Victim's girlfriend says Florida gunman provoked fatal 'stand your ground' shooting

Britany Jacobs, the girlfriend of the man shot and killed in a Florida parking lot last week, says her boyfriend was just coming to her defense and the gunman “wanted someone to be angry at.” Now she wants “justice,” she says.

Jacobs, who witnessed the shooting along with the couple’s 5-year-old son, said she and her two small children were waiting in the car for her boyfriend, Markeis McGlockton, while he ran into a convenience store in Clearwater, Florida. Onlooker Michael Drejka got out of his parked car and began “harassing” her about being parked in a handicap space, she said.

Surveillance video showed McGlockton exiting the store and shoving Drejka to the ground. Drejka then drew a handgun and shot and killed McGlockton.

It’s interesting to consider the script, or sequence of events that leads up to any of our deaths. All of the tumblers that had to fall into place, and all of the tumblers had to not fall in place, all exactly at the right time in order for any of us to meet an untimely end.

And it’s not even the variables of that particular day, but all of the variables that also had to occur before that day in order for that day to even occur.

Really makes me wonder if such things are planned in advance by someone else, and maybe they are, and there’s no avoiding them. All tumblers will click, and the intended person will leave this world at the intended time.

As far as this particular case is concerned, it seems to me that none of our opinions are relevant at this point. We are all just playing a game of internet courtroom that is of absolutely no consequence, because no matter what any of us say, no matter what any crafty witticism any of of concocts, the event still occurred, and any future event related to the occurrence of this event will also occur.

So, in effect, we are all just sitting at our homes stroking our internet egos as if any of this matters, when none of it does.

As far as this man being marked, he is marked whether he goes to prison, and he’s marked if he does not go to prison. The rest of his life is likely not going to be peaceful. I suspect he’s going to have to look over his shoulder no matter where he ends up. And he also now bears the weight of another man’s soul on his own.

Maybe he was within the law of man to kill this man, maybe he was not. But was he withing God’s Laws? I dunno. He’s going to have to consider that question, if he believes in such things, for the rest of his life.

I own several guns, but I don’t carry any of them, and the reason I don’t, to be quite frank, is because I don’t want to leave the house on any given day and end up killing someone, justified or not. I don’t want to do that.

Where in the law does it state that a store owner ‘must’ phone in a complaint if he has a problem on his parking lot?

Nowhere. it just goes to the store owner's credibility. If he was so concerned about this guy in his lot supposedly doing all these things, why didn't he have the police chase him a way? this makes his version highly suspect

I note you guys are pretty strict on the “courtroom proceedings here”. Why did none of you brain-trusts realize the prior record is not admissible as evidence?

Its up to a judge whether they allow such evidence in.

With regard to what the 47 year old wound up with, it’s a reason you don’t stick your nose in other people’s business.

With Regard to what McGlockton wound up with, it's a reason not to viciously assault somebody for talking with your girlfriend. Now he's dead.

Just go out an pull this stunt with someone else’s girlfriend or spouse.

yeah and why don't you go out and throw somebody to the ground because you don't like then talking to your girlfriend. You will end up in jail, where you belong or gun downed like this thug. And you will have deserved it.

Like I said only you liberal fasists believe speech that you don't like is justification for violence.

Where in the law does it state that a store owner ‘must’ phone in a complaint if he has a problem on his parking lot?

Nowhere. it just goes to the store owner's credibility. If he was so concerned about this guy in his lot supposedly doing all these things, why didn't he have the police chase him a way? this makes his version highly suspect.

In the post after the one I'm responding to here, it mentions that the store owner did call the police on this guy about a month ago, after another fight. Now that the store owner has credibility by your own standard, glad to have you on board..

I note you guys are pretty strict on the “courtroom proceedings here”. Why did none of you brain-trusts realize the prior record is not admissible as evidence?

Its up to a judge whether they allow such evidence in.

Quite right. You allowed the evidence in, something the judge likely wouldn't have done. Then some of you got all upset because I mentioned what several other persons stated in televised interviews.

