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 ...
Bet she doesn't do that again.
If that guy had advanced on him again - I would agree.
He drew down on him and shot him - when he was no longer an apparent threat.
I still see no mention of who here was HANDICAPPED.
Was white man just a do-gooder, or did he need that space?
I'd be willing to take $100 or so from you on that.......there's no learnin some folks.
It’s a close call. Thug assaults victim, then continues to approach victim, until victim pulls out gun. Thug, seeing the gun, starts to back up and is *arguably* no longer a threat. Victim shoots thug anyway. It could go either way.
In other words, she lied through her teeth.
I disagree.
After being attacked how does the victum know the intent of the perp?
The perp didn't flee, he could have been drawing his own weapon.
Unless the perp had his hands clearly in the air, the victim had no way of knowing the attack was over.
I say it was legitimate self defense.
I saw the same video, but the victim is assaulted with no warning and violently pushed to the ground. The assailant stands looking at him with a threatening demeanor. The victim feels he will be further assaulted if he tries to get up and is in the disadvantageous position of being on the ground. There is no indication that cops or any other help is forthcoming in a timely manner.
Feeling under threat from his assailant, the victim takes out his firearm. The assailant clearly sees the firearm and makes no attempt to disengage.
Being under threat from a person of superior strength and tactical position, and fearing further physical harm, the victim defensively shoots his assailant.
BG has no weapon that I can see. WG appears to shoot him out of spite. WG is one brave soul....
You two are correct. If the shover had continued to advance in a threatening manner, I could see SYG. But he didn't. Violence was over.
Some type of manslaughter at the very least. I don't even see how SYG could be twisted to cover a retreating perpetrator who only shoved and didn't present a fist, much less a weapon.
I don’t know if the thug threatened the guy on the ground or not after the gun was pulled. He might have told the shooter that he was going to kill him or cause some other harm. Any verbal threat at that time could cause the shooter to fear for his safety of life because of the shove to the ground (unprovoked assault) he had just been the victim of.
So when the guy approached the man who ended up on the ground didn't feel threatened?
For all he knew the guy stepping back was doing so because he was too close to kick him in the face before he could get up and would kick him after a step back. I've seen that happen several times over the years, maybe the shooter had, too.
Once it was obvious the man who did the pushing was intent on using force (in fact had used force right off the bat), you can't really say the man who was already physically attacked should be able to make the split second decision more force wasn't going to follow.
The shooter would have been a lot better off not arguing over the parking spot given the fact that police seldom if ever enforce restrictions anyway or at least done his commenting walking. Once he chose not to, though, what followed doesn't look nearly as clear cut as you make it out to be with 20/20 hindsight.
If you're the one who may be a second away from being kicked in the face you wait and see but don't expect anyone else who is shoved to the ground to see it the same way.
key phrase...
“...is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she (as opposed to FReeper, who was not there, didn’t hear what was threatened) reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death (money phrase -—>)or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another...”
Bottom line is that the shooter clearly felt it was necessary to use deadly force at that time and made that clear to responding LEOs.
Know your rights and responsibilities Know how to respond to LEOs after an event.
But yeah...don’t start fights. Let jerks be jerks and stay out of the way if possible when armed.
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.
Apparently, he was a self-appointed parking lot enforcer.
Video shows deadly shooting over parking spot at Clearwater convenience store The store owner tells ABC Action News that Drejka has a history of assaulting people in the very parking lot the shooting took place. A man who frequents the store told ABC Action News he had a run-in with the man who opened fire just one month ago. Rich Kelly says the man picked a fight with him over a parking spot, using racial slurs, and even threatening to kill him. Now, a month later, a similar case, ending with a father killed in front of his 5-year-old son.""Drejka is a legal concealed weapons permit holder and will not be charged because of Florida's Stand Your Ground law, according to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EwnQW3tUpc
According to the above video, the shooter was a regular who repeatedly though of himself as the handicap parking police and has confronted other drivers for using that space.
Remember, when you are carrying you are bringing a gun to the fight, so you should avoid confrontation, not initiate it. I don't think the shooter should have been arguing with the woman in the car. The victim came out of the store and shoved the shooter, then backed away from the guy.
As he sat on the ground, the shooter drew and fired. At the moment the trigger was pulled, his life didn't appear to be in danger to me. It looked like he shot in retaliation for being pushed to the ground.
If he were on trial and I was on the jury, as a CPL holder I'm not sure I wouldn't vote to convict.
“Feeling under threat from his assailant, the victim takes out his firearm. The assailant clearly sees the firearm and makes no attempt to disengage.”
Nor does he seem to make any attempt to further engage. It seems there is only a second there before the guy fires.
I just don’t see the justification for the deadly force unless the perp comes at him again. I wasn’t there sitting on the ground, and I can’t hear what’s being said. I’m making a judgement based on what I can see.
NY Post no agenda there...
Recap:
Woman in car with 2 small children does not have handicap permit but pulls into a handicap parking spot.
Man verbally confronts her.
Woman’s boyfriend exits the store and heads toward the scene.
Woman exits the vehicle, arguing with the man.
Woman’s boyfriend shoves the man to the ground.
The man draws his gun.
The woman’s boyfriend freezes.
The man shoots him.
The man staggers back to the store and subsequently dies.
What is not apparent is if the man (shooter) perceived any continued threat when he fired his gun. It is possible the woman’s boyfriend made a move such as reaching or something similar that demonstrated he was not backing down. However, I did not see evidence of this on the video.
Since I’m not directly involved, and it is a judgment call, I’ll defer to law enforcement. But I can definitely see a case for a wrongful death civil suit as well.
How could the woman or her boyfriend have avoided his death?
She could have accepted the fact she was in the wrong over the parking spot and moved her car.
The boyfriend could have refrained from initiating physical contact (assault) with the man.
There are low standards of reasoning all over the place.
If I was on that shooter's jury, I would vote for acquittal without a second thought. The feral animal's actions is all I need to know.
The next handicapped person or old lady he pushed may have had to deal with a concussion-- or worse.
Good riddance to useless garbage.
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.