Posted on 07/23/2018 8:14:48 AM PDT by Navy Patriot
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Thanks for your comments.
I think this has been discussed enough now, and I’m willing to let you have the last word in this exchange.
Later...
Sorry, but 1.) I’m not a lip reader.
2.) It was pretty obvious based on the article.
And 3.) I’m not going to put it in coloring book format for you to understand.
So, in other words, you have no idea what he said to her, or how he sad it.
I don’t mind putting it in coloring book format for you to understand, I’m just a nice guy like that.
Y’all are crazy
You just shoot folks rather than fight?
Where’s u and Chris grow up?
Me
Jackson Mississippi the west side
I’m white
It’s david banner country now
The Queens as he calls it
You two need to watch Shane again
(Shaking my cobwebs addled Head)
That doesn’t change my opinion of the matter, except in watching it I noticed that the violent man pulled up his pants just prior to pushing the man, then pulled them up again upon further approach to the man.
So what can one deduce happens after this violent man pulls up his pants? More violence is incoming.
I didn’t shoot any folks.
I don’t carry a gun.
If this man believed he was in danger, then he had the right to shoot.
I believe he was in danger from watching the video.
The violent man demonstrated his intent to harm by harming him.
It’s all over for him.
Regardless of how any of this turns out, he’s done.
I always wondered about people from Jackson.
He doesn't use a belt? He likes to wear his pants around his ankles except when it's time to fight because it's restrictive so he pulls them up to fight.
I think there is a failure to detect Prog Fake News MSM disinformation by many on this thread.
For a parallel, reference the shooting of the innocent high school honor student, Trayvon Martin, by the White Hispanic racist George Zimmerman, the wannabe security guard who constantly and unnecessarily skulked around the backyards of the crime free housing complex threatening children of color with his undeserved concealed carry weapon in spite of the neighborhood watch orders to desist because of his criminal record.
That was the trumpeted story of the ENTIRE Fake News MSM and Prog Socialists.
Until the Internet (FReepers among them) proved that not a single word of that story was true, and the Prog/MSM target was the Second Amendment and Self Defense for the serf class.
Trayvon was just the perfect useful Negro angel, ... at least they could make him so and Demonize Zimmerman, ...
Except the truth got out.
Now, Fake News has FReeper helpers.
Note that I did not ask what one can deduce about him because of this action.
I asked what one can deduce happens after he pulls up his pants.
I recall when that happened I was the first one to post this image of Martin, which was taken down by the moderator, because people said it was not him, but it most certainly is him, as he is identifiable by the scar under his right eye.
Instead of using this much more recent photo of him, they went with the one of him as a little kid...
Cite the source that is admissible in court as truthful as I have done with McGlockton's past violent criminal convictions, or at least publicly identify yourself so Drejka can sue your pants off.
Yeah, I remember the jail jumpsuit photo of Zimmerman they published too, although he had already been exonerated.
“I’ll go with the colloquial whacko pending a proper diagnosis.”
I’ll call BS on this too. He would not have been granted a CCW permit if he had a history of mental illness.
And who said he was ‘a whacko’? The store owner who faces a civil suit for a murder on his property? The aggrieved girl friend?
I’ll even cede you the point a FReeper made up thread that once some ppl get a CCW they go out looking for trouble. So what? There’s still no right to get violent on people because they’re being offensive or argumentative.
Bottom line: You need to face the fact that there is NOTHING in the law which says “whacko” or “weird behavior” confers guilt or removes a person’s rights. no one in their right mind would ever want there to be.
I realize in this PC, Politics First/Politics Always view of America some prefer castigation and slander to dictate the course of the judicial system (as it does in television and the media) -but it does not. As long as their is written law and jury trials the law will almost always prevail.
Good luck getting twelve guilty votes in FL. The shooter was the victim here. He defended himself within the context and intent of the law.
“Neither side was entirely in the clear > IMO.
Someone wound up dead. That’s usually frowned upon.”
Moral equivalence? Umm, No.
Committing violent acts against people is what is frowned upon. Dead is just a matter of degree. It’s best not to start something you cannot predict or control.
You start the violence, you own the outcome.
“I just don’t like the idea of pulling into a public parking lot and being descended upon by a local armed territorial pitbull who has invisible lines drawn around “his” space.”
There is a liberal nutcase around here who frequents one of the local fast food joints who has laid claim to a specific table. Well I was there with my son who was 5 at the time, and the social norms in such establishments is that seating is first come first serve. The guy comes in and immediately made a beeline towards us screaming that we’re sitting at “his” table. I told the guy to basically go away. Well he got louder, so I told him a second time. He got louder again and started focusing on my son. At that time I placed both of my hands on the table, stood up halfway out of the chair and leaned closer to the freak and told him again to go away. Well he took a swing... Big mistake. I had him in an arm lock on the floor and held him there til the police arrived.
The point I’m making is that there are these territorial nutcases all over the place. Be it a parking lot, or a restaurant table, or even on the road going slow in the left lane or those who speed up in passing zones and slow to a crawl in no passing zones.
I wrote “I’ll go with the colloquial whacko pending a proper diagnosis” because “In a state with legal concealed carry and a Stand Your Ground law, he goes around confronting strangers”.
That seems whacko to me in a colloquial sense, meaning as “used in ordinary or familiar conversation; not formal or literary (synonyms: informal, conversational, everyday). And that’s pending a proper diagnosis, meaning deemed by a qualified person to have symptoms of severe mental disorder. Not that there is a diagnosis of “whacko” or that, as far as I know, the word is used other than colloquially.
You can be “deemed by a qualified person to have symptoms of severe mental disorder (whacko)” without going through the legal system.
If no one turns you in or initiates proceedings, you can have symptoms of severe mental disorder (be whacko) and not have gone through the legal system, in which case you will not be denied a CCW or have your guns confiscated on the basis of being “whacko”.
And you can be considered “whacko” without having symptoms of severe mental disorder, just because you’re “different”.
There are people walking around loose who may colloquially be called “whacko” any of whom may or may not be deemable as having symptoms of severe mental disorder.
Some of them may be members of this forum.
Some of them may be participating in this thread.
My original post on this thread agrees with that point. Don’t engagement strangers if whatever is going on doesn’t effect you.
All you have to do is look at the woman’s statements in the article and compare them to the videotape.
The woman is lying about her role. Claims to have been sitting in the car the whole time but she clearly exits the car to confront the man BEFORE the boyfriend is on scene.
Wouldn’t be surprised if she told the guy “when my boyfriend comes out he’s going to kill you”. If I’m the defense lawyer I tell the client to say she said that, since she is already on the record as having lied.
> One thing I note in the video is that he first points the gun at THE WOMAN, suggesting that she had made a threat to him.
Yep. She’s the one at fault for the situation, is demonstrably a liar, and everything she has said is designed to put the blame on someone else.
The people on this thread who have called the shooter a “wacko” and attribute other unsupported actions and behavior to him are behaving like a lynch mob.
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.