With regard to what the 47 year old wound up with, it’s a reason you don’t stick your nose in other people’s business.

With Regard to what McGlockton wound up with, it's a reason not to viciously assault somebody for talking with your girlfriend. Now he's dead.

Are you familiar with the phrase, "Those are fighting words." There are some things you don't say or do, without the reasonable exptectation your going to get decked for it. If this guy was cursing at this woman and calling here a dumb N....er, in front of her five year old son, he deserved to have his ass kicked. This guy elected to knock him down. While that is certainly assault, I wouldn't consider it totally out of line. When you stick your nose into other people's business, and curse at them including racial insults, you are one dumb person, if you think you're not going to get severe push-back.

Just go out an pull this stunt with someone else’s girlfriend or spouse.

yeah and why don't you go out and throw somebody to the ground because you don't like then talking to your girlfriend. You will end up in jail, where you belong or gun downed like this thug. And you will have deserved it.

You evaded the scenario I laid out for you by tellimg me I would deserve to die. No, you would deserve to get your ass kicked if you did what this guy did. What's more, you know it, and so you evaded responding on point.

Like I said only you liberal fasists believe speech that you don't like is justification for violence.

You say a lot of things that don't make sense. Look at you. Here you are calling me a fascist now. Who does that these days? Conservative law and order people?

If the police did come out last time, this guy had already been told by officers to knock off aproaching other people about parking. He had probably already been told to knock off the disgusting language as well. He had already been in one fight over it. It was very clear what was going to happen if he continued this sort of thing.

Last but not least, don't shoot somone who is backing away from you and expect to claim you were in fear for your life.

While that is certainly assault

I think you and others have said that the dead guy committed assault on the shooter. Under Florida law (and that of other places) assault is:

784.011 Assault.—

(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

According to what I’ve read, the dead guy didn’t threaten by word or act, he just did the deed. That’s Battery according to Florida law (and that of other places):

784.03 Battery; felony battery.—

(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:

1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or

2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.

Where does that leave us? Well, according to what I’ve read, the shooter was “talking” to the dead guy’s woman and doing so loudly enough to attract the attention of passersby. We don’t seem to know whether or not his talk constituted an “unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to” the woman, but if it did his talk constituted an assault. The dead guy may have reasonably believed the shooter was assaulting his woman (threatening by word or act to do violence) and acted in accord with the Florida Stand Your Ground law which states:

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. (Emphasis added.)

I wrote “the dead guy may have believed”, but we don’t know what he believed. I believe the whole thing needs to be put before a jury.

Last but not least, don't shoot somone who is backing away from you and expect to claim you were in fear for your life.

Maybe, if one has to put someone else on the ground, it’s advisable to close with the adversary and make sure they aren’t able to harm you when you retreat, just by disarming them if possible and necessary. That’s a hard problem.

I appreciate your post. I was unclear what constituted an assault. It did seem to me the 47 year old was pushing his luck. One man interviewed that stated he had a run-in with the 47 year old also, stated he used racial epithets and threatened to kill him.

By the definition you cited, it seems to me this guy was more than likely committing a verbal assault on this woman.

No, we can’t be sure exactly what he was saying, but we do know the Black man (now deceased) heard enough to take physical action. The law you cited seems to indicate he was somewhat justified when he committed the battery.

Certainly if he caught the man threatening to kill her if she didn’t heed his words, a person could think this guy was a clear threat.

To me it’s not reasoned to think the Black man just out of the blue decked a guy for talking to his girlfriend. The man may have been a friend or associate, she knew.

We now know the 47 year old had been in a fight the month before. Police had been called. If they had contact with him a that time, he had been told to knock it off.

I agree with the idea the Black guy might have been within his rights to disarm the guy, but as you say, it would have been hard to effect.

I can’t get over the idea this guy might have been using racial slurs in front of that five year old kid. At five that kid probably wouldn’t have remembered the incident, but he would have carried forward the innate perception that one or all Whites were racists. What a great legacy for the 47 year old to pass on.

As it is, I wouldn’t be surprised if this kid remembers the moment his dad died in front of him for his whole life.

