Those are excellent examples of what does not justify use of deadly force, and you are a reasonable man. Those who grow up around guns, use them for sporting purposes and handle them responsibly seem more than others to recognize when force is justified and when it isn’t. Some responses here are scary.
Maybe.If someone is breaking into your home should you have to wait and see if they are after the tv and not there to rape your wife and daughter and murder you all?
Depends on the threat the intruder poses, actions taken, and much more.
@LuvMeSomeBoys I collect guns and it's amazing I've been shooting them my whole life and never hurt someone... Isn't that crazy to imagine ❤️ woww amazing how knowledge works
@Wowgirl30q. I own several and have been shooting since age 10 so I can relate. I’ve handled self-defense cases where deadly force was clearly warranted, but I’ve handled more where it was questionable or outright unjustified. Many don’t make the effort to understand why SYG exists and the limits to it, that is until they’re in custody and learn what the law actually says while they’re preparing for their own trial.
Both of you are clearly criminal and should have your guns impounded😁😉😁
Why as a officer do you especially hate it? Is it difficult to define?
That’s why New York is a shit hole. Cops of New York are tyrants. 10 years for defending his property. I’d someone broke into your house, you’d shoot them. Just saying.
@seldestruction, he was fleeing and had no weapon. I get it you don't know, if you hesitate and wait it's too late. NY is a shithole because of the Politicians...
@Wowgirl30q, I hate it because people don't understand the law and people don't u derstand what it's like to take a life even in Self Defense. I've come on cases where a guy killed another in self defense clear case no charges, witnesses, video, everything showed it all and cleared this guy immediately. A month later I respond to calls of a gun from a house, that same gun he used in self defense he shoved it in his mouth and blew his brains out. He left a note saying he couldn't live with what he did. I've seen and heard about these suicides many times. by the way, he was the one who called about the gunshot he didn't want his family to find him. I was first on the scene with his self defense and first on the scene with his suicide. Will never forget this one...
I see thank you for explaining that would be frustrating
Wowgirl30q, you're welcome. I figured someone might want a further explanation.
I pride myself on not being a know it all I feel you can learn something from everyone 🙂
Idc if they have a weapon or not. Y’all get away with murder for a ‘suspected’ weapon. If someone breaks into my house, they get shot. I’ve taken a fathers life in defense of my family. I see his face every time I let my mind have peace. But I don’t regret it. I’d do it again. Do. Not. Break. Into. My. House.
@Wowgirl30q, thank you for the MHO.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Florida’s self-defense laws need some overhaul for sure. It isn’t so much a problem with the laws themselves or applying them, it’s more a case of people with no legal background or even a sound lay understanding of the laws mischaracterizing them as a wholesale license to use deadly force anywhere, anytime they themselves think it’s justified. Uneven application based on race is, as you point out, another consideration.
The laws themselves are faulty too, not just for the issue that they are misinterpreted as you say. In the Trayvon Martin case, he was found not guilty because he did not break the law as it is written. All that is required is to say that you felt threatened, regardless of whether your life was in danger. And if you attack a black man and he responds negatively about that, you are now officially threatened and you can shoot him. All jurisdictions have self-defense laws. These laws take things to the next level as self-offense. Granted that after that case many white people shot black people with no provocation were convicted, the take away from the case is that self-defense is not required to legally shoot others, at least people who seem threatening (black men, women and children).
If you think “all that is required is to say you felt threatened, regardless of whether or not your life was in danger” then you are grossly misinterpreting the state’s statutes. Read the elements that must be satisfied, they are far more stringent than that.
That is such bull shit if that did happened, but im a little skeptical are you sure she was getting raped or he walked in on a guy he didn't like ramming his sister on a mutual level?
@Creepazoid Yeah he went to jail for long time , for defending his Sisterhis Sister didn't even know the guy, he came through her house and rapedher , Rupert picked up the first thing he saw which was ball bat and hit the guy it killed him.
The trouble with the idea of just restraining the guy is that you don't know what kind of guy you're up against. If the other guy is stronger than you you're not gonna be able to restrain him and you're probably not gonna beat him unarmed, and if he's a rapist he's probably not gonna have any problem with beating you to a pulp or perhaps even killing you for trying. What that guy did was right, it's the law that isn't. Laws and decisions made by people who don't understand the reality of violence.
