Would the Florida incident where the man shot and killed a man who pushed him down be legal in Illinois?

[Euler]

I remember hearing a reference to shooter being blind on the news. If true it helps justify the actions.

If Florida lets blind people drive and carry firearms, it might explain a lot more about Florida in general.

 

In the meantime, unless this guy is Daredevil, no.

[junglebob]

The law is pretty clear that if YOU FEEL your life is in danger then you can use lethal force. It does not matter what others feel or see, what matters is that you reasonably believe that your life is in danger at that moment.

 

Now that is what the law says. The problem is once you use lethal force, you have to defend it in front of a judge/jury and there feelings hardly matter, what matters are witnesses, videos and audio and if the prosecutor can convince the judge/jury that you were never in danger, well you are basically toast.

 

In this case, had the shooter been black and the victim white, there would have been charges. My personal belief (which by the way does not matter here) is that the shooter committed a crime. There was no evidence that his life was in danger but I cannot feel what he felt at that moment so he gets the benefit of the doubt.

I watched the video of that shooting,this morning, it was among those from Active Self Protection and John comments on the shooting. For some reason I can't find it now doing a search. I did find a posting under the title Parking Florida Man Shoots Man Who Pushed Him. It doesn't look like the guy was moving toward the shooter when he

was shot. Criminal charges weren't brought against him but he might face a civil trial.

[Bitter Clinger]

Is it this one?

 

[spanishjames]

Is it this one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TBXz2_o0KM

You can see in that video that there were plenty of open parking spaces available when they arrived.

[Glock23]

Is it this one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TBXz2_o0KM

You can see in that video that there were plenty of open parking spaces available when they arrived.

The victim or the shooter?

 

The video doesn't show the victim arrive.. he's already in the store.

 

It does show the shooter arrive, a truck leaving, and 2 other cars arriving, so it appears to be a fairly busy place... maybe no empty spots when the victim arrived.

 

Not to say that makes it ok to park in the handicap spot, though.

[spanishjames]

 

Is it this one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TBXz2_o0KM

You can see in that video that there were plenty of open parking spaces available when they arrived.

The victim or the shooter?

 

The video doesn't show the victim arrive.. he's already in the store.

 

It does show the shooter arrive, a truck leaving, and 2 other cars arriving, so it appears to be a fairly busy place... maybe no empty spots when the victim arrived.

 

Not to say that makes it ok to park in the handicap spot, though.

Here's the longer version. Note that the girl says she has a right to park anywhere she wants. https://youtu.be/iDtzofAUSJI

[fxdpntc]

 

 

Is it this one?

You can see in that video that there were plenty of open parking spaces available when they arrived.

The victim or the shooter?

 

The video doesn't show the victim arrive.. he's already in the store.

 

It does show the shooter arrive, a truck leaving, and 2 other cars arriving, so it appears to be a fairly busy place... maybe no empty spots when the victim arrived.

 

Not to say that makes it ok to park in the handicap spot, though.

Here's the longer version. Note that the girl says she has a right to park anywhere she wants.

 

She absolutely believes that she has that right. She has probably been indoctrinated to that belief since she was young enough to remember. It's not an abnormal opinion. She rattled it off, as quickly as you or I would say, we have a right to own or carry. She also probably believes her boyfriend has the right to put his hands on anyone, anywhere, anytime.

[tkroenlein]

Guys-this has NOTHING to do with the parking space.

[imfbarn]

 

 

The stand-your-ground law in FL is irrelevant. Stand-your-ground just means you're allowed to defend yourself if attacked. You're not required by law to run away.The only question, whether you ask it in FL or IL, is if you can use lethal force against someone who shoved you for hassling his girlfriend.

Actually, SYG merely takes away any requirement to try to retreat (Avoidance) if one can safely do so. It has nothing to do with whether you are allowed to defend yourself or not....

 

Well, logically you have 3 options if you're attacked: run away, defend yourself (possibly non-lethally), and submit. Calling for help, while also an option, still means you're going to be doing one of the other three until it arrives. If the legal requirement to run away is removed and if there's no legal requirement (of which I'm aware) to do either of the other two, I'd say it's the choice of the defender which option to pick. Does the word "allowed" not apply semantically?

 

Just because the law does not require a retreat, it will be a lot cheaper to retreat and call the police. I understand the arguments that he was within his rights but we need to put value on all human life or we are no better then the aggressor.

[Mr. Fife]

Actually she does have the right to park wherever she wants, and pay the fines or towing costs, etc. The shooter should have just minded his own business or called the cops to file a complaint. The boyfriend shouldn't have shoved him down. Everyone involved did everything wrong. Life goes from all good, to all bad in a matter of minutes. The gun community will suffer because of this because it adds fuel for all of the gun haters.

