‘Stand Your Ground’ Did Not Kill Markeis McGlockton

They guy moved back and turned to his right to move away as he was shot

Freepers don’t fight much I can tell from their comments

But I have and when you attack someone and push them down and wish to kill them as you suggest you jump on them when they hit the ground and are disoriented to inflict more damage

It’s amazing how many folks here if or maybe it would have

We know what the attacker did

He pushed th man down

He stood there about five feet away

The killer pulled his pistol immediately and shot the guy in the chest as the man was moving away

What the black man might have done is irrelevant

We have it on film what he did do

And in front of girlfriend and the man’s five year old child

And we know he has a history of this

And we know he pulled his gun last year in traffic and hung it out the window and put two more mags on the dashboard per witnesses and the cops

This guy was a little bully with a gun who like many posters think getting your ass pushed down for running your mouth is ground to kill someone

It’s not to me

It’s the province of a coward

First, there is no evidence presented that the shooter intended to kill the attacker. The shot was apparently to the stomach, and did not immediately kill the man. The shooter may well have intended only to wound. We don’t know.

Now, it is said “don’t shoot at someone you don’t want to kill”, since gunshots can very well be fatal. But according to the radical group Everytown, for every one fatality in gun violence, there are two non-fatal injuries. Which means only 33% of gun attacks are fatal. So there was a 2/3rds chance the victim would have survived.

THe shooter fired a single shot after all. If you want to kill someone, you keep shooting. He clearly stopped when the man ran away. That is evidence for trial that he was not intending a fatality, just trying to ward off the attack.

Also, “pushing a man to the ground” can also be fatal. It is less often fatal than shooting a man, but it is not a 0% fatality attack. The victim could have hit his head and died on the spot.

And if the victim had not shot, we have no way of knowing if the attacker, who was approaching him after pushing him down, would not have continued the attack, and once on the ground, a repeated push of the head to the ground is much more likely to kill than the first push — again, not a high probability, not 33%, but definitely a possibility.

So, by your argument, you cannot push a person down for pushing a person down, IF pushing them down kills them.

Now, I believe your argument is really “you can’t use the overwhelming force of a gun, if the attacker is using less lethal weapons, such as their own fists.” Or maybe your argument is “you can’t use something that is more than X% likely to kill, if the attacker hasn’t proven that their desire is to kill you”. Not sure.

But you have no evidence to show that the attacker would not have killed the victim had the victim not had a gun. The closest thing we have to evidence is that, by some reckoning, it appears that once the gun was pointed at the attacker, the attacker was no longer approaching the victim, and may have been backing away, indicating that the attacker had no immediate plans to inflict further violence.

I don’t think the typical freeper is actually arguing that, once you have been pushed to the ground, you have a right to kill the person that did so, in any circumstance.

What most of the one side seem to be arguing is that, in this particular instance, they do not believe you would be wrong to shoot someone who had just pushed you to the ground and was continuing to approach you, suggesting further violence.

I would not have shot. Of course, I don’t own a gun, in part because I have a hard time imagining an instance where I would shoot, especially if it was only my life on the line. I’ve intervened in violence before, but always with nothing but my body and my words. (well, one time I grabbed a bat out of a guy’s hand as he walked past me, and glared at him when he looked back).

So in this instance, I’m more of the opinion that i could accept justification for calling this shooting self-defense, while calling it poor judgment and a tragic outcome.

>>Y’all musta been great fun at kickball in grade school<<

When I was in grade school in the early 1950s, every recess we used to play a game aptly named MURDER BALL. The way this game worked was simple. If a dozen guys were playing, the guy with the ball attempted to keep possession of it for as long as possible while the other 11 guys tried to run him down and pummel him to the ground. He was only spared a beating when he tossed away the ball. That said, these children’s games are a poor analogy to a physical assault by an unknown adult. I’ve witnessed a fair amount of this violence in my life, and a number of times where ambulances were required on account of cuts and bullet holes.

wardaddy, You are definitely talking to some ‘dumb ears’.

Most fail to recognize the fact that had he not stuck his nose where it didn’t belong, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

One of the ‘reports’ has him driving by, witnessing the ‘offense’ and RETURNING to the scene. (Not sure how accurate that account is)
BUT if true he definitely broke rule # 1 of carry -
MYOB
unless (possibly) a life-threatening situation, even then got to be careful because if the cops had already been called about a confrontation with a gun they will be ‘gunning’ for the first NON COP with a gun, so it pays to be alert and remember, if YOU are holding the ‘wrong person’ at gunpoint while waiting for the Cops, you probably won’t like the outcome.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.