@englisc Yeah your right , he was nice guy who got screwed over by the lawfor defending his own Sister. If i seen a guy raping my Sister sure in hell i willdefend her and take action against the guy.
@englisc restraining 🤣
when seconds count the police are minutes away.
Brake into my house, and its the last thing they do. I can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing.
The last place a gun fight will start is a gun show that's hilarious however thank you 😭
@Wowgirl30q My answer is a little broad but thanks. I’m a criminal defense attorney and have seen more than my fair share of lethal force in defense cases. They’re a hot mess. Seeing some of the responses here are pretty cringeworthy, and argue the point about mischaracterization. What do you think of SYG?
I knew there was some graduate school of some sort about..
Socially or Personally?
I feel the legal and social context should be more informative and more detailed misinformation or (ignorance) leaves to much wiggle room from state to state legislation.Personally it should be a set Federal law and I support it
@Wowgirl30q. In principle I agree with a uniform interpretation, but since it's constitutionally out of bounds for the federal government, it will remain up to the states. You've generated a lot of healthy discussion which highlights what I face every day - more faulty interpretation of SYG at the citizen/public level than anything else. You mentioned you're from the Midwest (so am I), what state are you from?
I would rather have basic rights then live outside the US
This is how so many women are raped and murdered. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. If you don't like guns, don't buy one, but don't decide for me how my family protects our home. by the way, no one has successfully used this rule for a simple trespass. It's designed to protect your family, yourself and your belongings.
@notjustanyguy i don't "dislike" guns. i fear guns in the hands of morons and the psychologically ill. you can buy a shotgun at walmart. in the end that helps the rapists more than the defenders, cause if you're not mentally broken, you will hesitate to just shoot someone. and that hesitation is what makes you lose the battle. you're throwing lots of things in one pot that don't belong there. if someone attacks you, of course you should have a right to defend yourself from physical harm. that's selfdefense laws and has nothing to do with tresspassing.i think there's no inherent problem to the right to own guns. i think there's a BIG problem with who can own a gun and how little it takes to own one. i understand that with this insane number of guns per capita, changing anything becomes virtually impossible but we know that if a country makes citizens jump through hoops to get a weapon like psychological assessment, obligatory trainings and educaltional courses, there is no rise in armed crime rates in correlation with higher weapon count per capita. however if every hillbilly can just walk into walmart to buy a shotgun without any questions aksed, guess what happens...less guns don't cause more rape. i don't even understand how you can seriously make this dumb argument.
Did you just say that someone can walk into Wal-Mart and buy a shotgun with no questions asked? By all means try. There is not a state in this nation that allows a gun store to sell a gun without a federal background check. It's called the Nix system. As I stated, no one has ever successfully killed someone and used stand your ground for a simple trespass. By all means prove me wrong. And yes guns prevent rape, over 55 thousand per year according to NCVS statistics. by the way, if you remove the 5 cities with the highest gun violence in America (all have the highest gun regulations in the country) we become one of the least violent per capita in the world. London has more homicides per year than New York, but there are no guns... How does That happen?
NICS system. Phones autocorrect is very liberal apparently.
@notjustanyguy Well fact is that there's too much violence due to guns and more guns won't ever solve that situation.
That is a very rational argument.
Come to the Midwest
It's the best
Fair enough sir❤️
Shooting guns is fine shooting people is not. I'm very simple. Don't start none...
Foreign ignorance at its finest.
@Wowgirl30qGiving easy access guns to people makes it easier to shoot people, obviously
@CapnHawk Sure there, your gun violence stats don't lie
Believe what you want.
@CapnHawk i believe numbers not opinions
That's your right.
