And if you are carrying a gun, it should be your damn mission to avoid starting arguments and getting into yelling matches.

This is an important point, and was emphasized in the firearms training I have had.

An instructor in a defensive pistol training that I took, said if a bad guy forced his way into his house, he would run out the back door as fast as he could, because if he could get away without shooting, he would. He said if the law would otherwise allow justifiable deadly force, if he could still get away without using his gun, he would. I thought that might be a decent rule of thumb, other things being equal of course, because of all the hell one has to go through after a righteous shoot, which was his exact point. He was a current vereran police officer with all kinds of experience including street vice etc. I don't know if he ever did any swat work, but he was better than good with his strong side S&W semi, with extreme proficiency, speed, and accuracy. He was a very nice person too, which made the class very satisfying. But what he had me doing was hard for me to execute because I had never trained like that before and had no muscle memory with the drills.

I am NOT saying this is what one should do, I'm just saying I can see his point of view. It sounded like he had used deadly force before one or more times in his job or life.

the previous poster who said avoiding going into areas or situatinos arrmed where you would otherwise not travel through or put yourself into, gives good advice. I think exercising that rule of thumb, when possible and reasonable, is very effective in avoiding trouble of all kinds. Extending this to controlling your reaction to jerks of all kinds is also very effective. I follow these principles religeously for myself. Except for your ego and sense of justice, it's a win all around, particularly for oneself. Karma will take care of the perp just fine without your assistance.

This occurred a few miles from me. Appears that at least three assholes are involved,the pusher,the shooter and my Sheriff. Asshole #2,the shooter, was probably on solid SYG law up until asshole #1
the pusher, appears to turn and walk away, at that point IMO the threat has past and this confrontation should be over. Its clear SYG
will now become a major issue in the Election of our next Governor in November.
IF you are CCW you have a responsibility to
avoid this type of crap.

quote:

Originally posted by 104RFAST:
Its clear SYG will now become a major issue in the Election of our next Governor in November.

And likely the entire motivation behind the sheriff’s decision. Purely political.

quote:

Originally posted by arfmel:
After another look at the video, I'm more inclined to agree that Markeis appeared to be retreating after the gun was drawn, and Drejka's shot wasn't so much in self-defense as in revenge.

Both of them are idiots and assholes.

This....sounds like that crazy asshole just wanted to shoot someone.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by 104RFAST:
Its clear SYG will now become a major issue in the Election of our next Governor in November.

And likely the entire motivation behind the sheriff’s decision. Purely political.

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner.

Or maybe Pam Bondi will ensure this prick shooter is charged and deflate their hopes. Sounds like he should be charged, but time will tell once the facts are known.

Tator,

I think you have the wrong statute. This is not a home defense situation. Let's try 776.012:

quote:

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Link to Florida self defense statutes.

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:
I don't see how Drejka has a stand your ground defense between his history of starting fights over that very parking spot, McGlockton retreating after gun drawn, and the text of the Florida "Stand Your Ground" Law which doesn't include parking lots/spots:

quote:

776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
(a) Nondeadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force; or
(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
(2) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(3) The presumption set forth in subsection (2) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened; or
(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27; s. 4, ch. 2014-195; s. 1, ch. 2017-77.

The shooter was attacked. He was knocked to the ground and was in a compromised position. Until he pulled the gun and the deceased backed off, he likely had a good SD case. The fact that the deceased DID back off may have changed that.

I've heard (in fact sat on a jury in a murder case pertaining to a situation) where someone getting knocked to the ground killed them. I don't know if in this case it can be construed that the shove constituted a lethal force attack, and likely not after the fact. But the fact that the deceased just strode right up to the shooter and attacked him, plays here.

If prosecuted, the prosecutor will probably say that the deceased thought he was defending his wife, but the wife was in the car, the shooter was out of the car, and making no moves like he was going to attack here, and the deceased started the physical altercation, attacking the shooter and putting him into a compromised position. If I were a prosecutor in Florida, would I want to try and prosecute this? Probably not.

Since the deceased is black and I think the shooter is white, maybe they will have to prosecute. Time will tell how the community reacts.

Either way the head law guy goes, I wish the shooter to carry the burden of what he did to his own grave.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO

Or maybe Pam Bondi will ensure this prick shooter is charged and deflate their hopes. Sounds like he should be charged, but time will tell once the facts are known.

Pam Bondi is the Attorney General and has no authority to prosecute this case or to force the elected State Attorney to do so.

Whenever there is a conflict, our tendency is to try to frame it in terms of good guy - bad guy. But sometimes there are two bad guys, two assholes. The shooter had threatened to kill someone else over this same parking spot. The victim was a felon, convicted six times since 2008, including assault and resisting arrest.

