Stand Your Ground Law

[Millhouse]

I wonder how long it will take for some racist/nutjob to go start some crap with some dudes in the hood, then after provoking them enough, he will have his gun ready to start shooting in self-defense.

[GMDino]

(07-24-2018, 05:17 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I wonder how long it will take for some racist/nutjob to go start some crap with some dudes in the hood, then after provoking them enough, he will have his gun ready to start shooting in self-defense.

Well as long as the people being provoked don't do anything they will be fine.  If they react at all and get shot, well I guess there's a lesson to be learned there about them.  

[Beaker]

(07-24-2018, 02:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: I understand it means they didn't deserve to be shot.

I also understand that the post is meant to suggest the victim should have/could have done more to not get shot.  That's blaming the victim.

That's because he is not an innocent victim, and therefore, not blameless. He should not have felt entitled enough to illegally park in a handicap space. Nor should his first course of action been physical assault.

On the other hand the shooter deserves blame for appointing himself parking police, accosting the gf, and using deadly force as his first course of action.

Blame where blame is due.

[*jason*]

It took a thread on Stand Your Ground laws to make me realize that I have gone from being a father to being a baby daddy this year.

[GMDino]

(07-25-2018, 02:44 AM)Beaker Wrote: That's because he is not an innocent victim, and therefore, not blameless. He should not have felt entitled enough to illegally park in a handicap space. Nor should his first course of action been physical assault.

On the other hand the shooter deserves blame for appointing himself parking police, accosting the gf, and using deadly force as his first course of action.

Blame where blame is due.

I guess I just don't think anything the victim did meant he should have been shot...which, every time another "thing the victim did to be in that situation" is mentioned I see it as blaming the victim for being there and getting shot.

For example:  Man gets hit by a car.  the circumstances are he was running down the middle of the road at night in all black and trying to jump cars.  did he "deserve to get hit?  No.  Did he do something that made it extremely likely he was going to get hit?  Yes.  He deserves some blame for doing something that resulted in him being hit.  We should have discussions telling people to not do what he did.

Man parks in the wrong space and pushes a guy who is yelling at the mother of his children gets shot.  Did he deserve to get shot? No.  Did he do something that made it likely he would be shot? No.  All of the blame for shooting and killing another human being falls on the coward/tough guy with the gun.  

[*michaelsean*]

(07-25-2018, 09:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: I guess I just don't think anything the victim did meant he should have been shot...which, every time another "thing the victim did to be in that situation" is mentioned I see it as blaming the victim for being there and getting shot.

For example:  Man gets hit by a car.  the circumstances are he was running down the middle of the road at night in all black and trying to jump cars.  did he "deserve to get hit?  No.  Did he do something that made it extremely likely he was going to get hit?  Yes.  He deserves some blame for doing something that resulted in him being hit.  We should have discussions telling people to not do what he did.

Man parks in the wrong space and pushes a guy who is yelling at the mother of his children gets shot.  Did he deserve to get shot? No.  Did he do something that made it likely he would be shot? No.  All of the blame for shooting and killing another human being falls on the coward/tough guy with the gun.  

Agreed, but we are just discussing the event in its entirety.  I don't think there is any harm in that.  I think everyone agrees the guy should be charged with something.  I don't know if it's murder or manslaughter or what, but something serious.

[GMDino]

(07-25-2018, 10:04 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Agreed, but we are just discussing the event in its entirety.  I don't think there is any harm in that.  I think everyone agrees the guy should be charged with something.  I don't know if it's murder or manslaughter or what, but something serious.

Yep.  But some still feel the need to figure out what the victim did "wrong" to get shot.

Don't park in the wrong place...
Don't argue...
Don't push a guy yelling at your girlfriend...


None of which should result in getting shot and killed.  That's trying to find a way to blame the victim in at LEAST some small part for the actions of another wannabe cop/coward.

[*Nately120*]

(07-24-2018, 05:17 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I wonder how long it will take for some racist/nutjob to go start some crap with some dudes in the hood, then after provoking them enough, he will have his gun ready to start shooting in self-defense.