No Mexico does well
You are absolutely correct. The largest part of the problem is very few actually bother to read the laws let alone understand them. The statutes are readily available online (usually through State Attorney websites), but all too many rely on word of mouth from the unknowing and misguided rather than read the law itself. I’m a lawyer, but one doesn’t need to be a lawyer to understand the concepts and basics, the elements, and the limits. One only needs to be literate. Lay audiences who participate in legal portions of carry and use of force classes are quick to grasp it, and realize the myths they’ve been fed. Where Floridians are concerned, they are badly misinterpreting the portability clause in the state’s statutes. And I smh every time I read a shithouse or Facebook lawyer’s interpretation of it.
I couldn't agree more (except the Florida part, not my state lol), the laws are even, mostly, written in very understandable terms. I open carry a lot, I read all of the laws and the constitutional guarantees before doing so. Even in lieu of actual training, reading statutes, talking to those versed in the legalities, and reaching out to clubs can give you the basic understanding needed to be responsible.Personal responsibility is dying, and Americans are allowing everyone to legislate their lives so they don't have to think.
Personal responsibility is indeed dying. Welcome to my world. I’ve defended clients who make their own ruling that a fatal defense shooting was justified when in fact it clearly wasn’t. Quite a few vigilante and retribution engagements are wrapped in self-defense, which unravels quickly under investigation. Turning a clear manslaughter case into a justifiable defense shooting is like asking me to polish a turd and make it smell pretty. Some cases of lethal force use are clearly justified, but many are questionable or outright manslaughter - or even second degree murder. And they all start with a bad decision and mistaken belief that SYG is an open license to shoot at will.
Lol I love the analogy. And thanks for your insight! I'm more sad now, but it is what it is.Also, thank you for your expertise and work to defend our rights (or so it sounds).
No need to be sad. People can sometimes get caught up in bad situations through no fault of their iwn. I try my best given what falls in my lap, which usually isn’t pretty.
I don't think most understand guns period.
@LuvMeSomeBoys smart lady
It is weird dude. Well put🤣
See the political influence pattern?
I’m working on common sense and life experience , I am pro 2nd amendment, but Darwin awards would never be award to the fucktarts that kill because they snow flaked and the wrong people dies. And you can’t fix that sort ofMistake The political influences? The further right, the Less other people lives matter. My observation only.
Liberals don't seem to like
Liberals do have issues with Indiscriminate killing. Yes. As conservatives do.
I do believe that if I defend myself I’d rather face 12 jurors than be carried by 6 poll bearers.
We can find us a nice middle my dear🥂
In my home state if someone steps foot on my property without permission I have the right to shoot to kill.
Me thinks you don't know where I live. So maybe do your self a favor and buzz off libtard
What if they do it by accident and you shootAre you happy about that?
@TripleAce me and him @worldscolide live in the same state very close to each other. I have guns in every room I would shoot a intruder with a small caliber and sleep fine. We have intruders will be shot signs and color coded markers for criminals who can't read. Home invasions don't happen really here.
@TripleAce you assume I wouldn't warn them first. Do your self a favor and stop grasping at straws.
Humans are humans. Not robotsIts more likely than not
Lol dude that made no sense. Do your self a favor if you're going to argue a point... Have a point to argue.
Lucky I'm not "H" if by that you mean the US
That’s called the “castle doctrine,” which states that you have the right to protect yourself in your own home.
@UnamedUser And anywhere that you might lay your head!
Maybe it doesn't need to be more clear. The victims need to have more rights than the criminals.
This law has been abused just like any other law, but it has saved more women from rape and murder than the police have. The police will solve your murder, but that gun could save your life. If that dreadful moment ever came (I hope it never does) and your door is kicked in by two men that intend to rape and murder you, would you rather have a gun, or a telephone?
@purplepoppy. No, it doesn’t but the problem is there are significant numbers of people who erroneously think it does. There is no state law anywhere that grants an open license to use lethal force for reasons other than reasonable fear of death or severe bodily harm to oneself or others. Problem is as discussed elsewhere, despite being available online and understandable to anyone who is literate, few actually read the laws.
Thanks and I meant life or well being, not live or well being.
Stay off his property lol
If you aren't being threatening no one's gonna shoot you though
@Nachowedgie You have more faith in strangers than I do
That's why you should have a gun yourself
@Nachowedgie You trust my judgement? You don’t even know me.