The victim, hereafter known as "asshole #1," did not need to shove asshole #2. His girlfriend was not under assault, in no real danger. Asshole #2 did not need to shoot asshole #1. Asshole #1 was in retreat when he was plugged.

Videos like this one just remind me once again to avoid road rage incidents, or any kind of confrontation-- unless my life, or someone else's life, is in the balance.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by 104RFAST:
Its clear SYG will now become a major issue in the Election of our next Governor in November.

And likely the entire motivation behind the sheriff’s decision. Purely political.

Oddly enough the guy was appointed by Rick Scott to some positions, and is a "Republican" however he's said some things in the past that has made the NRA publications

Sheriff states he'll shoot concealed permit holders

Florida Alert: Pinellas Sheriff Bob Gualtieri threatens to shoot concealed carriers
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2015

DATE: December 11, 2015
TO: USF & NRA Members and Friends
FROM: Marion P. Hammer
USF Executive Director
NRA Past President


The following news article explains why Pinellas County, Florida, citizens and gun owners all over the state are expressing concern over comments made by Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri in a story by the News Service of Florida yesterday, 12/10/15.

Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri threatens to shoot concealed carriers


Posted on December 11, 2015
by Lee Williams

In my humble opinion, it appears as though Pinellas County Sheriff Bob
Gualtieri may be ready for the rubber gun squad.

The good sheriff said Thursday that law abiding citizens exercising their
Second Amendment rights will be “thrown down on the ground with a gun pointed at them — or worse.”

He also said if a concealed carry unknowingly enters a bank during a robbery,
the citizen is “going to take one in the chest because he’s a threat.”

What’s troubling the lawman, who’s also an attorney?

The Florida Police Chiefs Association voted Thursday to support open carry
legislation — and that’s a bill the good sheriff staunchly opposes.

You’ll remember Sheriff Gualtieri. He’s not known for his support of guns,
gun owners or pro-gun legislation.

In May of 2013, he vowed to start enforcing a little-used county ordinance
that requires background checks at local gun shows for all private sales. The
county ordinance gathered dust since it was enacted in 1998. Violators faced
misdemeanor charges. After garnering a few headlines, the plan fizzled. Gun
shows were held without any problems. No arrests were ever made.

A year later he called the Firearms Mandatory Evacuation bill — which is now
law — “crazy” and “absurd,” saying it would allow people to carry concealed
firearms into a riot, rather than when they’re fleeing their homes.

And he’s been fighting the open-carry legislation with bad info.

A county sheriff who’s threatening to shoot his constituents for exercising
their Second Amendment rights is a worrisome situation, which I hope gets
whispered into the ear of Gov. Rick Scott.

The governor needs to take swift action now, before a law abiding Pinellas
County resident is “thrown down on the ground with a gun pointed at them — or
worse.”

The sheriff’s statements constitute official sanction for his deputies to use
excessive force — or even deadly force — on gun owners.

And quite frankly, that should scare the hell out of everyone who lives in
Pinellas County, regardless of whether they own or carry a gun.

Here’s the story from the News Service of Florida that details the sheriff’s
threats:

NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA
12/10/2015

POLICE CHIEFS WILL BACK REVISED OPEN-CARRY BILL

By MARGIE MENZEL
THE NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA

THE CAPITAL, TALLAHASSEE, December 10, 2015……….Acknowledging “momentum” behind a proposal that would allow people with concealed-weapons licenses to openly carry guns, the Florida Police Chiefs Association said Thursday its board of directors had voted to back the controversial measure — as long as changes designed to protect law-enforcement officers are included.

A spokeswoman confirmed that the police chiefs’ group had contacted the sponsors of the proposal (SB 300/HB 163), Sen. Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, and his son, Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, who both say they’re on board with the changes.

“The police chiefs understand that momentum is building,” association spokeswoman Sandi Poreda said. “And because of their concerns for police officers’ safety, they wanted to go ahead and reach out to the bill sponsors and work on these amendments, which they believe will better protect officers.”

If the measure passes, 1.45 million Floridians with concealed-weapons permits would be able to openly carry guns. Opponents — including a number of Florida sheriffs — warn that people who openly display guns could get hurt as a result, either by criminals or law enforcement.

Gun bills will be heavily debated during the 2016 legislative session, which starts Jan. 12. Along with the open-carry proposal, lawmakers are looking at allowing people with concealed-weapons licenses to carry guns on college and university campuses and are considering a proposal to shift a burden of proof in “stand your ground” self-defense cases.

By a vote of 15-7, the police chiefs association’s board of directors — who represent law-enforcement agencies in different districts of the state — agreed to support the open-carry bill when the amendments are adopted.

