The white guy, who was about twice the age of the assault suspect should have drawn and told the suspect back off or be shot. Instead, it appears the black suspect starts backing up after he sees the white victim produce a gun. After a slight pause, only then does the white guy shoot.
I personally would not have shot and the only way I would have is if the assault suspected had continued to move forward towards me. From my perspective, the white guy might somehow be justified under the law, but I don't think this was a good shoot.
Real life rarely follows the script we all carry around in our heads.
The old man was hit hard by someone half his age and more than twice his strength and was knocked to the ground.
The young man stood over him posing aggressively.
Old man draws a weapon.
Young man retreats a couple feet.
Old man shoots.
Two things come to mind. In Florida, brandishing is illegal. The young man was still close enough to be dangerous and faster than the old man.
I would never bother someone over a parking space. Life is too short to worry about jerks. So, I’d not be in this situation.
For argument’s sake, let’s role play from the shove.
I’m older and not physically strong. Someone pushes me violently to the ground and takes a threatening stance over me.
Yeah, I’d draw and fire 3 shots as quickly as possible. Then I’d call a lawyer.
Video may show delay, retreat or some other extenuating happenstance; however, my viewpoint at the time is needle sharp, and focused on staying alive. Time is skewed, heart rate and respiration is elevated, with only one thought. Chest, head, chest.
Do I dream of killing someone? Hell no.
Do I hate people based on some attribute? No.
Do I not believe in the wound, maim, kill principle? No.
Do I not believe it’s always wrong to kill an unarmed person? No.
Do I not believe in proportionality of force like they taught in LOAC? Yes, that’s why I carry.
The decision by the Sheriff not to arrest the shooter seems sound. McGlockton was still facing the man he had suddenly attacked without provocation, the distance was short, there was a disparity in physical strength with the man he had attacked at a physical disadvantage. Moreover, McGlockton failed to retreat further or signal surrender or that the engagement was at an end.
These would likely be seen by a jury as justifying the shoot or providing reasonable doubt. Most juries start by figuring out who the bad guy and good guy are and then looking at the details of their instructions to justify how to rule accordingly. In a community with lots of retired white people willing to serve on juries, the shooter here seems unlikely to be convicted when he was attacked without cause by a man with a criminal record.
Under standard procedure though, the incident will be reviewed by the state attorney. Who knows how that will turn out. An investigation and a trip to the grand jury could go either way. Who knows, but charges might be brought.
True, however the White guy is past his physical prime and has just been knocked on his ass. I would be significantly less adept and quick at retrieving my holstered firearm after a similar knockdown. Likely he fired as soon as he had a good target, the decision was made when Dindu continued to approach after the battery.
I personally would not have shot and the only way I would have is if the assault suspected had continued to move forward towards me.
Granted, but I suspect you have the benefit of more training and experience than "White Guy", remember, the 21 foot rule AND the defender was down (no choice of stance).