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 ...
I don’t need to know what he said, it’s not relevant. Speaking is not a crime, and speaking does not justify the commission of a physical assault against the speaker.
The only thing that is relevant is that the black man assaulted the white man in such a manner as to cause the white man to pull his gun and defend himself, resulting in the death of the black man.
This entire discussion and whatever may or may not happen to the white man is also not relevant, because the black man, who is the person who initiated the violence, is no longer on this earth, and he’s never coming back.
He has arrived at his final destination.
Better luck next time.
(1) What did she need defending from? How was he assaulting her?
(2) He wasn’t attempting to enforce the law. He did not ticket her, he did not arrest her, he did not impound her vehicle. Approaching someone and speaking to them is not a crime. Violently assaulting someone IS a crime, but I see you want to excuse that crime and hold someone accountable for the non-commission of a crime.
Makes sense.
(3)Explain to me how the dead guy was standing his ground by attacking someone from his blindside who was speaking to someone else.
Seriously, man, you are trying way too hard to be entirely too dense.
“My man hears what’s going on, sees the guy yelling at me and I’m sitting in the car. My man is defending me and his children, so he pushes him down.
Here’s why you shouldn’t believe her:
from the story...
> “He was picking a fight. I’m just sitting, waiting for my family to come back to the car.”
> Jacobs, who was waiting in the vehicle with the couple’s two younger children — an infant and a 3-year-old — said she started feeling “scared” when she noticed how fast the argument was escalating. It wasn’t long before McGlockton came out along with their 5-year-old son and tried to diffuse the situation.
>“My man hears what’s going on, sees the guy yelling at me and I’m sitting in the car. My man is defending me and his children, so he pushes him down.
Never mind that these statements aren’t even consistent with each other.
Watch the videotape with her version of events in mind. Does a “scared” person exit the vehicle?
She makes additional statements in the news reports that are also inconsistent with the video.
In court, she’s going to get destroyed as a witness based on this evidence alone. A rookie lawyer could do it without breaking a sweat.
Not once did I say it did. I was arguing a different point.
He didn't receive the death penalty anyway, the premise is false.
The Death Penalty is decided upon by a jury, imposed by a judge and carried out by a government on a citizen after a person has been found guilty of capital murder generally.
This man was killed on the spot by his victim, whom he assailed in a violent and dangerous manner, which a citizen, especially a Floridan, has the right to do in order to defend himself from death or injury.
This is called a "Justifiable Homicide" and is not similar to the "Death Penalty".
Insufficient information to answer so not to answer but to respond, the law says:
"(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."
Note the part about "reasonably believes". Did the dead guy reasonably believe the woman needed defending? Also, did the shooter reasonably believe he needed to shoot? Isn't it a fine mess if the answer is "yes" to both questions?
"Approaching someone and speaking to them is not a crime."
Depends on what's said. A threat can be a crime. Harassment can be a crime. Disturbing the peace can be a crime. Local laws may vary. In this case we don't know what was said.
"...you want to excuse that crime and hold someone accountable for the non-commission of a crime."
I know you don't see it, but that could cut both ways in this incident.
"Explain to me how the dead guy was standing his ground by attacking someone from his blindside who was speaking to someone else."
Read my quote of the law above. It doesn't preclude blindsiding.
"Seriously, man, you are trying way too hard to be entirely too dense."
I know you don't see it, but that definitely cuts both ways.
I don’t. I don’t want to see someone else do it either. Does that give the guy license to kill him to get even? No.
If the guy is giving my girlfriend a very hard time, I don’t think he’d get the soft glove treatment from me.
If I am backing off, I don’t think he should shoot me. I didn’t kill him, and it’s not reasoned to think he should be able to kill me either.
Well, then that’s going to be a call for the authorities to deal with.
This guy may not be charged at all. The officers on the scene seem to have seen it the same way you folks have. I differ with that.
The guy who should have stayed in bed, was the guy that was itching to shoot someone. He came to this exact location and started fights with numerous people. He threatened to kill them also.
Sorry, but I do not think lethal force was called for here.
Once the guy started to back off, the shooter should have held his fire to see what happened next.
If the guy got back in his car and started to leave, he should have written down the license plate and filed a legal complaint against the guy.
“Never mind that these statements aren’t even consistent with each other.”
I don’t see it the way you do, at least not as a “case closed” matter.
“Does a “scared” person exit the vehicle?”
Scared people are unpredictable. As an aside, it’s dangerous to scare some people.
“In court...”
Is where all this belongs, IMEO.
Okay, then I thought you were saying it was okay because police have been known to use that excuse. I don’t think that is a good reason.
As for the man turning, the shot was not directly into the front of him. To me it looked like less than a 45 degree angle. I watched it a number of times myself.