In pretty sure the last person a racist nutjob is going to start stuff with is an armed black man.

[Benton]

(07-25-2018, 02:44 AM)Beaker Wrote: That's because he is not an innocent victim, and therefore, not blameless. He should not have felt entitled enough to illegally park in a handicap space. Nor should his first course of action been physical assault.

On the other hand the shooter deserves blame for appointing himself parking police, accosting the gf, and using deadly force as his first course of action.

Blame where blame is due.

No. someone's bad parking job doesn't give a person the right to be belligerent. He was the aggressor.

The entire point behind "stand your ground" laws is giving people the right to defend themselves when they feel threatened. McGlockton did that. His family was threatened, so he assaulted the guy, who then shot him. Blame is on Drejka for being the aggressor. 

(07-25-2018, 08:54 AM)jason Wrote: It took a thread on Stand Your Ground laws to make me realize that I have gone from being a father to being a baby daddy this year.

I wouldn't gauge that by the definition used in this thread. Generally, a "baby daddy" is someone who has a kid with a woman he isn't married to, moves on and has little to no contact with the child. 

Which is why it's unfortunate the alt-right is trying to trivialize a guy's death by referring to him as a baby daddy. I don't know a lot about him, but he had three kids, all with the same woman with whom he was involved with for 9 years. And he died trying to prevent them from being accosted. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-25-2018, 08:54 AM)jason Wrote: It took a thread on Stand Your Ground laws to make me realize that I have gone from being a father to being a baby daddy this year.

Can't speak to the rest but I used the term baby daddy to explain his relationship to the female; as she was the one being harassed; he was not her father. If thimbledick was harassing one of the children then the term father would have been used.   


Hopefully, that explains the use of the term in this forum and I had 0 idea that some would view it as a slur. 

[Beaker]

(07-25-2018, 09:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: I guess I just don't think anything the victim did meant he should have been shot...which, every time another "thing the victim did to be in that situation" is mentioned I see it as blaming the victim for being there and getting shot.

I don't think he deserved to get shot either. But he chose courses of action that escalated the confrontation rather than de-escalating it. Those choices were his mistakes leading to the ultimate conclusion of taking a bullet. 

Quote:Man parks in the wrong space and pushes a guy who is yelling at the mother of his children gets shot.  Did he deserve to get shot? No.  Did he do something that made it likely he would be shot? No.

Yes, he did do things that made it more likely the confrontation would not end peacefully. 

[Beaker]

(07-25-2018, 10:50 AM)Benton Wrote: No. someone's bad parking job doesn't give a person the right to be belligerent. He was the aggressor.

The entire point behind "stand your ground" laws is giving people the right to defend themselves when they feel threatened. McGlockton did that. His family was threatened, so he assaulted the guy, who then shot him. Blame is on Drejka for being the aggressor. 

Did McGlockton display aggression by knocking Dreka to the ground? Let's take that action out of context and say you or I walk outside to find someone yelling at your wife. If I run over and knock his ass to the ground can I reasonably not expect that person to do anything aggressive in return? I obviously would not be expecting to get shot either, but I would be expecting him to get back up and retaliate in some form since I already saw him being verbally aggressive to my wife.
Both men share blame in escalating the situation. However, that by no means says that McGlockton deserved to be shot. Dreka took it to a level that it should never ave gotten to....but he didn't get there alone.

[Benton]

(07-25-2018, 11:52 AM)Beaker Wrote: Did McGlockton display aggression by knocking Dreka to the ground? Let's take that action out of context and say you or I walk outside to find someone yelling at your wife. If I run over and knock his ass to the ground can I reasonably not expect that person to do anything aggressive in return? I obviously would not be expecting to get shot either, but I would be expecting him to get back up and retaliate in some form since I already saw him being verbally aggressive to my wife.
Both men share blame in escalating the situation. However, that by no means says that McGlockton deserved to be shot. Dreka took it to a level that it should never ave gotten to....but he didn't get there alone.