That's why we have a gun
You have a gun because I have a gun and you don’t trust me? How is it considered a good idea to arm a country full of paranoid people?
It does NOT give anyone the right to shoot for no reason. Floridians who believe are out of their minds.
They almost didn't even charge the florida guy but good thing someone didAnd he’s now guilty for man slaughter Good riddance
It took a month for wise heads to prevail, but he’s rightly convicted. Hope he rots in jail.
@LuvMeSomeBoys point was he wasn't going to be charged until someone took it upon themselves to charge himThe cops let him go cause of the stand your ground law
Not exactly true. Pinellis County drug their asses to investigate and present the case. Police said they were unclear over SYG but it wasn’t a prosecutorial issue. If anyone who is literate can’t understand the SYG law didn’t apply here, they are in serious need of some help reading. SYG isn’t the culprit. Only a fool would think it’s ok to shoot someone for parking in a handicap spot.
@LuvMeSomeBoys when it first happened, they let him go And the reason was because of the SYG rule Whatever happened after was due to someone following up on it So then what is the SYG rule for?
@LuvMeSomeBoys he didn’t shoot because of a parking spotHe shot him because the man pushed him to the ground so he feared for his life, apparently
The quarrel started with Drejka , who had a pet peeve with non-handicapped people parking in handicapped places. He approached the passengers in McGlockton’s car while McGlockton was inside the store and started a verbal altercation. McGlockton intervened when he came out because he saw the discussion, and ended up pushing Drejka away from the car. Drejka fell to the ground, but McGlockton stopped any further aggression. He did not pounce on or otherwise try to draw the event out. Drejka shot McGlockton, who was visibly unarmed and non-combative. There was no event that would justify use of deadly force. It is not a SYG issue, as none of the elements that would justify it are present. It’s not even a close call. And it’s not a race issue, it’s one of actions. Overall, it’s a stupidity issue. Welcome to my world. I deal with this all the time.
@LuvMeSomeBoys you deal with this all time Fair enough. Ill assume you are someHow tied to the justice systemWhen the man got pushed, he fell to the ground. Did he at that moment the man who pushed him is just doing it for the parking spot? Thats not obvious to the one being pushed to the ground. Right?
Yes I’m a criminal defense lawyer. This case is totally indefensible, and Drejka was rightly charged and convicted. This article has the video showing Drejka confronting the passengers in Mr. Glockton’s car (left side of screen innthe center). Mr. Glockton came out and pushed him away from the car, falling onto the concrete as a result. It’s important to note Mr. Glockton made no further aggressive move after that. It was over. Drejka pulled out a gun and shot Mr. G when he was clearly making no threatening move. He appears to be backing away. Nothing here even remotely resembles a situation where Drejka can make a believable claim he feared for his life. Mr. McGlocken is actually showing restraint. What got all jacked up was a bad read of the law that infers Drejka was immune from arrest because he made a statement claiming self-defense. That’s absurd. Such claims are only valid if results of investigation point that way. As far as arrest goes, a material witness warrant is a good remedy for any technical fault in the SYG law language. It’s a homicide; a reasonable use of force decision can only be made after investigation which was sorely lacking and weighted heavily on the shooter’s statement. The process was sloppy but the outcome was right.
@LuvMeSomeBoys I saw the video when it happenedI know whats in it. Thats why im saying what im sayingRegardless. He was pushed to the ground for what perhaps cAn easily be interpreted as someone is going to potentially follow up or when i get up again i might be attackedProcessing all that within seconds led him to shoot on his knees. Not standing upIt doesn't matter what happened before. Actually their little pre altercation just makes more of a case that he has something to worry aboutIm still confused in how its not SYG. You aren’t really clear on that focal point when he was pushed to the groundYou dont wait for a kick anda punch. A push to the ground is assault
@TripleAce why's Florida involved? I miss shit.
