Other State Stand your ground shooting Florida

[Argonaut]

My buddy and I were shooting his new micro 9mm Sig 238 (?) in the yard a few days ago......impressive little pocket pistol......then I shot this (that usually resides in my pocket) 2 rounds of +P 45 long Colt within 3 inches of the bull at 15 feet. Might have been a fluke but it has always shot very well and is extremely handy.

 

[Argonaut]

The attacker was what, 8 feet away? He had already shown a willingness to commit an act of violence, and be advised that nearly 700 people are killed in the US annually by "personal weapons" such as hands and feet.

If the attacker had decided, from 8 feet away, to mess the shooter up, he could have. Easy. Was the attack over, or just a pause between violent acts? Who knows? The shooter didn't, but apparently he wasn't willing to bet his life on the question. The distance the perp was from the victim has little to do with a justified shooting, If he turned back to continue the attack, all bets are off. The video indicates he was leaving and was done. I have been trained and trained others in use of deadly Force for nearly 50 years. This one from the video evidence is questionable.......and like all shootings, will become a life altering event for the shooter.





P

The civil court will have a chance to decide........and win or loose, the shooter will spend everything he has defending himself in court.

 

[OldBroad44]

I'm glad it worked out.

If he had changed his mind and jumped you from 8 feet away, unless it was a CNS hit, you wouldn't be here today. And lowering the gun at 15 feet goes against training as well.

But again, it worked out.
P

There's a difference between ideal and real world. To shoot sooner would have been safer for me, but would have involved shooting somebody who was trying to de-escalate. Somebody with no weapons in hand. If he had had even just a knife in hand I would have shot him when he started the charge, from 30 feet away.

I often wondered after the fact as to whether I should have kept the gun pointed on the guy until he was completely gone, and thought maybe I should have. I had given much thought about when to point a gun at someone, and when to shoot if required, but no thought at all to when to stop pointing a gun. I no longer felt threaten with the guy 15 feet away with his hands up and withdrawing backwards, and had no intention of shooting him. So I quit pointing the gun at him. I would probably do that differently today. But I was telling what I actually did then, not what might have been ideal.

A couple of after-thoughts. Boy was I glad I had practiced deploying my edc. Second. This was a revolver. But some people with semiautos for edc are proponents of carrying with an empty chamber. (Not me.) That would not have worked. There was simply not enough time available to work a slide.

 

[bbbass]

The attacker was what, 8 feet away? He had already shown a willingness to commit an act of violence, and be advised that nearly 700 people are killed in the US annually by "personal weapons" such as hands and feet.

If the attacker had decided, from 8 feet away, to mess the shooter up, he could have. Easy. Was the attack over, or just a pause between violent acts? Who knows? The shooter didn't, but apparently he wasn't willing to bet his life on the question.
P

If I am holding someone at gunpoint and they make a move on me, I would be willing to bet that I could put 8rds (5 for sure) center mass before they could touch me.

BTW, we practice draw and shoot on a moving target to practice the 21' "attacker with a knife" scenario. PAR is 3 seconds. If I had a handgun already pointed at the chest, I'm pretty sure what I could do, even with reaction time figured in.

 

[American123]

So why not just arrest Drejka and let the courts sort it out? Florida's Stand Your Ground Law? First off the media has really bastardized the definition of Stand Your Ground. It is not a license to commit murder outside of your home if you feel threatened. Like Castle Laws for inside your home, Stand Your Ground simply removes your Duty to Retreat from an encounter in public before using force. The relevant law in this case is Self Defense Immunity. Last year Florida shifted the burden to the prosecution to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooter acted in self defense. Florida Places the Burden of Proof on the State in Stand Your Ground Immunity Hearings

The relevant sections found here Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine also states that the Sheriff would be Civilly libel for the unlawful arrest, which is why this Sheriff declined to since the burden of proof on the prosecution is so high.

The whole concept of innocent until proven guilty.... where does that fall into this situation? The aggressor had the advantage of strength, speed, position, mentality. He wasn't even that far away from the shooter, it wasn't as if this shooter was far way when he took the shot. He was able to decide to engage physically, the shooter wasn't given that chance, it was made for him. Why would someone who defended themselves from an attacker who initiated the physical attack be arrested for defending himself? If an initial investigation does not produce evidence to arrest the individual than his freedom should not be so flippantly disregarded.

