has to go. This is exactly why the whole "concealed carry lifestyle"...I don't even know what to call it or how to say it. I just had this discussion with my family last week as I consider carrying concealed again, and this discussion, and your comments here, certainly give me pause. Then again, I have to ask myself, should I be carrying a gun to protect myself from people who carry guns?
 
How many times has a similar situation occurred where the murderer got off completely because there was no video and the eye witnesses were not believed!!! The Last Man Standing gets to say what happened. Maybe everyone should wear a body camera.
 
This situation was entirely of the defendant's own creation
The defendant was unlawfully attacked by the victim. The discussion with someone else about a parking space was irrelevant, and it could not justify the attack.

Now, had the defendant exercised some judgment by ignoring the parking violation....but is failure to do so was perfectly lawful.

However, as I wrote earlier, at one time, before SYG came into law, Florida justified lethal force if someone had initiated a conflict, but then tried to escape.
Pretty close--the initial aggressor can regain innocence by breaking off the confrontation, while announcing his intention to do so--not retreating. Best to be loud about it.

The SYG law did not change that.


Nor is it relevant here.

The way it was taught to me, and then applied to this present scenario, had Drejka fled, and McGlockton continued to attack, only then would Drejka be justified, even though he initiated the conflict.
The victim was the initial aggressor.

The victim started the attack and apparently withdrew, but he had no need to claim self defense--nor would such a claim have succeeded, had the defendant not shot him.

The issue became one of whether deadly force had been necessary after the victim had turned and stopped. The jury decided that it had not been.

You appear to be making a case that a person can yell and scream at someone all they want, and that person and his or her own family are expected not to object or react-that they must simply accept the offensive behavior
Not at all, but they may not lawfully use force, deadly or otherwise, in response to mere words. That is fundamental to use of force law.

Had the victim not been shot, he would surely have faced a charge of assault and battery.

Furthermore, you appear to be making a case that a person can be so offensive to another so as to provoke a confrontation, and then be justified in ending a human life.
No.

The defendant fired after having been unlawfully attacked, but the jury did not find his act justified. Nor do I think it was.

In some states, the provoker of a fight ("come on--let's see how tough you really are") may fail to meet the requirements of self defense without being the initial aggressor, but you will not find any instances in which discussing a parking place with one person was properly seen as provoking a fight with another .

This is exactly why SYG has to go.
SYG had absolutely nothing so do with this case.
 
I remember seeing this video sometime back. Here it is for those who want to review it. Sorry in advance it is ABC news, so just mute their intelligent "legal" commentary.



The way I see it as a conceal carry holder, plenty of blame to go around. Should you get into an argument over a parking space? No. Old man gets pushed to the ground by a bigger and younger guy? Expect to get shot. There is no telling what McGlockton would have done to continue the attack if he didn't have a gun in his face. He wasn't shot in the back, he realized he was about to get shot and wanted to escape.
 
To suggest the defendant’s interaction with the female driver had no relevancy in the scenario fails to recognize the impact that exchange and interaction had on the victim. The victim did not summarily and without provocation push the defendant to the ground. The basis for his (the victim) action is clear, and the defendant was the provocateur. To state otherwise flies in the face of the fact chronology which culminates with the demise of the victim.

Stand your ground has nothing to do with the filing of charges against the defendant nor his conviction.
 
The victim did not summarily and without provocation push the defendant to the ground. The basis for his (the victim) action is clear, and the defendant was the provocateur. To state otherwise flies in the face of the fact chronology which culminates with the demise of the victim.
The victim most likely felt "provoked", though he was not provoked in the legal sense. And to attack someone because of that was a crime.

The defendant had a legal right to defend himself--up until the attack stopped.

But it did stop, and shooting the victim after that was unlawful.

That is consistent with centuries of law, going back at least to Blackstone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The defendant can clearly be seen in the video approaching the female in the parked vehicle. She is standing by the driver’s side door and the defendant is gesturing with his extended hand towards her face, and within striking distance, when the victim approaches the defendant and then pushes him to the ground. Justifiable use of deadly force as a defense is not going to pass muster; hence the manslaughter conviction.

You cannot start an altercation and then escalate the scenario to deadly force when you are about to loose the fight. Even if the victim had pressed the assault the use of deadly force would have been illegal.
 
The defendant can clearly be seen in the video approaching the female in the parked vehicle. She is standing by the driver’s side door and the defendant is gesturing with his extended hand towards her face, and within striking distance, when the victim approaches the defendant and then pushes him to the ground. Justifiable use of deadly force as a defense is not going to pass muster; hence the manslaughter conviction.

Gesturing does not constitute "starting an altercation".

It does not in any way justify the attack by the victim.

That attack gave defendant the legal right use force to defend himself.

Bu his right to use force went away when the attack was broken off.

But he fired anyway.

Hence the conviction.

You cannot start an altercation and then escalate the scenario to deadly force when you are about to loose the fight.
True. But he hid not start the fight.

Even if the victim had pressed the assault the use of deadly force would have been illegal..
That is the kind of thing that a jury decides. Among the things that they take into account are the relative sizes, ages, and fitness of rhe attacker and the defender.

And whether the defender is on the ground.
 
Yes, the defendant did have a lawful right to protect himself, however, he could not employ deadly force without first disengaging from the event since he instituted the altercation, and the victim would have had to pursue the defendant to justify use of deadly force. Case law is replete with examples of defendants initiating an assault (verbal or battery) and then employing deadly force when the outcome was not in their favor. As in this matter, convictions were the results.

In the matter we are addressing, the totality of the circumstances are the foundation for the jury’s verdict.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top