I see what you’re saying, although actions (or lack of them) are what matter here. A belief that something might happen isn’t supportable given Mr. McGlocken’s behavior. He made no further aggressive move to provoke Drejka. He didn’t jump in for a butt whooping or escalate in any way. It was over. Florida’s SYG also has a stand your ground provision for use of non-deadly force, but it is more confusing than informative. The spirit of the law is you don’t have to take a beating and not fight back. But the totality of the situation here does not even come close to meeting the standard for reasonableness when it comes to deadly force. It isn’t SYG just because the one involved says it was. Florida’s cases seem to focus on the letter of the law rather than the spirit and intent of it, which is one big reason that fuels discussion like this. But it’s healthy.
@LuvMeSomeBoys he should have gave the guy a chance to run away when he pointed the gun at him or if he stepped closer then he would have been within his right to shoot.
@highjinx Like any other incident that ends in violence, there are loads of scenarios that might have changed the outcome factually, but doubtful it would have changed anything legally. By his own admission Drejka went looking for trouble and instigated the confrontation. All over a parking space that had no impact on him. Like many other incidents this started over ridiculously petty reasons and ended badly, this should never have happened in the first place. I’ll aggressively defend anyone’s right to self-defense, but use of lethal force wasn’t warranted here.
@LuvMeSomeBoys so what are you trying to say here1 aggressive move is not enough, you need more than 1... that makes no senseso you wait until he attacks you and then stabs you now you can't even use your gun because you are severely damaged...ok there, makes a lot of sense sure lol
@TripleAce What I'm saying here is when the aggression stops, so must you. Using force, lethal or otherwise, as a preemptive measure based on a notion that your attacker will keep coming at you is a conceivable argument but one that more often than not fails. If you get pushed to the ground but the aggressor stops after that, justifying lethal force is an uphill battle. I think a lot of times SYG gets confused with SUFY (stand up for yourself) against bullies and street thugs. Each case has to be evaluated on its own merits against the question "was use of deadly force reasonable here?" Video and witness accounts support that the physical altercation was over after the shove, and McGocken made no further threatening move. Drejka shot him for one of the pettiest reasons, it made him mad.
@LuvMeSomeBoys so how are you suppose to use your gun if you are being attacked, stabbed?Then why is it people can legally shoot just with someone trespassing but not being aggressive Something is not consistent here with what you are saying
You’re talking two different issues. It is absolutely untrue that people can legally shoot someone for trespassing. While some outrageously make this statement it just isn’t so. Second issue pertains to Drejka’s shooting of Mr. McGlocken. There simply is no justification for use of lethal force when a physical altercation stops as soon as it starts. While speculation can spin people into scenarios that will “what if” you to death, Drejka was not in fear for his life. Stand Your Ground does not mean one has the right to escalate.
@LuvMeSomeBoys the only reason he got convicted was because the man was backing away when the gun was pulled on himBut thats a jury that made the decision... they felt he wasn’t justified But the stand your law rule is very clear, you can use deadly force upon threat or perceived threat This was perceived threat... the SYG is clearly the issue
It isn’t if you read the components of the law. www.leg.state.fl.us/.../0776.012.html
@LuvMeSomeBoys This law just states the norm that is pretty much everywhere Obviously if someone is coming at your with a knife you have the right to defend yourself by any meansAnd obviously if someone is not fatally coming at you, you also have the right to defend yourself without deadly forceThats like pretty much standard acorss north america. No one goes to jail for defenceSo what is the SYG law adding that isn't already there?
You’re correct on the principles of defense but state laws fall way short of conveying any norm across The United States. It’s states’ business and they don’t really have to. Whether you, I, or anyone agrees with SYG as a necessity is moot. The legislatures write them. The legislative intent was to remove or modify the duty to retreat, which was the default legal ruling on self-defense for years: deadly force could be used only as a last resort. The gravest extreme. The cornered cat who has no way out. While prosecutors mostly applied the intent intelligently and often ruled on the reasonable belief principle even when an intended victim had the means to retreat and avoid the loss of life, it lacked the specificity to protect those who used deadly force for fully justifiable reasons. More importantly, even if no charges were filed in a defense shooting, the door for wrongful death suits was wide open. DTR doesn’t play in a criminal court, but in litigation law it matters. Shooting little Timmy who is visibly armed and coming at me in a home invasion may be justified and never see the light of day in criminal court, but under previous law all the second guessing matters in a civil suit: I could have gone out the back door, I could have shot him in the leg, I could have winged him, I could have shot him once rather than empty the magazine into his chest. I’m not a litigation attorney, but the ones I work with tell me SYG in the language removes the ambiguity and deters frivolous lawsuits.
