Posted on 07/30/2018 2:24:36 PM PDT by Fhios
Full Title: Republican lawmaker, NRA lobbyist challenge Florida sheriff on 'Stand Your Ground' stance in shooting.
... The incident was captured on surveillance video and drew national attention. The argument began when Drejka questioned McGlockton’s girlfriend about parking in the handicapped parking space without a permit while McGlockton went inside the store.
“He told deputies that he had to shoot to defend himself. Those are the facts and that’s the law," Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri was quoted as saying. ”No matter how you slice it or dice it that was a violent push to the ground.” ...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Based on the description only, one doesn't get a sense of the tempo of what happened. We imagine a white man towering over a black women and harassing her -- violating her personal space in order to loom over her. Just getting that far we believe the white guy was trigger happy and was the root cause of this event. When I watch the video I get a better understanding. Here are 4 points in defense of the shooter, but first watch this video that seems to offer the best coverage of the event. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=18&v=iDtzofAUSJI
1. The wife was in the car when the shooter was admonishing her for callously using the Handicapped parking space. He maintained a non-violent and respectable distance from the woman. Afterwords when the Husband approached the shooter and came in close proximity, the wife gets out of the car and for a moment, both the wife and the husband have a "in your face" meeting with the shooter, smack talk was probably exchanged -- An escalation to the encounter.
2. The wife backs off, seemingly sensing the Husband is going to bring violence to the escalated altercation which he does. The Husband gives a nice big 2 handed shove at the shooter and knocks him to the ground escalating the incident again. Then, if you pay close attention he does a very brief "we bad, yes we bad" step towards the shooter sitting on the ground. It was brief because suddenly the Husband realizes a gun is coming into play and starts backing away defensively ... side turned the shooter, but it's too late. The shooter has drawn and escalated to a final deadly showdown.
3. The Tempo fits. Each escalation causes another escalation within the same breath. When the gun is drawn the shooter has to make an instant life and death decision. Not only for himself, but for the Husband as well. The law allows him to make his own life his priority and he does so. Shooting the Husband once in the chest.
4. Now back up again and focus in on the shooter and his situational awareness. The wife getting out of the car when the husband comes close, That's two potential attackers. The Husband pushes the shooter down, but look. Another black man is coming to join the fray, that is until he sees the gun. That's 3 potential attackers. I bet you some smack talk went down between wife and shooter and husband and shooter and the Husband probably maintained a cheap, reckless and smack talking veneer of bravado. The shooter shoots once. I probably would have put two in the chest myself but the point is, there are 3 potential attackers in the shooters operational loop. He doesn't know if the situation would be escalated yet again while somebody else drew a gun and pointed it at him.
So my vote now is it's a valid stand your ground defense under bad circumstances. It looks like a horrible, but the visuals tell a more detailed story, one in which the tempo of every step leading to the shooting is in proper sequence and within an expected time frame from each proceeding step.
Interesting analysis. Thanks for sharing.
Seeing the video, I’m close to your position, but not all the way. However, this all started because a busybody hall monitor decided to scold someone else on where they parked. And even worse, that someone was another man’s wife. It’s a well understood bad move to go up and scold another man’s wife. If he catches you, a man should expect trouble.
I don’t have a ton of sympathy for this shooter and wouldn’t care much if he got charged. When you carry, you have a responsibility not to be the manners police or the hall monitor. Or not to do other things that CAUSE trouble.
People need to look at that “shove”. Its not a simple bump shove. The man is violently shoved onto the ground and he hits hard and then the man advances on him.
Only when the gun comes out does he start to back away but then its too late.
Yes, because Lord knows, we should let entitled people just park in the handicapped spots even while not handicapped!
Busybodies should just let them get away with murder! Yep, that’s the ticket!
Looking at that video more, I see that walking up to a man squaring off with his woman. He walked up and shoved him down.
The dead guy really wasn’t that far outta line. What would most people here do if you walked outside and saw someone arguing with your woman?
+1
You think it’s your job to enforce handicapped spaces? People like you make HOAs the joy hat they are. There is a subculture of weirdos who feel like they are junior deputies sworn to enforce handicap spaces.
They cause a lot of crap and not all of it is justified.
While the Sheriff did not immediately arrest the shooter, the State’s Attorney (Florida’s version of the District Attorney) can bring charges and have the shooter arrested. The fact that he was not immediately arrested does not mean he won’t be charged.
Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel's stance was more of a "Put 'Em In The Ground" approach, at least for the student victims of Nikolas Cruz, at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School last February.
Great analysis.
One can both think the shooter should not have scolded the woman for parking illegally and potentially robbing a handicapped person of his ability to get into the establishment, and that the shooter legitimately shot in self-defense.
In my view, I wish the shooter had allowed the thug family to be thugs without the intrusion, but I think to charge him would be a travesty of justice.
To me, it seems like “enforcement of handicapped spaces”, is probably mostly a waste of time, besides which, how can most of us be 100% sure whether someone is or is not handicapped?
I understand that designated tags or license plates are generally required, but sometimes people park there, who just had surgery or using a cane, but not “officially” handicapped.
JMHO is that for the most part, it is best to be thankful that we don’t need handicapped spaces, instead of assuming someone else should not be using them.
“1. The wife was in the car when the shooter was admonishing her for callously using the Handicapped parking space. He maintained a non-violent and respectable distance from the woman.”
That may not accurately describe the situation. Longer videos show the interaction between the woman and the shooter attracting the attention of other customers, indicating louder volume and harsher words than would be used in what I would refer to as “admonishing”. I don’t think the opening was as mild as an admonishment.
agree.
It was not a "stand your ground" episode. It may be a self-defense episode. They are not the same term.
I still see a man stepping back and unarmed when he was shot. Looks like murder to me. Trayvon was pounding a mans head into the pavement. Michael Brown was doped up and attacking.
This coward watched the husband go into the store, then argues with his wife while he is gone. He gets knocked down and pulls his gun. Shoots the man as he steps away.
Not a travesty in my book if he gets charged. Especially since the store owner was complaining to the cops on several occasion that this guy was always starting trouble over that spot.
first, where’s the audio that even shows they were arguing? Second, I damn sure don’t think anyone here believes someone deserves to be violently shoved for pointing out bad behavior. The shooter had every right to protect himself and the violent guy didn’t think through his very poor judgement ahead of time.
Thanks. I hear what you’re saying but being shoved to the ground is not life threatening enough to justify killing someone IMO. Why did he have to shoot if the black guy was finally backing off?
I don’t side with either of these guys. Both seem to be jerks. It will come down to the jury selection and I doubt the verdict will be based on as much analysis as you have done. It depends on the makeup of the mob on the jury.
Very true. That’s dicey business deciding who should get them and who shouldn’t. And more than a few parking space nazis are only exceeded in their angry zeal by bicycle riders.
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.