All this over some stupid ass argument over a handicapped parking space violation, and some hot headed White racist asshole.

In the post after the one I'm responding to here, it mentions that the store owner did call the police on this guy about a month ago, after another fight. Now that the store owner has credibility by your own standard, glad to have you on board..

if there was no arrest he has even less credibility. because then the cop obviously didn't think it was worthy of an arrest. BTW I like you how you include hearsay about Drejka, but leave out McGlockton's drug conviction and arrest for aggravated battery, which is the exact crime he committed on tape.

Are you familiar with the phrase, "Those are fighting words." There are some things you don't say or do, without the reasonable exptectation your going to get decked for it. If this guy was cursing at this woman and calling here a dumb N....er, in front of her five year old son, he deserved to have his ass kicked. This guy elected to knock him down.

I was wrong. You're not a liberal. You're a fricking Jesse jackson, race baiting liberal. There's no audio-- you have no idea what was said, but here you are presuming Drejka said something racial when there is no evidence.

While that is certainly assault, I wouldn't consider it totally out of line.

the law does. And that's what counts. Who cares what YOU think? the way you act, saying over and over that words you don't like entitle you to be violent, you probably are a criminal thug yourself. Wouldn't surprise me at this point.

When you stick your nose into other people's business, and curse at them including racial insults, you are one dumb person, if you think you're not going to get severe push-back.

Once again you're playing the race card, jesse, you filthy race pimp. There's no audio, you have no idea what was said.

Furthermore if you don't like what someone else says you are NOT entitled to respond with violence. That's what people like Antifa think, not conservatives. Conservatives believe in free speech. You are clearly no conservative.

In fact, You sound just like the worst of the liberals-- You've said over and over that speech you don't like entitles you to violence. and NOW you're playing the race card with no proof whatsoever.

I was wrong before, don't change your screen name to Mccain, that's too good for you, change it to Al Sharpton.

You make me sick.

Before you read any further, please read this post. It clearly defines some issues we are addressing here. What constitutes Assault and Battery? When are some things warranted. Link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3673110/posts?page=548#548

It put things in a different perspective for me. You may learn something as well.

In the post after the one I'm responding to here, it mentions that the store owner did call the police on this guy about a month ago, after another fight. Now that the store owner has credibility by your own standard, glad to have you on board.

If there was no arrest he has even less credibility. because then the cop obviously didn't think it was worthy of an arrest. BTW I like you how you include hearsay about Drejka, but leave out McGlockton's drug conviction and arrest for aggravated battery, which is the exact crime he committed on tape.

You stated that he had no credibility because he didn't call the police. It turns out he had. The police don't always arrest people when they come out. They may give them a hard time, warn them and let them go. It's at their discression. The store owner did what you said he should have. You should acknowledge it.

Others had alread listed McGlockton's record. I did mention that they had in some of my posts. There was no need to repeat it. I listed what folks had said about Drejka, because others had not.,

Are you familiar with the phrase, "Those are fighting words." There are some things you don't say or do, without the reasonable exptectation your going to get decked for it. If this guy was cursing at this woman and calling here a dumb N....er, in front of her five year old son, he deserved to have his ass kicked. This guy elected to knock him down.

I was wrong. You're not a liberal. You're a fricking Jesse jackson, race baiting liberal. There's no audio-- you have no idea what was said, but here you are presuming Drejka said something racial when there is no evidence.

The evidence is that McGlockton knocked him down. He wouldn't have done that unless he heard something very objectionable at distance. Otherwise, his girlfriend talking to the man, would likely indicate the man was a friend or an associate.

While that is certainly assault, I wouldn't consider it totally out of line.

the law does. And that's what counts. Who cares what YOU think? the way you act, saying over and over that words you don't like entitle you to be violent, you probably are a criminal thug yourself. Wouldn't surprise me at this point.