[Euler]

 

Well, logically you have 3 options if you're attacked: run away, defend yourself (possibly non-lethally), and submit. Calling for help, while also an option, still means you're going to be doing one of the other three until it arrives. If the legal requirement to run away is removed and if there's no legal requirement (of which I'm aware) to do either of the other two, I'd say it's the choice of the defender which option to pick. Does the word "allowed" not apply semantically?

Just because the law does not require a retreat, it will be a lot cheaper to retreat and call the police. I understand the arguments that he was within his rights but we need to put value on all human life or we are no better then the aggressor.

 

My point wasn't about this case. It's about the stand-your-ground law in general. Personally, I think this was a case of 2nd degree murder, and stand-your-ground has nothing to do with it.

[fxdpntc]

Guys-this has NOTHING to do with the parking space.

It also has NOTHING to do with the shooter being a crank, or whether the shooter was speaking to the woman in the car.

The only thing the law is concerned with, is what happened between the instant that McGlockton appeared in the video, until the instant the shooter pulled the trigger.

Absolutely nothing else.

[cope]

Ultimately our opinions do not matter...... nor does anyone here know the facts...... we see video with no audio..... no way to know what went down

 

lets see if I have the story correct from both sides of these forums:

 

A: senior citizen who could barely walk, and has one foot in the grave comes casually into the frame and politely asks the driver to move her car.... drivers boyfriend comes out and shoves poor old guy who cant defend himself.... then begins to tell the guy hes going to stomp him into the ground..... the only thing this model citizen could do to protect his life was kill the great monster who very clearly was going to destroy his soul

 

B: crazy middle aged guy who is well known for his history of attacking, harassing, and threatening to kill people for parking incorrectly is up to his old tricks standing outside the vehicle of a mother with 2 small children in the car and threatening to kill her if she doesnt move immediately.... the boyfriend/father comes out and sees this and following the law which provides he can use physical force to protect his family from life threatening danger proceeds to shove this nutcase...... the nutcase proving his mental abilities shoots the father/boyfriend and kills him...... he then sits there for a few seconds.... very casually stands up and starts flailing his arm at other drivers in what appears to be an aggressive motion.... I can only guess maybe they were about to park with 1 tire touching the white line or some other high crime worthy of capital punishment

 

Yep very clear case indeed........ all opinion..... would love to hear what that 3rd guy heard being said.......

 

This case should be determined by a jury..... plain and simple

 

Sure we can argue he was defending himself..... very easy to also argue the victim was defending his family

[tkroenlein]

Guys-this has NOTHING to do with the parking space.

 

 

It also has NOTHING to do with the shooter being a crank, or whether the shooter was speaking to the woman in the car.

The only thing the law is concerned with, is what happened between the instant that McGlockton appeared in the video, until the instant the shooter pulled the trigger.

Absolutely nothing else.

I agree.

 

I think this event could be a case study in what a “reasonable person” perceives as a threat.

[Mr. Fife]

1 - Who thinks that if if kept the gun in his pocket he would have gotten a further beat down?

 

 

2 - Who thinks that there would be less controversy if he would have shot immediately once he was on target instead of shooting after a delay?

 

[Smallbore]

 

Guys-this has NOTHING to do with the parking space.

It also has NOTHING to do with the shooter being a crank, or whether the shooter was speaking to the woman in the car.

The only thing the law is concerned with, is what happened between the instant that McGlockton appeared in the video, until the instant the shooter pulled the trigger.

Absolutely nothing else.

 

I agree.

I think this event could be a case study in what a “reasonable person” perceives as a threat.

l disagree but I am not a legal expect.

It appears the shooter was verbally assaulting the victim's women being very close to her. Would not a "reasonable man" go to the defense of his lady. He moved a highly potential danger away from a weaker person then immediately dropped his hands.

You can not ignore the manifest intent of the shooter nor the victim.

I am 20 years older than the shooter. I carry. I support the victims actions over the shooters action. This was a bad shoot being it was not necessary.

[WitchDoctor]

 

 

Guys-this has NOTHING to do with the parking space.

It also has NOTHING to do with the shooter being a crank, or whether the shooter was speaking to the woman in the car.

The only thing the law is concerned with, is what happened between the instant that McGlockton appeared in the video, until the instant the shooter pulled the trigger.

Absolutely nothing else.

I agree.

I think this event could be a case study in what a “reasonable person” perceives as a threat.

l disagree but I am not a legal expect.

It appears the shooter was verbally assaulting the victim's women being very close to her. Would not a "reasonable man" go to the defense of his lady. He moved a highly potential danger away from a weaker person then immediately dropped his hands.

You can not ignore the manifest intent of the shooter nor the victim.

