Stand Your Ground Law

[GMDino]

(08-10-2018, 01:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: "Many" think that one had the right to shoot someone defending their girlfriend in order to "defend themself". Clearly it was the victim at blame for "escalating" the situation versus humbly walking away to avoid getting shot. 

(08-10-2018, 02:59 PM)Beaker Wrote: Nobody has said that other than you. 

Perhaps not in those exact words.  Perhaps just in a way of saying the victim should have "de-escalated" the situation versus defending his girlfriend.

So let's look at all the things the victim (and his gf) did "wrong" to get him shot...that were CLEARLY not shifting any of the blame from the shooter...who, you say, the sheriff agrees in not at fault.

(07-23-2018, 09:30 PM)Beaker Wrote: All this could have been solved if they just had a handicapped sticker.

(07-23-2018, 10:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's really the only part of the episode that's a sticking point in my book. The female driver stated she did nothing wrong and told dude she could park wherever she wanted; that's not true. 

Did she deserve to be harassed by thimbledick for doing so? No. 

Did she do something wrong? Yes. 
 

(07-24-2018, 12:07 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not a fan of how this was interpreted.  Stand your ground laws are reasonably intended to indemnify a victim from the burden of retreating before using lethal force.  An unfortunate, and I hope unintended, side effect of this is enabling dickheads like this dude and Zimmerman to  use deadly force the instant a confrontation turns physical.  I've said for years on both this and the old board that words, as obnoxious as they can be, don't justify a physical response.  The minute you escalate an argument from the verbal to the physical you have put yourself into the hands of the other participant.  Zimmerman precipitated the confrontation with Martin and then lied about Martin's statements to him (e.g. You're going to die tonight).  This asshole precipitated the confrontation with this lady.  The minute the boyfriend decided the initiators words deserved physical intervention he put himself in the hands of the asshole.

If even one person in this confrontation acted like a rational adult then no one would have died.

(07-24-2018, 01:04 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Very true.  I'm 6"01" and over 200 lbs.  I've literally never started a fight in my life outside of 7th grade.  There is this, "defend the woman" mentality that goes way beyond actually defending a woman.  Defend a woman from physical violence, all day.  Defend her with physical violence from some idiot talking shit, hell no.  This is the crux of the thread btw, if the boyfriend had come out and told the asshole off, with as fragrant a vocabulary as he chose to employ, he'd still be alive.  Like I said, just one adult out of three acting like an actual adult and no one dies.

(07-24-2018, 09:44 AM)Beaker Wrote: Entitlement mentality can now get you killed.

(07-24-2018, 09:50 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I would say it's just get the hell out of there when a nut is going off.  Easier said than done of course.  This is still all on the shooter though as far as I'm concerned.  He got shoved for acting like a giant dick.  

(07-24-2018, 11:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Every mature adult reading this thread understands no one was shifting blame on the woman; it's just dude was seeing a thread were everyone was in agreement and he could not stand it any longer.

I mentioned the female's actions to illustrate that although thimbledick with the gun is to blame for this altercation IMO, sometimes the innocent can do things to de-escalate the situation. I'll bet if she or her baby daddy had it to do all over again their actions would be somewhat different. 

Perhaps the lady would say: "You are correct sir and I am sorry; however, there are no other spots and we'll only be a minute."

Perhaps baby daddy would have come outside and engaged in conversation.

This in no way absolves thimbledick and I hope the prosecutors see it differently that than sheriff did.   

 

(07-24-2018, 12:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt there are many lessons to be gleaned from this and there are a great many things that can lead to one's death. Hopefully, the cautionary tale is that sometimes you as a victim can take action to de-escalate a situation while not being at all responsible for the situation. Unfortunately, this is a concept that eludes some. 

(07-24-2018, 12:39 PM)Beaker Wrote: The baby daddy was wrong for shoving the shooter to the ground. And for parking in a handicapped spot. So there is blame on both sides.

(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.

(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. 

(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, 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.

(07-25-2018, 02:32 PM)PhilHos Wrote: 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.

(07-26-2018, 11:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm having a hard time understanding how some don't get that's it's almost never a good idea to take a verbal altercation to the physical level.  Words are just that, they don't cause physical damage.  For the obtuse among us, I am not suggesting that being pushed is justification to shoot the person who pushed you.  I am saying that the law does not allow you to use physical force against someone who is verbally accosting you or someone else.

When you escalate a verbal confrontation to a physical one you are creating a situation in which any number of bad things can happen.  Say he pushes the guy, guy falls down and hit his head at an awkward angle on the side of a car or on the curb.  Guy breaks his neck in the process and is paralyzed.  You are now legally responsible for causing severe and permanent bodily injury.  

The lesson here kids is be the bigger man and walk away.  Don't let someone else control you with words and put yourself in physical and legal jeopardy.



And no, for the morons, that doesn't justify being shot or excuse the shooter in any way.

(07-26-2018, 05:17 PM)Beaker Wrote: All victims are not totally innocent blameless victims. Some are.

(08-08-2018, 09:11 PM)Beaker Wrote: Another good reason why you shouldn't just physically assault someone as a first course of action.....could be a raging nut who is just looking for a reason to shoot you.

(08-08-2018, 09:35 PM)Beaker Wrote: Tell your wife not to let you park in the handicapped space in the first place you lazy, entitled S.O.B. 

(08-09-2018, 10:36 AM)Beaker Wrote: No, now we say people are stupid AND insane....and can have guns. So being cautious of some random yelling person is smarter than running up and shoving them to the ground. Just because someone else is being stupid, intrusive and indecent to you or a loved one doesn't mean that automatically requires indecent physical retaliation in return. Be the smarter bigger person. Maybe being taught that might start to change the crap show or society is turning into.

(08-10-2018, 01:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have never suggested the father walk away and have asserted I would have done the same or worse at that age.  I suppose if we wanted to peel the onion all the way back then the mother is to blame for parking illegally.

(08-10-2018, 02:55 PM)Beaker Wrote: I have simply been asserting that McGlockton was not a blameless victim. His actions escalated the situation. He did not deserve the outcome, but he was not blameless. To insist he was 100% blameless for what happened is naive. But we all agree the law is messed up.

So, to repeat:  "many" think that if the victim had just walked away he would not have been shot.  Probably true.  Also true is that for 11 pages people have found all kinds of ways to say the killer was 100% wrong...."but".

There was no reason, zero, zilch, nada, for a man to be shot and killed.  No matter what he did in this situation.  He acted as a human being who cared about his girlfriend.  Period.  All of the blame, from the man yelling at the woman over something that was not his responsibility to yell about to the shooting in response to being separated from the person he was yelling at, falls on the murderer.  No matter what the sheriff thinks.