If you read what I linked above, you found out that battery can sometimes be legal. If Drejka had threatened this woman within earshot of her boyfriend, it would be entirely reasoned to think he was a threat to her and McGlockton's son. Now we also know that Drejka was armed. He was clearly a potential lethal threat. Just the out of control berating of the woman could be seen as a threat, and that could be seen as an assault, and with a threat he could have been deemed a danger to the girlfriend and the child. I have been arguing that knocking the man to the ground, while probably not what he should have done, was still within the range of things that could happen if you are berating someone's love interest. This does not make me a thug. As it turns out, Florida law agrees with me, if the paramters are met. They very would could have been here.

When you stick your nose into other people's business, and curse at them including racial insults, you are one dumb person, if you think you're not going to get severe push-back.

Once again you're playing the race card, jesse, you filthy race pimp. There's no audio, you have no idea what was said.

Once again you are ignoring the obvious. There are some things that civilized people just don't do. You don't curse at women and children, you don't use racial insults, and you don't threaten people's lives. And now we have statutes that back up what I have been saying all along.

Furthermore if you don't like what someone else says you are NOT entitled to respond with violence. That's what people like Antifa think, not conservatives. Conservatives believe in free speech. You are clearly no conservative.

Well then, you must now think the State of Florida is an ANTIFA entity. Having read their statutes, it's clear they see what Drejka likely did, to be assault. With a death threat tossed in, which he reported did to others, there is reasoned fear of physical attack of some sort. Violence may very well have been called for here. I was just going by normal expectations. But now it's evident that this is coded into law.

In fact, You sound just like the worst of the liberals-- You've said over and over that speech you don't like entitles you to violence. and NOW you're playing the race card with no proof whatsoever.

Once again, you are tossing a hissy fit over the fact that I have mentioned what another person had stated Drejka did when he confronted him. We also know that Drejka had a fight the month before, and police were called. Yes we are talking about hypotheticals here, but basing our thoughts on what has been reported to have happened before, it's not entirely unreasoned to think these sorts of things happened here too. And by the way, it's not just me saying objectionable speech can justify battery if the person thinks someone may be in danger. The State of Florida says it.

I was wrong before, don't change your screen name to Mccain, that's too good for you, change it to Al Sharpton.

You're just flailing here.

You make me sick.

Oh I think you were already there.

Poor thing. You just can’t read information and process it.

You’ve got very little to go on now that the Florida code has been presented to you.

We do know what Drejka’s past activity had been like. He’d already been involved in a fight on that very lot.

Police had been called on him, so that’s on record.

Another person he had verbally attacked in the past gave an interview and described what Drejka did then.

Then there’s the issue with Drejka shooting a man that was moving away from him.

This is not like the Trayvon Martin or Brown shootings.

There was a clear threat in both those instances.

Here there was no continuing threat.

Once again, something I’ve been saying since some of my first posts, nowhere does it state you can shoot someone to get even.

I states you have to be in fear for your own life or the life of someone near you.

It does not state, you have to be getting even for something that you don’t like that happened to you, or another person.

Oh Jesse Sharpton your posts keep getting worse and worse you really should quit while you're behind.

You stated that he had no credibility because he didn't call the police. It turns out he had. The police don't always arrest people when they come out. They may give them a hard time, warn them and let them go. It's at their discression. The store owner did what you said he should have. You should acknowledge it.

You said he said Drejka was a continual problem, but he called only once, (so he's obviously not a continual problem) and on this ONE TIME the police didn't arrest him (so the only problem you have evidence of didn't rise to the level of an arrest). You fail.

Others had already listed McGlockton's record. I did mention that they had in some of my posts.

Yeah that's right, you want everyone to pay deep attention to Drejka and the hearsay, but ignore Glockton's drug conviction and aggravated battery arrest (which not too coincidentally, is the same crime he committed on camera) Hypocrite.

The evidence is that McGlockton knocked him down. He wouldn't have done that unless he heard something very objectionable at distance.

Absurd, how the hell do you know that? More speculative BS with no foundation.

if Drejka had threatened this woman within earshot of her boyfriend,

Speculation with no evidence

Just the out of control berating of the woman could be seen as a threat

Where is that in your florida law. Nowhere. Fail again. BTW why did she get out of the car if he was so scary and threatening???? More fail for you.

