I'm gonna laugh even though you may be referring to me... 
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 ...
Perhaps sudden, unprovoked and violent aggression should be considered “whacko”.
Some of them may have participated in their own justified homicide.
Maybe a lynch mob going after a vigilante.
I'm gonna laugh even though you may be referring to me...
As we can definitively establish at this very moment that she is lying about what happened, you shouldn’t be too quick to believe her.
We haven’t even the other side of the story yet.
If it turns out that this guy was handicapped and asking for the space, and she responded with a death threat, you’re going to feel pretty foolish.
Watch the video again. She gets right up in his face, she had no fear of him and it exposes her entire tale as a lie.
Whatever went down here, it wasn’t as she tells it.
I call that "the reverse Venturi effect" - where you crawl along in back of someone on a two-lane, then you get to a four-lane, where you have two lanes going both ways.
Once the bottleneck is gone, the "crawler" speeds up so you can't pass, until it goes back to a two-lane road.
One is allowed to defend oneself in this country.
Doing so does not make one a “vigilante”.
One is not allowed to violently assault another person without reason.
Doing so makes one a violent criminal.
Violent criminals sometimes die during the commission of their crimes.
Live by violence, die by violence.
God bless America.
“So, obviously, that statement is false.”
So says the expert.
The Cruz kid who shot up the school had how many visits from the sheriff’s department, yet still had guns?
Mhmm, and the law was changed before or after “The Cruz kid”?
Go ahead and dazzle me.
“The man who pushed continued to advance.”
Yet you sit there scolding others about something based on your opinion is a “lie”, yet you let the above whopper slip out.
Watch the video. The guy who shoved the shooter had already started walking
A W A Y from the shooter.
And you can C L E A R L Y see that he was hit in the side or back by the shooter.
“Still doesn’t justify the assault and battery.”
And being shoved to the ground with nothing hurt but ones pride is justification for the death penalty?
Since you were there, what exactly did you see that you would be willing to stand up to questioning from a defense attorney?
The guy who was shoved was N E V E R approached after the initial contact.
I watched the video. The attacker only stopped when the victim reached into his shirt for his gun. He did not back up until he was already shot once.
There is a pause between the first shot and second. You can see the shooter taking careful aim. The assailant realizes he’s been shot and is about to be shot again while he’s standing there. He gets shot a second time, grabs his chest, and spins to his right to get away. He was not shot while running away. All this time the shooter remained on the ground, in a vulnerable position.
A few things stood out. Ole boy in the blue shirt looks to have setup the attacker. He sees the argument and goes into the store. Seconds later the attacker comes out and rushes straight at the shooter, knocking him down. No “huh?” or nothing. IOW he was already appraised of the situation by the blue shirt guy.
Secondly, the shooter’s unbuttoned shirt over his other shirt is a giveaway he’s armed. The second loose shirt is meant to obscure the outline of the weapon on the interior shirt.
Yeah, you don’t get to rush people and knock them on the ground in Florida for arguing. Boo hoo. Mind your manners.
Please visit Orlando and our cruise ports. You’ll just love them. Take the family. Stay the week. Excellent deals during the summer.
I neither believe nor disbelieve her at this point, but from the article:
The owner of the convenience store in Clearwater told ABC affiliate WFTS that Drejka had assaulted customers in the store’s parking lot before. And Rich Kelly, who frequents the store, claimed Drejka picked a fight with him over a parking spot about a month ago, calling him racial slurs and threatening to kill him, WFTS reported.
I give some weight to that.
We haven’t even the other side of the story yet.
Too true, yet we have over 400 posts.
If it turns out that this guy was handicapped and asking for the space, and she responded with a death threat, you’re going to feel pretty foolish.
Maybe I will. I do wonder why he was there. According to the above quote from the article he's, let's say, had problems in the parking lot before. Was he there to buy something or did he just stop to confront someone for illegal parking? If he wasn't there to shop, what was his right to be there? If he wasn't there to shop and the dead guy was, did the dead guy have more right to be there? If the dead guy had the right to be there and the shooter didn't, did the dead guy have the right to stand his ground in defense of his woman (from his point of view) when he thought (again from his point of view) she was being assaulted? If so, did the shooter have the right to shoot under those circumstances? I'm just asking questions and as you wrote, we haven't seen the other side of the story.
I tried to look at the video again, but it wouldn't play. I'll try later.
Just like you peddle the BS that the guy who was shot was still a threat after the initial contact.
He walked in the man’s direction, he pulled up his pants, he pushed him, he walked in the man’s direction, who now occupied the ground courtesy of his attacker, he pulled up his pants again... indicating what do you think?
The man pulled his gun, the home boy indicated uh oh, I f*cked up and I’m in big trouble, and then he was shot.
I frankly do not care if he realized his error, because it was far too late.
You may want to forgive his unprovoked violent assault and continued aggressive advance on his victim, but I don’t.
Oh, and you failed to answer my question.
When was the gun confiscation law in Florida changed? Was it before or after “the Cruz Kid”?
Go ahead and answer the question, genius.
You're the one that is lying.
Go ahead and watch it again over and over until you see him pull up his pants, push the man, and continue to walk towards the fallen man while pulling up his pants again.
It's not my fault that you are either blind as a bat, or dumb as a brick, or simply dishonest or all of the above.
Well you don’t know what the shooter said either.
True. One is also allowed to defend others. From the Florida Stand Your Ground Law:
"(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."
I don't think we know enough about this, but if your inside a store, your woman is outside, and you believe she needs defending, what can you do under that law? Can you push someone?
Doing so does not make one a “vigilante”.
Laws may vary, but repeatedly accosting people for illegal parking when you have no authority to do so might make you a vigilante.
One is not allowed to violently assault another person without reason.
True. Again, I don't think we have enough information, but I've come to wonder who had reason. Was the dead guy standing his ground?
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.