In a “Red Alert” email Wednesday to association members, Executive Director Amy Mercer cautioned that the police chiefs’ group “reserves the right to oppose the bill in the future, particularly if our amendments are changed or removed or if other amendments are added that are found not to be in the best interest of the FPCA and our members.”

Lawmakers will consider four proposed amendments, which have not yet been filed.
One amendment would add a provision to the Senate bill. The amended version would include House language stating that a person who displays a firearm “intentionally … in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense” is not covered by the proposed open-carry law.

Second, both current versions of the proposal would allow fines to be imposed on people — including police officers — who infringe on others’ rights to openly carry guns, unless probable cause exists to believe that crimes have been committed. A proposed amendment would ease that standard for law officers, who would be required to have “reasonable suspicion” before stopping people to verify or investigate the carrying of guns.

Third, the current proposal states that no one who infringes on the right to openly carry guns — including police officers — would be immune from legal consequences.

However, the agreement between the Gaetzes and the police chiefs association specifies that nothing in the bill would be intended to restrict a law enforcement officer’s ability or authority to conduct investigations as otherwise allowed by law.

“Sovereign immunity is a vital tool that allows law enforcement officers to perform their duties without fear of frivolous lawsuits,” Mercer wrote. “Officers will not fear losing sovereign immunity when investigating a person open or concealed carrying.”
The fourth amendment would require a holster for purposes of openly carrying a firearm.

The original versions of the bills have started moving through House and Senate committees. Matt Gaetz said Thursday he expects the changes to be added when lawmakers return to the issues after the first of the year.

“In the next committee in which the bill is heard, either the House Judiciary Committee or the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is my expectation that those amendments will be adopted,” Matt Gaetz said.

The Florida Sheriffs Association would not comment Thursday. But Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, a staunch opponent of open carry, said the four amendments wouldn’t make the bill acceptable to him — or safe for people who openly display their guns.

For instance, he said, if an officer arrives at the scene of a crime and sees someone with a weapon, “At a minimum, they’re going to be thrown down on the ground with a gun pointed at them — or worse.”

And if good citizen with a concealed weapon walks into, say, a bank during an armed robbery, Gualtieri added, “he’s going to take one in the chest because he’s a threat.”

“It’s not good for Florida, it’s not good for the economy, it’s not good for tourism,” he said.

Don Gaetz, however, pointed to the emerging differences between opponents such as Gualtieri and the police chiefs association.

“Well, he now will have the opportunity to debate that issue with his fellow law-enforcement officers who are taking a different view than he is,” Don Gaetz said.
National Rifle Association lobbyist Marion Hammer, who strongly backs the measure, dismissed the critics.

“That’s rhetoric. That’s reaching,” she said. “Every time we do something to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners, somebody will come up with a ‘what if?’ "
IN THIS ARTICLE

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Tator,

I think you have the wrong statute. This is not a home defense situation. Let's try 776.012:

No, I intentionally linked that because all of the new stories as well as the thread title were calling it a stand your ground case. My point in linking it was that it was clearly not a stand your ground case because the shooter wasn't in a location (dwelling, residence, or vehicle) the statute applied.

quote:

Originally posted by mcrimm:
Just because someone doesn’t outwardly appear to be disabled doesn’t mean they are not. Not all disabilities come with a limp. Sometimes people forget to put the plastic sign on their mirror if they don’t have a handicapped plate.
I know friends that would qualify for one of these handicapped license plates but choose not to have one. I also have a few friends that have one and probably don’t really need one.

My wife has two new knees and is schedule for hip surgery. The only time she had a handicap pass was when she couldn’t move without a walker. Yes, or doctor has offered to write her one. Instead, she depends on my luck in finding a parking spot.

As for the plastic signs on the mirror, I’d say 90% of them stay there permanently. When my wife had one I always stored it before driving. Mainly as it bugged me and blocked my vision.

Note the language in 776.012(2). This is what implements SYG in public.

What you posted 776.013(1) applies in a residence. The title of 776.013 is "Home protection"

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Tator,

I think you have the wrong statute. This is not a home defense situation. Let's try 776.012:

No, I intentionally linked that because all of the new stories as well as the thread title were calling it a stand your ground case. My point in linking it was that it was clearly not a stand your ground case because the shooter wasn't in a location (dwelling, residence, or vehicle) the statute applied.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Note the language in 776.012(2). This is what implements SYG in public.

What you posted 776.013(1) applies in a residence. The title of 776.013 is "Home protection"

Upon re-reading, you are correct.

The Sheriff got what he wanted, this incident has gone national. Naturally, the ComPost has added their own blatantly anti-gun spin.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.bfb489d87eb4

NAACP to hold a "vigil" for the guy who was shot. Here goes.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/p...g-Thursday_170226689