Before he turned, he also backed up. He was not approaching the man any longer, once the gun appeared.
I’m curios how you can say the police have shot with less provocation. That seems to me like trying to have it both ways.
I don’t know that the guy ever parked in the lot and guarded the handicapped spot. I got the impression he doesn’t limit his criticisms to that spot, but I can’t say for sure.
None of the witnesses to my knowledge stated that he was a hawk on that one spot. They seemed to be making the case that he was a problem concerning a number of spots.
In a way I agree that his actions at other times shouldn’t have any bearing on this case, but I don’t think it’s quite that easy. He was threatening a number of people with death.
That is certainly going to be admissible at some point. The guy seemed to be anxious to use his concealed carry permit.
That could certainly have bearing on whether he went off half cocked here.
I don’t have a problem with assessing peoples mindset either.
To my way of thinking, this was an accident waiting to happen. He could confront a lot of people and get away with it, but someone was bound to react as some point in a way he didn’t think of before hand.
That’s a good question. The owner addressed him as being a big problem. One guy interviewed at the scene said the man had given him a hard time at one point, threatening to kill him.
People hope people like this will simply go away.
If you report him and the police don’t take him off the streets, then he comes for you.
Chris, the manager of the store was shown in an interview where he stated what I mentioned.
There was one other patron who gave an interview that said this man had confronted him, had threatened his life, and had used racial insults during the process.
That’s why I stated it. That’w why I’ll continue to state it.
So what?
Even if it’s 100% true, It’s not relevant to this incident in any way, shape or form, and if anyone had a problem with it, they should have reported him to police.
And seeing as how he was not arrested or charged with such and is allowed to patronize the business, and remains in possession of his weapon and his CCW, I don’t think it’s true.
He committed no crime prior to a violent crime being committed against him, and that is the ONLY thing that matters.
But he didn’t come for anyone.
Someone came for him.
You don’t seem to be able to recognize the criminal in the incident.
You know, you toss out insults here and then act as if you’re above it all.
I threw no one under the bus. I stated that once the gun was drawn the Black guy backed off and turned to walk away.
Well ace, if you bet, then you’d lose. I defended the guard in the Trayvon situation, and I defended the officers in the Brown shooting.
It isn’t alleged at best. The owner of the business has no reason to lie about it. The other guy was only saying about the same thing the owner had, but he had a one on one experience with the guy.
It is not a red hearing. It served to show that this man was causing problems on the lot, was threatening to kill people, and was using racial epithets. He was in effect doing all that he could to be able to use his conceal permit.
The day in question the 47 year old man picked the wrong couple to badger. He got his ass kicked for it.
Trayvon was actively beating a man’s head into the ground.
Brown was charging an officer after already assaulting him and almost ripping his gun away from him.
This old man was on the ground, and at the time he shot, his assailant was backing away and turning to go even further away.
Sorry, but the same circumstances not being present, I don’t agree with the shooting.
“:^)
Look bud, don’t go space cadet on me.
The owner of the establishment said this guy had been a problem. Another person participated in an interview giving his experience with the guy.
What the hell is wrong with you folks?
The guy was a known problem. This was not the first time he had caused problems and anyone with an open mind would accept it.
Why do you refuse to accept it.
We have articles all the time here were people divulge information and we accept it baring any refutation later on.
He killed him to protect himself. Your stating that he killed him to get even is speculation on your part.
If you’re backing off, it doesn’t matter what you think, because he could kill you regardless of what you think he should do or not do. If he does kill you, does it really matter if he goes to jail or not at that point?
This man could have protected his girlfriend from this man’s interrogation of her simply by getting in his car and driving away. Had he done that, he would still be alive, and she would be fine. Instead, he thugged it, and he went out like a thug goes out.
Please allow me to give you some advice. When you feel anger surge within you, do not respond to it. Suppress it. Control it. It’s not a helpful emotion. Everything done in anger is regrettable. I guarantee you the dead man regrets.
And don’t apologize for your position. I know we do not agree, but I respect your opinion. Be careful, man, don’t fall victim of assh0le magnetism. This advice comes from a lifelong assh0le. It’s best to just walk away.
Well, I honestly think the 47 year old was cruising for a confrontation. You don’t approach people the way he had been doing it.
Sooner or later someone is going to clean your clock.
I have asked this a number of times and nobody has refuted it.
You go out tomorrow and look for a woman whose guy has just gone into a store for a few minutes. When the guy comes out, make sure you’re cursing at her and tossing in some racial epithets.
See what happens to you.
I’m not tossing out any insults, and if I did, i don’t mean them in a personal manner, I’m just a bit pissed off about the conversation here.
But I am above it all, because I’m right on this.
As far as the man being a problem or not, the business owner should have acted on it if that was the case, but no action was taken, so I don’t believe him.
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.