Confronting POS parking in the handicap zone without a permit is not something only people with guns do. Ignoring people who break reasonable laws that can be easily addressed most of the time without incident continue to allow our society to degrade to the BS that it has become. Parking in the handicap zone without being handicapped is a sign of complete and utter laziness/selfishness, A reasonable person does not perceive having a discussion about a parking space to lead to being attacked from behind by another person not part of the discussion. If the woman would have ignored the man this would have ended relatively benignly, but instead she decided to take her, 'I am complete trash' final form which likely is the reason why the pusher initiated contact the way he did.

These kinds of situations actually help our society be more polite if you think about it. It reminds people that their actions can have real consequences and instead of haphazardly assaulting people on whims they may think about resolving the manner without resorting to assault.

 

[CombatMechanic]

The whole concept of innocent until proven guilty.... where does that fall into this situation? The aggressor had the advantage of strength, speed, position, mentality. He wasn't even that far away from the shooter, it wasn't as if this shooter was far way when he took the shot. He was able to decide to engage physically, the shooter wasn't given that chance, it was made for him. Why would someone who defended themselves from an attacker who initiated the physical attack be arrested for defending himself? If an initial investigation does not produce evidence to arrest the individual than his freedom should not be so flippantly disregarded.

Confronting POS parking in the handicap zone without a permit is not something only people with guns do. Ignoring people who break reasonable laws that can be easily addressed most of the time without incident continue to allow our society to degrade to the BS that it has become. Parking in the handicap zone without being handicapped is a sign of complete and utter laziness/selfishness, A reasonable person does not perceive having a discussion about a parking space to lead to being attacked from behind by another person not part of the discussion. If the woman would have ignored the man this would have ended relatively benignly, but instead she decided to take her, 'I am complete trash' final form which likely is the reason why the pusher initiated contact the way he did.

These kinds of situations actually help our society be more polite if you think about it. It reminds people that their actions can have real consequences and instead of haphazardly assaulting people on whims they may think about resolving the manner without resorting to assault.

Amen brother! Nice to see some common sense finally.

 

[CombatMechanic]

It's interesting how many forum members have faulted the shooter for his involvement in this. Some even stating, 'if he didn't make a big deal about the parking space this wouldn't have hapoened' But apparently the guy who comes out of the store and very violently shoved the shooter gets a free pass for initiating the physicality of the event.

The concept of fighting in this country is strange, because humans are in many ways extremely fragile and can be very easily killed bare handed when the right amount of pressure/force is applied in the right area/direction. Saying something to the effect of, 'he only pushed him' ignores the frailty of the human body. Had old man landed head first into the pavement he could have easily been dead or 'vegetabled,'

If as a young man I desired to do lethal bodily harm bare handed to an older person it wouldn't be incredibly difficult, and if I committed to such action the old person didn't preempt that assault before it started, there wouldn't be much they could do to stop it before being rendered incapacitated.

This seems to have fallen into the category of, 'don't mess with old men, they are too weak to physically defend themselves and will just shoot you' because as an old person, to lose a physical fight could very easily mean death.

Some people seem to forget that violence exists on a sliding spectrum and once you choose to get on the slide, you aren't always in control of how far you'll end up on the spectrum.

Well said! I'm glad another older gentlemen such as my self understanding that someone putting their hands on you in an aggressive physical manner can easily be a life ending situation. Maybe the naysayers are younger and fit to protect themselves, but those of us that aren't so young or fit still have a right to defend our life with our RIGHT!

 

[CombatMechanic]

Potential Oregon crazyness aside, how does verbal confrontation escalated to physical confrontation make it the fault of someone talking? It would appear our entire society is built upon the idea that someone can effectively say whatever they want to eachother and it be considered harmless in the eyes of the law but making physically aggressive actions is where the crimes starts to take place.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[American123]

Well said! I'm glad another older gentlemen such as my self understanding that someone putting their hands on you in an aggressive physical manner can easily be a life ending situation. Maybe the naysayers are younger and fit to protect themselves, but those of us that aren't so young or fit still have a right to defend our life with our RIGHT!

