Posted on 07/21/2018 10:33:56 AM PDT by Navy Patriot
An argument over a handicapped parking spot at a convenience store in Florida led to a fatal shooting and the man who pulled the trigger won’t be arrested under the state’s “stand your ground” self-defense law, authorities said.
Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri told reporters during a Friday press conference that Thursday’s shooting death of Markeis McGlockton, a 28-year-old father of three, is “within the bookends of stand your ground and within the bookends of force being justified,” the Tampa Bay Times reports.
“I’m not saying I agree with it, but I don’t make that call,” Gualtieri told reporters, adding that his agency will now forward the case to the State Attorney’s Office for a final decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
What am I missing here? 20 something punks park illegally in a handicap zone, Old guy complains, 20 somethings wild on him and he shoots them..
Tell me again about the wall and law and order
Remember this story next time a FReeper boasts about how protective he is of his lady relatives and companions.
irrelevant. it’s all about the victim’s fear for his own life. if a thug pushed me to the ground and at the same time his GF gets out of her car and he’s standing there I would damn sure feel in fear for my life and would shoot him. No doubt about it.
you’re letting semantics decide for you. this is a clear case of self defense against a guy that was CLEARLY out of line by shoving this man off his feet without warning.
McGlockton was not retreating. He had just advanced two steps after a previous retreat and he hesitated as the gun came out. Then he side-stepped. That was not an "end of the threat".
Meanwhile the girlfriend was making a rapid move at the edge of view. Was she coming to assist in an attack? It would be a "reasonable" assumption under the circumstances.
Drejka was down and could not retreat.
Drejka had (IMO) "reasonable" basis for believing that he was still under threat of imminent death or crippling injury.
McGlockton was still the aggressor in this tableau and was bigger, younger, and stronger than the shooter. That establishes the "disparity of force" that defines a lethal threat.
Drejka fired only one shot at a man who was aggressively facing him as a potentially lethal threat. That establishes "proportionality of response".
The racial component of this incident is the only thing that makes it controversial. If it had been two Blacks or two Whites involved, the discussion would have ended pretty quickly in favor of the shooter.
If the shooter had been Black and the attacker had been White, the shooter would be getting (undeserved) praises as a hero of some kind.
Note: I believe the shooter was probably being an officious jerk. That still does not justify knocking him down and moving to stomp him. And it does not impair the justification of a lethal self-defense shooting.
You have zero idea of whether he was a threat. He had already acted overly aggressively over just words
I can't say I see the relevance of whether the do-gooder personally needed or was entitled to the space.
When I watch the video, what I see is the do-gooder talking and gesticulating to a closed car window. Then I see a woman engage him--not by ignoring him or cracking a car window, which would be ordinary--but by getting out of the car and approaching him. At the same time, I see the hulk come out of the store unseen and stride toward the do-gooder.
Compounding the riskiness of the situation, instead of introducing himself and asking if there is a problem--which would be the normal thing to do, to avoid misunderstanding or danger to anyone--the hulk attacks the do-gooder from the side and sends him flying to the ground.
Now, if the hulk had then jumped into the car and the couple had simply driven away, you could argue that the hulk was afraid for his woman's safety and was trying to fend off any danger from the stranger.
But no. After he knocks the guy to the ground, he stands over him and puts his hand on his hip. Regardless of whether he's reaching for a gun or preparing to smack the do-gooder, the hulk is obviously not done. As the initiator of violent action, that was his fatal mistake.
From the do-gooder's point of view, he's been confronted by the one person he knew he was talking to--the woman--who has opened the car door and is now heading for him. Then from another direction, he is blindsided shoved violently to the pavement by a man the size of a bear who is now leaning over him.
At this point, I can't conceivably hold the do-gooder, who has to be seeing stars from full-body impact on the pavement, responsible for discerning the minute shifts of the hulk's feet or his intentions. The attacker in this situation is still in his face.
Bye, hulk. Too bad, too stupid. If you really found the old guy so scary when you saw him talking at your woman, and you couldn't bring yourself, at 275 pounds or whatever, to take over and defuse the situation with a smile, you could have called the cops or just packed your family in the car and left without a word. You didn't. Sometimes, annoying old do-gooders are carrying an equalizer.
right. as far as I’m concerned, it was essentially the knock out game as he came out of no where, with no warning and shoved that man off his feet several feet away.
Is there a difference between two people having a discussion (heated or not), and two people where one is violently pushed to the ground?
I apologize for the assumption.
It was based first on assuming because of the sire’s name (”Markeis”), which was the first mentioned, and the area. Looking at the vague CCTV view did nothing to change my perception.
Its already been established the the dead guy is a criminal who will assault you.
You are thick as mud
You! You who wants a wall are out here saying, I let’s have a little compassion.
Jezz don’t come around Tx
The actual shooting event has little to do with what occurred prior to the shoot. Be it a squabble over parking spot or whatever. I can assure you, the prosecutors won’t be much concerned about what the squabble was over, but the shooting itself.
From the story:
“That’s when McGlockton, who is black, exited the store and approached Drejka, shoving him violently to the ground with both hands, surveillance video shows. While still on the ground, Drejka, who is white, then pulled out a gun and shot McGlockton, firing a single round that struck him in the chest, deputies said.”
Should have been written THIS way:
That’s when McGlockton, who is big, young, and strong exited the store and strode up to Drejka, immediately
shoving him violently to the blacktop with both hands, surveillance video shows. While still on the pavement, Drejka, who is a much smaller, older, man, then pulled out a gun and shot McGlockton, firing a single round that struck him in the chest, deputies said.
Felt threatened? He was assaulted! Unjustly and violently.
What was he to do? eat it? Review the marquis of Queensberry rules? Call a cop? Wait to get his head bashed in?
The white guy should have known better than to “disrespect” the Black woman by speaking to her.
It looks clean to me.
I happen to agree with you....yell at the doofus saying the bully was retreating. Since the he guy on the ground felt threatened (ie feated for his safety and life) he was fully justified
even law enforcement, who know WAY MORE than we do, declined to charge Drejka. This speaks volumes, besides the fact of the very clear assault on Drejka. It’s all about the victim’s perceived level of fear and on going threat and that’s the way the law is written.
I can assure you, folks who carry aint just shooting innocent folks in the street
A gun is not a bargaining tool, nor it is a tool to scare people with.
One pulls a guns and points it at a person because why?
***************************************
I would hope, a person pulls a gun to stop a threat on their life.
The question is whether he actually needed to shoot to stop the threat, or if the threat was already retreating. It’s a close call in my opinion.
We don’t allow cops to shoot a person that is retreating, just because the cop already pulled his gun.
Then again, the late Markeis McGlockton seems at times to have had a problem behaving himself. His criminal record in Pinellas County includes numerous arrests and at least one felony conviction in June of 2008 for resisting an officer with violence.
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.