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 ...
would you be willing to prove your statement that the shooter has a history of ANYTHING you claim?
Look at all these freepers you’re arguing with trying to push liberal garbage down their throats. You should change your name to mcCain or PaulRyan
BTW Just read another freepers post and see your hero/thug Glockton (who you said you would emulate in real life) is, as I suspected all along, a criminal thug. I’m sure You, jesse, Al, maxine, and BLM are all crying over the loss of another violent criminal. Boo fricken hooo
make stuff up much?
Lol
Oh yes
You’re hysterical
obviously attempted murder
These threads have taught me something about freepers
The absurdities just keep on coming...
I have been attacked for revealing what the store manager and and interviewed person have said about the 47 year old’s past actions. I was told they didn’t matter.
Now you’re telling me the past actions of the Black guy did matter.
And you folks consider these good arguments? Seriously?
Besides, this was talked about yesterday at length.
My talking about shooting a man who was moving away, is not a blanket immunity for the guy. It merely address if the shooter could logically claim fear for his life, when the man was leaving the area?
This has been taxing on a lot of you.
Folks, all pertinent information is admissible on an open forum bulletin board. We are not in a court of law.
If we’re going to say that anything not on the record in cort is inadmissible, every one of us owes Bill and Hillary Clinton an apology.
Where has your logic gone?
good points. I live very close to the trayvon crime scene (the crime TRAYVON committed, not George). I paid close attention to the details and it is as you say; the media lied over and over just like doughty and kiryadil as that’s the only way they can try to sway anyone to their thinking, because the facts don’t back them up.
Exactly, that's the most ridiculous thing Doughty has said of all. that someone talking, even yelling at someone's girlfriend entitles the boyfriend to viciously shove someone to the ground.
There's no legal foundation anywhere for that. if Glockton hadn't been shot and the cops came, he would have been arrested for assault, and the cops, knowing the law, unlike dummy doughty, would NEVER EVER have accepted "but he yelled at my GF " as an excuse for assaulting someone. Not fricking ever.
Doughty is just like a liberal, he makes crap up and substitutes it for what the law actually says.
the cruz kid wasn’t a legal ccw holder, he stole that gun I believe.
he was hit in the chest, so you’re wrong. he absolutely was not done with his victim until he saw the gun but that is a fraction of a second and the victim had just been assaulted and had no idea it was over (til it was over)
“These threads have taught me something about freepers.”
What an odd statement.
This thread should teach you something about FL law, not FReepers.
This is not a movie or the Jerry Springer show. You don’t get to say your opinion and feelings are what matter most, without regard for the law.
This is a matter of FL law and the law is quite specific regarding self-defense and stand your ground. Apparently you are of the ‘anything goes’ legal mindset suitable for drama reporting and soap operas. You show a very low regard for the law as you have no inclination or capacity to understand or accept it.
completely untrue. BG’s friend went and got him.
the black guy was completely out of line and paid the ultimate price.
so you’re an imposter on a conservative site?
Teaches me lots of posters are cowards and scared bunnies with no sense of proportion
Snowflakes by another name
Any pussy can pull out a gun and shoot
Oh poor thing he got pushed down
Poor baby
For the benefit of the thread:
Pertinent section is 776.012 (2)
The 2018 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
CHAPTER 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.
776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
776.031 Use or threatened use of force in defense of property.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.
776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.
776.051 Use or threatened use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.
776.06 Deadly force by a law enforcement or correctional officer.
776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.
776.08 Forcible felony.
776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.
776.09 Retention of records pertaining to persons found to be acting in lawful self-defense; expunction of criminal history records.
776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.
—(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.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27; s. 3, ch. 2014-195.
776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
—(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
(a) Nondeadly 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; or
(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
(2) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(3) The presumption set forth in subsection (2) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened; or
(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27; s. 4, ch. 2014-195; s. 1, ch. 2017-77.
776.031 Use or threatened use of force in defense of property.
—(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 prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. 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.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27; s. 5, ch. 2014-195.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.
—(1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
(4) In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27; s. 6, ch. 2014-195; s. 1, ch. 2017-72.
776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
-(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102; s. 7, ch. 2014-195.
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
-(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 75-64; s. 1, ch. 87-147; s. 54, ch. 88-381; s. 1191, ch. 97-102.
776.051 Use or threatened use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.
-(1) A person is not justified in the use or threatened use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.
(2) A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, is not justified in the use of force if the arrest or execution of a legal duty is unlawful and known by him or her to be unlawful.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1192, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 2008-67; s. 8, ch. 2014-195.
776.06 Deadly force by a law enforcement or correctional officer.
-(1) As applied to a law enforcement officer or correctional officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties, the term “deadly force” means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to:
(a) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
(b) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.
(2)(a) The term “deadly force” does not include the discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer during and within the scope of his or her official duties which is loaded with a less-lethal munition. As used in this subsection, the term “less-lethal munition” means a projectile that is designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person without penetrating the person’s body.