Sorry to disappoint, I am not an older gentleman, lol. I just acknowledge the frailty of the human body only increases with increased age. I think you might want to cool it down a bit turbo, looks like you joined yesterday and jumping into the highly political/controversial threads day 1 and 2 wouldn't be the route I would advise to enjoying the forum.

 

[CombatMechanic]

Sorry to disappoint, I am not an older gentleman, lol. I just acknowledge the frailty of the human body only increases with increased age. I think you might want to cool it down a bit turbo, looks like you joined yesterday and jumping into the highly political/controversial threads day 1 and 2 wouldn't be the route I would advise to enjoying the forum.

Ah, hah, well even better! I appreciate you even acknowledging us! I didn't know there was a waiting period to express my opinion? Didn't read that in the rule! Well I'm old and stubborn

 

[American123]

Ah, hah, well even better! I appreciate you even acknowledging us! I didn't know there was a waiting period to express my opinion? Didn't read that in the rule! Well I'm old and stubborn

Everyone has opinions. What distinguishes people's opinions are their ability to produce and support a coherent stance with evidence without resorting to unnecessary banter, satire, personal quips, or circular discussion that lead nowhere. There is also a lot to be said for brevity. I would recommend making your contributions to the forum more substantial in terms of content/quality and less inflammatory. There are ways of having discussion without it becoming arguments. Enjoy the forum, there are a lot of great threads, entertaining threads, threads with lots of knowledge in this forum. I wouldn't limit myself to the political spectrum.

 

[CombatMechanic]

Everyone has opinions. What distinguishes people's opinions are their ability to produce and support a coherent stance with evidence without resorting to unnecessary banter, satire, personal quips, or circular discussion that lead nowhere. There is also a lot to be said for brevity. I would recommend making your contributions to the forum more substantial in terms of content/quality and less inflammatory. There are ways of having discussion without it becoming arguments. Enjoy the forum, there are a lot of great threads, entertaining threads, threads with lots of knowledge in this forum. I wouldn't limit myself to the political spectrum.

Thanks for the advice. I am who I am. Hah and I've seen some of the so called "substantial" contributions on here. Not sure I'm seeing much more tact, self control, or respect from a number of folk I've talked with. It's a very territorial website, lots of "advice." Politics and gums are intertwined, and controversial. Just like the real world you're gonna meet those who disagree and you can't expect respect from a faceless talking head that goes straight to telling me how they think it's best I should live my life without ever meeting me. Sorry, but we don't always get what we want.

 

[Medic!]

Can only see so much in the video. Can not hear anything.
So I cant say in specifics what all factored in.

But I do know this.

''An eye for an eye'' is not about vengeance.
It's about limiting retribution to no greater than ''An eye for an eye''. It's not a head for an eye.

I do know they are both wrong. And here's the proof.
One is dead. And the other is ruined.

Now when you add in the damage done to the community. And the fact that more people could be hurt or killed as a result of this incident?

That Idea of limiting retribution. And preventing escalation makes a lot of sense.

 

[CombatMechanic]

Can only see so much in the video. Can not hear anything.
So I cant say in specifics what all factored in.

But I do know this.

''An eye for an eye'' is not about vengeance.
It's about limiting retribution to no greater than ''An eye for an eye''. It's not a head for an eye.

I do know they are both wrong. And here's the proof.
One is dead. And the other is ruined.

Now when you add in the damage done to the community. And the fact that more people could be hurt or killed as a result of this incident?

That Idea of limiting retribution. And preventing escalation makes a lot of sense.

How's the guy ruined? I haven't read anything that implied that. In the eyes of the law the living gentlemen is right, and rightly so. More people hurt? So now these two men are responsible for what others choose to do with themselves? I don't buy that malarkey.

 

[Medic!]

How's the guy ruined? I haven't read anything that implied that. In the eyes of the law the living gentlemen is right, and rightly so. More people hurt? So now these two men are responsible for what others choose to do with themselves? I don't buy that malarkey.