No, he got there by provoking someone so he could invoke a right to self defense.

And that's becoming the issue with "stand your ground" laws. When is it standing your ground and when is it trying to get away with harming someone?

Byron Smith, Markus Karma, Michael Drejka. They're all people who — at least on the surface — wanted to hurt someone and used a law designed for self defense to do it. Drejka allegedly has a history of being confrontational with people over trivialities, he has a history of aggressive behavior. 

[GMDino]

(07-25-2018, 11:43 AM)Beaker Wrote: I don't think he deserved to get shot either. But he chose courses of action that escalated the confrontation rather than de-escalating it. Those choices were his mistakes leading to the ultimate conclusion of taking a bullet. 



Yes, he did do things that made it more likely the confrontation would not end peacefully. 

Victim blaming. "Totally the shooters fault! But..." Always the "but".

Guns don't kill people...people doing things that they should be shot for but get shot anyway kill people.

[Beaker]

(07-25-2018, 12:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Victim blaming.  "Totally the shooters fault!  But..."  Always the "but".

Guns don't kill people...people doing things that they should be shot for but get shot anyway kill people.

I never said it was totally the shooter's fault. In fact, I am saying the blame goes to both. But I am also saying the victim did not deserve to be killed. The outcome far exceeded the circumstances of the blame he shared.

[Benton]

(07-25-2018, 12:07 PM)Beaker Wrote: I never said it was totally the shooter's fault. In fact, I am saying the blame goes to both. But I am also saying the victim did not deserve to be killed. The outcome far exceeded the circumstances of the blame he shared.

I respect that.

My only concern when we start down this road is how it legally gets used to defend actions. I saw it in courts for years, and it's part of the disparity there between those who can afford a good attorney and those who can't. 

[*PhilHos*]

(07-25-2018, 09:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: Did he deserve to get shot? No.  Did he do something that made it likely he would be shot? No.   

Actually, I think I side with Beaker here. Yes, he DID do something that made it more likely he would be shot: he got physical with the shooter. Doesn't mean he deserved to get shot, but he responded to a verbal assault with a physical assault. He escalated the situation. Understandably, so, sure, and again, the shooter's response was horribly wrong, but he still contributed to it.

[BmorePat87]

(07-25-2018, 11:52 AM)Beaker Wrote: Did McGlockton display aggression by knocking Dreka to the ground? Let's take that action out of context and say you or I walk outside to find someone yelling at your wife. If I run over and knock his ass to the ground can I reasonably not expect that person to do anything aggressive in return? I obviously would not be expecting to get shot either, but I would be expecting him to get back up and retaliate in some form since I already saw him being verbally aggressive to my wife.
Both men share blame in escalating the situation. However, that by no means says that McGlockton deserved to be shot. Dreka took it to a level that it should never ave gotten to....but he didn't get there alone.

The message here is that defending people being harassed is just as bad as harassing that person. 

[Benton]

(07-25-2018, 11:52 AM)Beaker Wrote: Did McGlockton display aggression by knocking Dreka to the ground? Let's take that action out of context and say you or I walk outside to find someone yelling at your wife. If I run over and knock his ass to the ground can I reasonably not expect that person to do anything aggressive in return? I obviously would not be expecting to get shot either, but I would be expecting him to get back up and retaliate in some form since I already saw him being verbally aggressive to my wife.
Both men share blame in escalating the situation. However, that by no means says that McGlockton deserved to be shot. Dreka took it to a level that it should never ave gotten to....but he didn't get there alone.

(07-25-2018, 04:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The message here is that defending people being harassed is just as bad as harassing that person. 

Maybe McGlockton should've been packing and shot Drejka, as that would've avoided the escalation of aggression.

[BmorePat87]

(07-25-2018, 05:18 PM)Benton Wrote: Maybe McGlockton should've been packing and shot Drejka, as that would've avoided the escalation of aggression.

The law seems to let anyone who is carrying shot first if there is any sort of conflict. There can't be competing claims because one side will be dead, so the other side can claim stand your ground.