Irrelevant. The test is would a reasonable person, who had just been knocked to the ground by a large man, fear that he is in danger of great bodily harm?
Really? This Qualifies For "Stand Your Ground"
- Thread starter Booky
- Start date
Irrelevant. The test is would a reasonable person, who had just been knocked to the ground by a large man, fear that he is in danger of great bodily harm?
Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law and Self-Defense
Florida Law Prior to the Enactment of the "Stand Your Ground" Law
Prior to Stand Your Ground, a person could use only non-deadly force to defend against the imminent use of unlawful non-deadly force. Deadly force was authorized only to defend against imminent deadly force or great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony.
Unless the person was in his home or workplace, he had a "duty to retreat" prior to using deadly force. In one's home, the "Castle Doctrine" provided that the person had no duty to retreat prior to using deadly force against an intruder. However, he still needed the reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to defend against deadly force, great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony.
Florida Law After the Enactment of the "Stand Your Ground" Law
The "Stand Your Ground" Law introduced two (2) conclusive presumptions that favor a criminal defendant who is making a self-defense claim:
In passing the "Stand Your Ground" Law, the Florida Legislature expressed its intent that no person should be "required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack." The "Stand Your Ground" Law effectively expands the "Castle Doctrine" by expanding what is meant by the concept of one's "castle" to include any place where a person is lawfully entitled to be.
Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law now provides immunity from prosecution, as opposed to an affirmative defense that you would need to assert in Trial (after being arrested and charged by the State of Florida).
Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
F.S. §776.013(3)
Florida Law Prior to the Enactment of the "Stand Your Ground" Law
Prior to Stand Your Ground, a person could use only non-deadly force to defend against the imminent use of unlawful non-deadly force. Deadly force was authorized only to defend against imminent deadly force or great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony.
Unless the person was in his home or workplace, he had a "duty to retreat" prior to using deadly force. In one's home, the "Castle Doctrine" provided that the person had no duty to retreat prior to using deadly force against an intruder. However, he still needed the reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to defend against deadly force, great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony.
Florida Law After the Enactment of the "Stand Your Ground" Law
The "Stand Your Ground" Law introduced two (2) conclusive presumptions that favor a criminal defendant who is making a self-defense claim:
- The presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear that deadly force was necessary; and
- The presumption that the intruder intended to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
In passing the "Stand Your Ground" Law, the Florida Legislature expressed its intent that no person should be "required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack." The "Stand Your Ground" Law effectively expands the "Castle Doctrine" by expanding what is meant by the concept of one's "castle" to include any place where a person is lawfully entitled to be.
Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law now provides immunity from prosecution, as opposed to an affirmative defense that you would need to assert in Trial (after being arrested and charged by the State of Florida).
Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
F.S. §776.013(3)
You should probably watch the video before you armchair defend someone who just murdered another man... He was pushed, not advanced at with a bat, if the dude was going to kill him he would have immediately got on top after pushed down, not step back. Shooter is a coward plain and simple
Is the the person knocked to the ground a reasonable person based on what occured and his known actions?
Did the victim know or know of the gunman and his potential for picking a fight.?
Was he defending his girlfriend? Does he have the right to defend her if he thinks she is danger?
These seem to relevent questions we do not know the answer to at this time.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Guy who made it physical made a big mistake, period. No need to watch the video.
The law does not require a person to take a beat down to defend himself.
So, knowing about reaction times, and defense situations, and the shooting required to stop the threat, you can't think of ANY instance where an assailant is being shot in a legitimate defense situation, and still ends up being "shot in the back"?
So, knowing about reaction times, and defense situations, and the shooting required to stop the threat, you can't think of ANY instance where an assailant is being shot in a legitimate defense situation, and still ends up being "shot in the back"?
Did you read the statute? The answers to your questions are not relevant.
Yes I did read the statute.
My point being there are many unanswered questions.
The statute can work in favor of the gunman standing his ground from the victims attack.
The statute can also work in favor for the victim defending his girlfriend from the would be gunman if he believes she is danger of bodily harm or death. The victim is is a regular at the store ( as per the manager) and the gunman has been heard by witnesses that he has threatened to shoot others in the past.
The gunman sounds like he has anger or possible mental issues issues based on the witness and manager statements. Should the gunman be licensed to possess a gun under the law?
It will be interesting to see how the investigation proceeds when all the facts are presented. Im just look at this from both sides. If this goes to trial, these questions are bound to come come up.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I think it's pretty hilarious some people think he should have had a civil discussion first, different mentality, they both visited that store frequently and we have no idea what he was saying to gf/wife when he came out. They're on the streets, he's not gonna shove him like that and not put him on the ground. For him to instigate an argument as a permit holder tho, and to fall to the ground in an almost rehearsed draw, then tracing him as he backs up looking at the gun, this is a no brainer, but they're both black so the media wont give this much coverage.
Shooter is white.
If I come out of a store and a random man is verbally berating my wife and kid, I will step in as would everyone here. You can't start a confrontation then claim self defense.
Sent from my SM-N950U using the svtperformance.com mobile app
My point exactly.
The girlfriends version is now coming out and it sounds very plausible.
Victim's girlfriend says gunman provoked fatal 'stand your ground' shooting
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"The owner of the convenience store in Clearwater told ABC affiliate WFTS that Drejka had assaulted customers in the store’s parking lot before. And Rich Kelly, who frequents the store, claimed Drejka picked a fight with him over a parking spot about a month ago, calling him racial slurs and threatening to kill him, WFTS reported."
No one should be defending this scumbag.
Sent from my SM-N950U using the svtperformance.com mobile app
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2017
- Messages
- 982
"Bob Gualtieri, the Pinellas County sheriff, insisted he has to follow the "stand your ground" law, which dictates that if a person feels threatened they have the right to shoot."
So, apparently, SYG gives a person the right to shoot someone if he feels threatened, but does NOT give one the right to shove someone away from his family if he thinks they are being threatened. Maybe he would have been OK if he had shot the guy instead of shoving him.
So, apparently, SYG gives a person the right to shoot someone if he feels threatened, but does NOT give one the right to shove someone away from his family if he thinks they are being threatened. Maybe he would have been OK if he had shot the guy instead of shoving him.
Last edited:
The dead guy escalated this to a physical incident. That was the fatal mistake. Yes, the shooter seems like a complete D-bag but yelling, arguing, etc. is completely different than cross checking someone in the street. Maybe yell at the guy to F-off, get in your vehicle, and drive your family to safety? I would NEVER escalate an incident like this with my family with me.
Verbal altercations do not mean physical attacks are allowed. SYG can be used when assaulted and in fear. Looks justified according to our laws.
Appropriate response to violating a handicapped parking spot.
U.M.
U.M.
I agree. Like the sheriff said, had pushy dude not pushed he would be alive today.
As big as the dude was all he had to do was stand in front of short guy and tower over him.
I looked hard at where shooters feet were before being pushed and where he landed, brutal.
Users who are viewing this thread
