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 ...
I guess you missed where he took two steps back ...
It’s absolutely pitiful and annoying ;/
This is the problem I have with this.
If there were other spaces, the CCW guy should have just taken one of them instead of playing parking police with one of Lincolns satanspawn.
I am pretty sure that if CCW guy wasn’t armed, he would have just parked his car and bought his slurpee.
I guess you missed where is slung an old man into the pavement for no reason, you thug defending MORON!
This video was helpful to me as they showed the incident in slow-motion.
After the victim drew his weapon, and the thug saw it, he didn’t move away to de-escalate. Rather, he moved back a half-step or two, as if to reconsider the situation. Then, while the victim was pointing the weapon at the perpetrator, he actually moved forward slightly. If he’d have been trying to disengage, he’d have kept backing up, or even ran away, or put his hands up. Instead, he reversed his backward motion and had begun to move forward.
I don’t know if he moved forward because he was about to recommence his attack, or whether he was just adjusting his balance. But his backward motion had stopped, and even reversed slightly.
If I’d have been the victim, on the ground, with the perpetrator right near me, having already suffered one physical assault already, seeing the thug even involuntarily twitch a muscle that brought him perceptibly closer would have led me to fire my weapon at him.
As it is, the victim showed remarkable restraint. The thug didn’t drop, but kept on moving. But the victim accurately perceived the thug was, having been shot, now moving away from him, and the threat, if not eliminated, was on the decrease.
The thug earned its toe tag.
this is the equivalent of me blowing the horn at someone on the road because I don’t agree with what they’re doing behind the wheel and another car slamming into me because of it. the thug had no right to do what he did and he died because of it.
“was put a foot forward.”
Look again.
Yep.
He initiated violence, he delivered violence, he received violence, then he died.
Live by violence, die by violence.
Fair trade.
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.
They usually are.
“I dindu nuffin”
Yeah you did. You parked in a handicapped space illegally when several other spots were open.
Your boyfriend then attacked the dude who approached you and pointed out you were illegally parked in a handicapped space without a sticker. The guy he attacked was armed. OOPS! Bad move for your boyfriend. He’ll now enjoy his dirt nap.
End of story. Don’t attack people. It shouldn’t be that hard to figure out. I’ve managed to not attack people my whole life - it can be done!
“The assault suspect was backing up slightly prior to the suspect producing a gun.”
Looks to me that he backed up when he saw the gun, not before.
Here’s what I see:
Guy 1 shoved guy 2 to the ground.
Guy 1 took 2 small steps toward guy 2 and stopped.
Guy 1 put his hands at his waste and lifted his shirt.
Guy 2 drew his gun.
Guy 2 took 3 steps back as guy 2 shot him.
Here is the video marked to the event:
https://youtu.be/-EwnQW3tUpc?t=72
The gun is not clear in the video, but you can tell a lot about the timing by the reaction of a third man in the video that blocks our view momentarily. He is casually walking toward the scene and then suddenly darts to the side, clearly indicating he was reacting to seeing the gun being drawn. It is at the same moment that guy 1 stops and begins backing up.
I’m not saying it was a clean shooting. But I am saying it is not clearly a case where the shooter was merely retaliating. Guy 1 was the one who turned the argument physical. We can’t tell from the video alone whether him shoving the guy was legally justified. Was guy 2 screaming in a threatening manner? Was guy 2 making verbal threats, such as “I’ll shoot you”?
I can sympathize with guy 1 wanting to get physical with a guy harassing his girlfriend / wife / baby-mama over her parking choice, but it may not be legally defensible. The guy drawing and using his weapon is questionable but also possibly legal.
You have to consider the timeframe. From the perspective of guy 2, guy 1 walks up and becomes physically violent. Guy 2 is larger, he advances (though only slightly) after the assault, and his hand movements, though in retrospect probably signal he was going to causally stand there and let guy 2 walk away, could also have been interpreted as reaching for something.
Because the time in which guy 2 draws and discharges his weapon is so small, I’d be inclined to think it was not merely retaliation for being shoved. Guy 1 escalated a verbal dispute, and guy 2 might reasonably perceive a threat of lethal force. If there had been a second or two between drawing and firing, for example, with guy 1 actually fleeing, then I’d say it was clear cut murder. In this case, it is not clear cut. Not saying it was a clean shooting though.
There is also a history with guy 2 from what the man who works at the store said. If guy 2 has a history of threatening and trying to stir up a fight, while being armed, it might indicate an intent to use a confrontation such as this one as a pretext for murder.
“I guess you missed where is slung an old man into the pavement for no reason, you thug defending MORON!”
ROTFLMAO! You are ONE sick puppy. Please get help, SOON, before you hurt someone and land in jail.
“The guy drawing and using his weapon is questionable but also possibly legal.”
Questionable but legal.
Self-defense can turn on a dime. The shooter would be better off without the video. Then, again, I am not sure that the witness seen in the foreground of the video would be impartial.
No I did not miss the two steps back - or the forward movement, or the side-step, or the sustained attack posture.
Drejka fired on a much bigger, stronger, younger man who had just knocked him down in a flanking strike, was still facing him in attack posture and was within one step of stomping him.
That is why he was not arrested for the shooting.
You’re the one defending the perpetrator of a violent assault on an old man.
I don’t need any help.
Don’t go slinging any old men into the pavement like your buddy did, wouldn’t want to see you end up like him.
That’s a reasonable analogy.
“You’re the one defending the perpetrator of a violent assault on an old man.”
ROTFLMAO! Go out into the street and play with the cars.
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.