This does not make me a thug. As it turns out, Florida law agrees with me, if the paramters are met. They very would could have been here.

Nope not the argument you made all along. All along you;ve been saying yelling at a person;s girlfriend alone (no threats etc) is enough for you to do what MCGLockton did. No wonder you stick up for this thug you have the same scofflaw mindset.

You have no evidence whatsoever that Drejka threatened anyone or said anything racial. For all we know it was the other way around. or are you one of those liberals who think only whites can be racist. probably.

Your arguments keep getting more and more liberal and stupid as you go. first it was-- you have the right to beat someone if they talk loud to your GF. No foundation in law. Then you played the race card saying was Drejka said something racial and/or threatening and you have no evidence whatsoever that that happened. What is the next piece of crap you'll throw at the wall that won't stick?

Oh Jesse Sharpton your posts keep getting worse and worse you really should quit while you're behind.

While you're still frothing at the mouth and ruin all my fun? Nah. It sure was gracious of you to mention the option for me. And I admit, it was the best laugh I've had yet today. So thanks.

You stated that he had no credibility because he didn't call the police. It turns out he had. The police don't always arrest people when they come out. They may give them a hard time, warn them and let them go. It's at their discression. The store owner did what you said he should have. You should acknowledge it.

You said he said Drejka was a continual problem, but he called only once, (so he's obviously not a continual problem) and on this ONE TIME the police didn't arrest him (so the only problem you have evidence of didn't rise to the level of an arrest). You fail.

I did mention up thread that the store owner stated that Drejka had been a problem for months. The fact that he didn't call the police each time he was a problem, proves nothing, and it's silly to address it that way. I never said he had done something worthy of being arrested. I never said the store owner said so. Other than those things, great response.

Others had already listed McGlockton's record. I did mention that they had in some of my posts.

Yeah that's right, you want everyone to pay deep attention to Drejka and the hearsay, but ignore Glockton's drug conviction and aggravated battery arrest (which not too coincidentally, is the same crime he committed on camera) Hypocrite.

Police were called on Drejka before. That is not just hearsay. As for Drejka, his activity at the parking lot does have bearing on this case, and there's nothing wrong with mentioning what a person said in an on-air interview.

I did mention the humor in you folks squeeling like stuck pigs when Drejka's past was aired. Then, since some of you were acting as if I couldn't reference interviews since it wasn't a court document, I also addressed the idea that McGlockton's past wouldn't be submissible in court, so why were you folks airing it here? Certainly you folks saw it as prejudicial. I'm not certain why his past history would matter, when the biggest issue was Drejka's shot fired when McGlockton was backing away. McGlockton's past was pertinent to assess this? LOL

No, as long as the prejudicial information was again McGlockton, it was okay. Once the sheen was of Drejka, the squeeling began.

Once again, for the learning impaired. Officer Paterson who made appearances declaring what he had witnessed Bill Clinton do, was considered to be credible. Before the trial Paula Jones was considered to be likely credible. Dolly Browning was considered to be credible. Juanita Broaddrick was considered to be credible. We take into consideration the statements by people in the press all the time. Concerning the Clinton's we've probably done it hundreds of times. Now all of a sudden, you don't want to allow something said in an interview to be considered?

Too late.

The evidence is that McGlockton knocked him down. He wouldn't have done that unless he heard something very objectionable at distance.

Absurd, how the hell do you know that? More speculative BS with no foundation.

No, you just label it as such because you have no intelligent response. I stated something that is logical with what has surfaced. You don't like it, so you label it as B. S.

if Drejka had threatened this woman within earshot of her boyfriend,

Speculation with no evidence

It was a reasoned assumption based on two things. McGlockton wouldn't likely attack a guy like that without cause, becaus it could have been a friend or associate of his girlfriend. A person who participated in an on-air interview stated that he had a run-in with Drejka, and he had acted in a manner that would have incited McGlockton to take the actions he did, if he heard him doing this to his girlfiend. In that altercation it is reported that Drejka curse at him, used racial language to do it, and threatened his life.