This man will be ruined much in the same way George Zimmerman was ruined.
Both financially and publicly. Not to mention his own conscience in time.

And no. He is not responsible for what others do. But his actions could have unforeseen results, that could cause others to get hurt. And he will get the blame.
Again not his fault. But regrettable.

Remember ''Cant we all just get along''?

As to malarkey?
I am full of it.

And if you calm down a little bit. And last around here? You'll see more I'm sure.

 

[CombatMechanic]

This man will be ruined much in the same way George Zimmerman was ruined.
Both financially and publicly. Not to mention his own conscience in time.

And no. He is not responsible for what others do. But his actions could have unforeseen results, that could cause others to get hurt. And he will get the blame.
Again not his fault. But regrettable.

Remember ''Cant we all just get along''?

As to malarkey?
I am full of it.

And if you calm down a little bit. And last around here? You'll see more I'm sure.

Hah! I'm as coool as a cucumber. I don't get mad over internet talk, though seems quite a few do here. Youngins.

Naw, he isn't a Zimmerman. Not even close.

I doubt the guy cares if he's to blame for idiots hurting others because they lack self control.

I'm also full of it! Hah!

 

[Medic!]

Hah! I'm as coool as a cucumber. I don't get mad over internet talk, though seems quite a few do here. Youngins.

Naw, he isn't a Zimmerman. Not even close.

I doubt the guy cares if he's to blame for idiots hurting others because they lack self control.

I'm also full of it! Hah!

Time will tell if he's a Zimmerman?

As to the man's conscience? You may be right.
I only know how I feel about matters of guilt.

 

[CombatMechanic]

Time will tell if he's Zimmerman?

As to the man conscience? You may be right.
I only know how I feel about matters of guilt.

I just don't see the circumstances matching up. Plus there's video. But that's just me.

I got enough guilt if my own to be sharing it about others actions.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

It is real easy , while in the comfort and safety of our home to say :
"If it was me , I would have done this..."
Or
"If I was there...."

Again speaking from my experiences of defensive gun use ...
I can say that you had better be " totally in the right " and have had no other options at your disposal....
Because you will be questioned , seconded guessed and judged , by all who were there , who responded and by those who weren't there or don't have a clue.

And again...
We all have different experiences , opinions and outlooks.
Express your thoughts , respectfully and refute the thoughts of others , without :
Blanket statements...
Name calling...
Snide / sarcastic remarks...
Assuming...
Attacking the member...
Thank you,
Andy

 

[bgdawgrr]

Alright, my .02.
First, the handicap thing. 1. You never know who or why someone has a placard. 2. People forget to hang them sometimes.
Imo, better to always leave it alone. Just cause it's not displayed, can make you look like an bubblegum. (Or get you in a shooting)
One example I've lived that stands out. My buddy John and I were going to the mall around Christmas. Couldn't find a spot after several go rounds.
There were about 10 open handicapped spots, so he took one. Guy is watching us whole time.
John pulls out his placard and we start to go in. This guy charges us and starts yelling about how much of an bubblegum*ole we are. "You don't look handicapped" cause he walked normal and he "knows it" cause we passed those spots 5-6 times. Now a crowd is gathering.
John pulls up his pant leg and shows his artificial leg. Needless to say, the guy looked like the bubblegum in front of a ton of holiday shoppers. John didn't believe in using the spots unless absolutely necessary because other are worse off in his opinion.

Shooting- the thing we are missing is the audio. Did the guy threaten Drejka before, during, and after the shove? It appears to me he intended to continue the assault until the gun appears.
Did the lady yell "you want your gun baby!" Did he say "oh, you got a gun, you better shoot me or I'll kill you". Or did he say "hey, take it easy, sorry" while backing off and it was almost an execution?
Hard to judge, but I do know this: 1. Mind your own business and avoid starting trouble, especially while carrying. 2. Physically assaulting someone may get you killed. 3. I have a hard time with a claim of "self defense" when you start it. 4. Not sure the race of Drejka, but if it was a black man pushed down by a white man, in the south, would there be protests? I'm tired of the race baiting and I am a minority.