I am 20 years older than the shooter. I carry. I support the victims actions over the shooters action. This was a bad shoot being it was not necessary.

 

I could not agree more. This did not have to happen.

[cope]

1 - Who thinks that if if kept the gun in his pocket he would have gotten a further beat down? 2 - Who thinks that there would be less controversy if he would have shot immediately once he was on target instead of shooting after a delay?

 

1- given that the victim had ample time after the initial shove to give a ground pounding and instead stood there in a defensive posture between the shooter and his girlfriend I would say no ... no further physical contact was coming unless the shooter got up and became aggressive again

 

2- the hesitation in the shot does create some controversy... what creates more controversy is that the victim upon seeing the gun turned to flee, when coupled with the hesitation there was no reason to squeeze the trigger (granted the time we are talking about here is mere seconds)

 

and Im STILL trying to figure out why after he laid the gun down... sat for a few seconds... he then picked the gun back up and started walking towad the main road waving it around like a maniac

[NRApistol]

1 - Who thinks that if if kept the gun in his pocket he would have gotten a further beat down? 2 - Who thinks that there would be less controversy if he would have shot immediately once he was on target instead of shooting after a delay?

3. Who thinks displaying the firearm was enough to take control of the situation. Sorry Fife but aunt Bea ponders that question.

[cope]

 

1 - Who thinks that if if kept the gun in his pocket he would have gotten a further beat down? 2 - Who thinks that there would be less controversy if he would have shot immediately once he was on target instead of shooting after a delay?

3. Who thinks displaying the firearm was enough to take control of the situation. Sorry Fife but aunt Bea ponders that question.

 

 

3 - displaying the firearm was clearly enough.... once the firearm came out (actually before it came out / as the shooter was reaching) the victim turned and started to move away.... the situation was over at that point.... no need to squeeze the trigger

 

again though this happened in a matter of seconds... as much as I think this was a bad shoot, I cant say unequivocally given the short time I would have done any different

[Mr. Fife]

Enough to turn the whole situation into a sheetshow.

[Illinois Sucks]

He moved a highly potential danger away from a weaker person then immediately dropped his hands.

Dropped his hands to pull up his shorts and then took more steps forward to finish what he started. He did not pause or back up till the gun came out. It's clear he was not done and thankfully the guy had a gun to defend himself.

[cope]

 

He moved a highly potential danger away from a weaker person then immediately dropped his hands.

Dropped his hands to pull up his shorts and then took more steps forward to finish what he started. He did not pause or back up till the gun came out. It's clear he was not done and thankfully the guy had a gun to defend himself.

 

 

Its clear you have never been in OR seen anyone fight. If he was going to finish what he started he would have finished it. Nobody in a fight waits for their opponent to collect his thoughts and stand back up to continue. "My apologies for you falling over sir, I will stand here and wait til you stand up so we may continue our tussle" He would have gone straight in and pounded the shooter.

[Illinois Sucks]

 

 

He moved a highly potential danger away from a weaker person then immediately dropped his hands.

Dropped his hands to pull up his shorts and then took more steps forward to finish what he started. He did not pause or back up till the gun came out. It's clear he was not done and thankfully the guy had a gun to defend himself.

 

 

Its clear you have never been in OR seen anyone fight. If he was going to finish what he started he would have finished it. Nobody in a fight waits for their opponent to collect his thoughts and stand back up to continue. "My apologies for you falling over sir, I will stand here and wait til you stand up so we may continue our tussle" He would have gone straight in and pounded the shooter.

 

 

LOL... you are right. ALL fights go exactly how you described.

 

It is clear you didn't watch the video. Please watch it and then come back and try to argue that the the big dude did not continue forward towards the guy he just shoved off his feet until the guy being assaulted reached for his pistol.

[BigJim]

As a handicapped person who needs a walker and needs help to get up off the ground the way my view this is the guy had a right to shoot after the guy who knocked him down continue to come toward him.

[Mr. Fife]

 

It is clear you didn't watch the video. Please watch it and then come back and try to argue that the the big dude did not continue forward towards the guy he just shoved off his feet until the guy being assaulted reached for his pistol.

I tried playing it over and over again, but I'm watching it on my phone. To me, it looks like the pusher took exactly one step back when the downed guy had his hand in his pocket, but gun not yet removed.I don't have the capability to do frame by frame, but someone in the other thread did, and says he was backing away.

 

Either way I saw no reason to shoot. Play it frame by frame, the shooter took 3 full seconds to draw and take aim as the other gentleman WAS backing away. Maybe he made an aggressive move just before the shot, maybe not. Hard call.