Just the out of control berating of the woman could be seen as a threat

Where is that in your florida law. Nowhere. Fail again. BTW why did she get out of the car if he was so scary and threatening???? More fail for you.

My Florida law? You have a hard time dealing with reality don't you. It states there that verbal threats can be a basis for taking physical action, WITHIN THE LAW. She saw her boyfriend coming and exited the vehicle, thinking this nut-job would not try something with him there. Still more ignorant bluster from you.

This does not make me a thug. As it turns out, Florida law agrees with me, if the paramters are met. They very would could have been here.

Nope not the argument you made all along. All along you;ve been saying yelling at a person;s girlfriend alone (no threats etc) is enough for you to do what MCGLockton did. No wonder you stick up for this thug you have the same scofflaw mindset.

All along I have been making a claim that was proven correct via the airing of the Florida codes governing such matters. Under the right parameters, what took place could be the reasoned action. Man that must hurt.

You have no evidence whatsoever that Drejka threatened anyone or said anything racial. For all we know it was the other way around. or are you one of those liberals who think only whites can be racist. probably.

Oh for heaven's sake. Give it up you idiot stick. If the roles were reversed, I'd still claim the shooter was wrong when the other guy was backing up. If the roles were reversed, I'd have backed the Black guy gettin his ass kicked.

You're the one tossing out Jesse Jackson's logic.

Your arguments keep getting more and more liberal and stupid as you go.

No, that's just you trying to claim the high ground. Not gonna work. I have never said I am convinced I am right. I have said this is likely the scenario as it played out. Your version just doesn't make sense.

first it was-- you have the right to beat someone if they talk loud to your GF. No foundation in law.

I believe I have made it perfectly clear, that cursing, racial epithets, and threats were possibly involved. If they were, I stated that those would be fighting words, and someone could logically be very offended at hearing them spoken to their significant other. Now the Florida law has been provided to you, making it clear that if Drejka used the same tactics he used on others, he could have been subject to physical attack based on him being seen as a threat.

I have also stated that anyone using these tactics would be subjecting themselves to a person who wouldn't put up with it, and might take physical action. According to Florida law, that is the case..

Then you played the race card saying was Drejka said something racial and/or threatening and you have no evidence whatsoever that that happened.

I have the interview of a man that stated he had a run in with Drejka before. If you can prove that isn't true, I'll be willing to quit referencing his claim. Until then, since this isn't a court of law, it's legitimate to include the mention here for argument's purposes.

What is the next piece of crap you'll throw at the wall that won't stick?

I haven't thrown anything onto the forum that wasn't based on an interview, or my own take on the situation, and now Florida law governing such matters.

That you are having a hard time dealing with this, is your problem.

Yes, in your mind the Indian owner of the business is a big Black Lives Matter organizer. Likewise, you seem to think every Black person that participates in an interview, is a spokesperson for Black lives matter. You do realize what the second of these says about you, right? Every Black is a...

CCW carriers generally don’t get into altercations of their own doing. They try to avoid situations that might escalate into a fight.

This was the second fight we know this guy was involved in, and both were of his own creation.

We have reason to believe he was cursing at this woman. We have reason to believe he was using racial insults as well. He may have even threatened her life, as he was reported to have done to another man he tangled with on that same parking lot.

One customer coming into the establishment spoke out asking who was the owner of the specified car in the parking lot, because some man was yelling at the woman in the vehicle.

Soon Drejka, the guy that had instigated the whole thing, shot a man that was backing away from him and turning to depart.

You don’t like that this is a reasoned depiction of what took place based on what has come to light.

Your only avenue to continue this debate is to try and insult me.

You strike out like a little child calling me Jesse Sharpton, and inferring I agree with Tawana, the Hands up Don’t Shoot group, Black Lives Matter, and slogans like Goddamm America US of KKKa and Pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon.

In our exchanges you once said I make you sick. I responded by saying it was my belief here were already there before I came along.

You’re doing your best to prove it.

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.