@LuvMeSomeBoys he didn't need to push him down he could have just left , and he paid with his life for that.
@highjinx Yes, and there are a lot of other could haves/should haves and other retrospective second-guessing phrases that apply here. The concept of SYG was initially the home or place of residence, which was extended to the vehicle, which was later extended in Florida and a few other states to any place one has a right to be. It’s conceptually like one walks around in an invisible bubble that is considered your home, which becomes problematic. The further away from the home/residence one tries to apply SYG in what one claims to be a self-defense shooting, the more questionable the circumstances become. Parking lot/public place and road rage shootings are more often than not exactly like this one. They start with a bad decision followed by yet another, and another. Then comes the which came first, the chicken or the egg argument over who started what and how did it escalate to the point of deadly force. A shove to the ground without further aggression does not justify use of legal force. McGlockton had no way of knowing at the time Drejka had a history of incidents in which he drew a gun for the most petty of reasons. Had Florida followed its own laws, Drejka would have had his carry permit suspended or revoked long before this. He shot McGlockton because he was angry, and there is absolutely no element of this incident that justifies use of deadly force. There are a lot of things wrong with the whole picture and nothing that is really right with it. If one carries, whether it’s licensed or under permitless or constitutional carry statutes, one has a legal responsibility to know the conditions under which one may use deadly force. Self-defense claims that are the result of provocative encounters and not reasonable belief that one’s life is in danger don’t hold up under the law, and are more likely to end up in manslaughter or second degree murder charges. This is one of those cases.
@LuvMeSomeBoys that not what i ment, law or no law you're still dead so im saying it would be wise to keek your hands off of people if he would have just got in his car and left he would still be alive , he was just yelling at them thats not going to hurt you , but he wanted to be a tough guy and push the wrong guy down and he paid with his life , he is at fault also. Trayvon martin case he caused his own death by looking for trouble he was on top punching zimmerman and he was lucky enough to get one shot off I would have done the same thing so would anyone else he should have stayed home safe but he wanted trouble so he went back out to confront zimmermen and it is what it is. lesson is don't be a tough guy and you won't have this happen to you , no law is going to save your life. when seconds count the police are minutes away.
@highjinx. It’s definitely good practice to keep one’s hands off others in any case. It’s also good practice not to confront someone’s girlfriend and her children in a car and persist in aggressively berating them when told to mind his own business. The only common feature with the Zimmerman/Martin case is both incidents should never happened. Zimmerman was already in the phone with police, and should have waited for their arrival rather than initiate a confrontation. Zimmerman was ultimately acquitted and rightly so - he was getting his skull cracked into the pavement. But the Zimmerman//Martin case does not compare with the Drejka/McGlockton case. I’m all for keeping hands off people, but I deal with consequence management and aftermaths all the time. I hear lots of Billy Bad Ass comments from defendants all the time. And what I’m saying to those who think Drejka was justified in using deadly force, best to let him do his time because if anyone is looking for a poster child for SYG Drejka is the worst possible example. A blind person can see use of deadly force was clearly unwarranted. He did get a break with manslaughter charges, which reduces his punitive exposure. He easily could have been convicted for second degree murder, especially with his history.
@LuvMeSomeBoys so if he would have shoot him in the leg or foot would he still be in jail?
@highjinx. Definitely, for aggravated assault and, under Florida’s own law, misuse of a firearm.
@LuvMeSomeBoys so no charges for pushing him to the ground he was much bigger and it looked like he pushed him as hard as he could he hit the ground pretty hard and he seemed in the video to be dazed the doesn't count at all?
@LuvMeSomeBoys because if he was a cop and he was being a dick while writing he a ticket and he pushed him down and the cop killed him he would be exonerated for certain.
@highjinx. Both would likely be charged.
What an horrendous reaction , she should be jailed , that's just ridiculous , gun in the car.