If that's true and he was backing off, the threat was over and there was no reason to draw, IMO. You see him draw without the intention of shooting, he drew to warn or threaten.Now, once the gun was introduced the pusher guy probably yelled some profanities at him or something, and provoked him to shoot.That's what it looks like to me. Or maybe he didn't mean to shoot and just got twitchy with his finger on the trigger. Of course it's all speculation and the audio would certainly tell more of the story.Aunt Bea agrees with me and so do Ange, Opie, Howard, Emmet, Thelma, Helen, the sheriff in Mount Pilot, and Floyd. Only Goober thinks I'm wrong.

[fxdpntc]

 

 

Guys-this has NOTHING to do with the parking space.

It also has NOTHING to do with the shooter being a crank, or whether the shooter was speaking to the woman in the car.

The only thing the law is concerned with, is what happened between the instant that McGlockton appeared in the video, until the instant the shooter pulled the trigger.

Absolutely nothing else.

I agree.

I think this event could be a case study in what a “reasonable person” perceives as a threat.

l disagree but I am not a legal expect.

It appears the shooter was verbally assaulting the victim's women being very close to her. Would not a "reasonable man" go to the defense of his lady. He moved a highly potential danger away from a weaker person then immediately dropped his hands.

You can not ignore the manifest intent of the shooter nor the victim.

I am 20 years older than the shooter. I carry. I support the victims actions over the shooters action. This was a bad shoot being it was not necessary.

 

 

Yes, I do think it could have been avoided. But it wasn't avoided. It happened. So a trial judge would only be interested in his court coming to a decision, of justifiable or not. And that the decision would stand up to appeal. If Drejka's or McGlockton's character or previous history is allowed to be brought up in the courtroom. It won't.

[stm]

Simply reviewing the silent video is inconclusive. A lot of people here seem to be basing their opinions on what they *think* happened, and assuming motives that cannot be proven.

 

Testimony from witnesses on what was said and how it was said will be needed to determine guilt or innocence.

 

When evaluating whether the use of force was justified, some of the factors that may be considered are age disparity, size disparity, number of attackers and ground position. The last one may be especially important in these circumstances, when taken into consideration with the rest of the evidence.

[Illinois Sucks]

 

It is clear you didn't watch the video. Please watch it and then come back and try to argue that the the big dude did not continue forward towards the guy he just shoved off his feet until the guy being assaulted reached for his pistol.

I tried playing it over and over again, but I'm watching it on my phone. To me, it looks like the pusher took exactly one step back when the downed guy had his hand in his pocket, but gun not yet removed. I don't have the capability to do frame by frame, but someone in the other thread did, and says he was backing away.

 

Either way I saw no reason to shoot. Play it frame by frame, the shooter took 3 full seconds to draw and take aim as the other gentleman WAS backing away. Maybe he made an aggressive move just before the shot, maybe not. Hard call.

If that's true and he was backing off, the threat was over and there was no reason to draw, IMO. You see him draw without the intention of shooting, he drew to warn or threaten. Now, once the gun was introduced the pusher guy probably yelled some profanities at him or something, and provoked him to shoot. That's what it looks like to me. Or maybe he didn't mean to shoot and just got twitchy with his finger on the trigger. Of course it's all speculation and the audio would certainly tell more of the story. Aunt Bea agrees with me and so do Ange, Opie, Howard, Emmet, Thelma, Helen, the sheriff in Mount Pilot, and Floyd. Only Goober thinks I'm wrong.

 

 

Play it on a computer on YouTube and use the settings to slow it down to quarter speed. After the shove the dude takes three steps forward. Watch the dude in the blue shirt. He changes direction when he recognizes the guy is reaching for his gun. That is about half a second after the dude that shoved him recognizes this and takes a step back.

[tkroenlein]

 

l disagree but I am not a legal expect.

It appears the shooter was verbally assaulting the victim's women being very close to her. Would not a "reasonable man" go to the defense of his lady. He moved a highly potential danger away from a weaker person then immediately dropped his hands.

You can not ignore the manifest intent of the shooter nor the victim.

I am 20 years older than the shooter. I carry. I support the victims actions over the shooters action. This was a bad shoot being it was not necessary.

I’ll agree that there’s 10,000 ways this could’ve have happened that didn’t end in a shooting. But, I think you’ve got to make a bigger stretch to justify pushing the shooter down than you would to justify the shooting. I’ve seen nothing more than finger pointing from the shooter up until he gets pushed. Pointed fingers don’t make much of an assault without hearing what he said. Did he make a threat? Maybe. It wasn’t a very scary one evidently because they lady exited her car and was moving toward him when he got pushed down. As to the “retreat,” watch how far the deceased moved away vs everyone else who got clear out of the frame.

 

Personally, morally, I think the shooter broke a commandment.

 

I’m not convinced he broke the law.