(b) A law enforcement officer or a correctional officer is not liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of the use of any less-lethal munition in good faith during and within the scope of his or her official duties.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 99-272; s. 9, ch. 2014-195.
776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.
-(1) A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody.
(2) A correctional officer or other law enforcement officer is justified in the use of force, including deadly force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a penal institution of a person whom the officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 7, ch. 95-283; s. 1193, ch. 97-102.
776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.
776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.
-(1) It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the term “forcible felony” shall have the same meaning as in s. 776.08.
(3) Any civil action in which the defense recognized by this section is raised shall be stayed by the court on the motion of the civil defendant during the pendency of any criminal action which forms the basis for the defense, unless the court finds that a conviction in the criminal action would not form a valid defense under this section.
(4) In any civil action where a party prevails based on the defense created by this section:
(a) The losing party, if convicted of and incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, shall, as determined by the court, lose any privileges provided by the correctional facility, including, but not limited to:
1. Canteen purchases;
2. Telephone access;
3. Outdoor exercise;
4. Use of the library; and
5. Visitation.
(b) The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney; however, the losing party’s attorney is not personally responsible if he or she has acted in good faith, based on the representations of his or her client. If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime and has insufficient assets to cover payment of the costs of the action and the award of fees pursuant to this paragraph, the party shall, as determined by the court, be required to pay by deduction from any payments the prisoner receives while incarcerated.
(c) If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, the court shall issue a written order containing its findings and ruling pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) and shall direct that a certified copy be forwarded to the appropriate correctional institution or facility.
History.—s. 1, ch. 87-187; s. 72, ch. 96-388.
776.09 Retention of records pertaining to persons found to be acting in lawful self-defense; expunction of criminal history records.
—(1) Whenever the state attorney or statewide prosecutor dismisses an information, indictment, or other charging document, or decides not to file an information, indictment, or other charging document because of a finding that the person accused acted in lawful self-defense pursuant to the provisions related to the justifiable use of force in this chapter, that finding shall be documented in writing and retained in the files of the state attorney or statewide prosecutor.
(2) Whenever a court dismisses an information, indictment, or other charging document because of a finding that the person accused acted in lawful self-defense pursuant to the provisions related to the justifiable use of force in this chapter, that finding shall be recorded in an order or memorandum, which shall be retained in the court’s records.
(3) Under either condition described in subsection (1) or subsection (2), the person accused may apply for a certificate of eligibility to expunge the associated criminal history record, pursuant to s. 943.0585(5), notwithstanding the eligibility requirements prescribed in s. 943.0585(1)(b) or (2).
History.—s. 10, ch. 2014-195.
Copyright © 1995-2018 The Florida Legislature • Privacy Statement • Contact Us
“Teaches me lots of posters are cowards and scared bunnies with no sense of proportion”
You’re debating whether the shooting was right or wrong.
The rest of us are debating whether the shooting was lawful and justified.
Two totally separate discussions.
You are arguing feelings. We are arguing reason.
No one goes to jail over bad feelings. Many go to jail for poor reasoning.
I’ll put my 18 Years reputation on this forum against yours any day junkie
I stand by my words
Any man who kills an unarmed man in front of the unarmed mans five year old son simply for pushing him to the ground
Is a coward and a pussy hiding behind a gun
Period
You girls musta grown up on the golf course
Not me
We fought and I still will even as an old man
I sure as shit ain’t gonna kill a man for knocking me down
Nor in front of a mans child
Nor do I berate another mans woman,
This is a big dividing line between the fearful Wobblies and being a man
if this store owner had problems with Drejka why didn't he call the cops on him, get him to stop coming to the store? Very suspicious. We know McGlockton on the other hand has a criminal record, and he was arrested for aggravated battery before (the same crime he committed on tape). Those are facts not hearsay.
My talking about shooting a man who was moving away, is not a blanket immunity for the guy. It merely address if the shooter could logically claim fear for his life, when the man was leaving the area?
I think people can disagree about the timing of the shooting. I think it was justified.
But your idea that someone is allowed to knock somebody to the ground viciously because he yelled at the guys girlfriend is some of the biggest nonsense I have ever seen on here.
ONLY liberal fascists like the trump haters think that if you don't like what someone says its justifies violent retaliation.
When I was 20 years younger I would have agreed with you.
I have watched the video several times now. I put myself, in my mid-50’s, in the place of the attacked man.
A very large, angry man just came charging at me and pushed me to the ground. If I had my weapon with me, it would have been out as well.
We do not hear what was said on the video. Based on body language, the big guy didn’t appear to be backing down much in the video, even with a gun drawn on him. No raising of the hands, no real retreat. He stands there, I believe saying something, and the old guy on the ground shoots him.
I’d be willing to bet the big guy said something like “What are you gonna do with that, old man?” or maybe “You gonna shoot me? I’ll kick your ass!”
I know that if I saw someone arguing with my wife, I wouldn’t push him to the ground. I also know that if someone pulls a gun on me, my hands are up and I am backing away. The dead man did neither of these things.
Probably why he is dead.
yeah and if that guy knocked you down and you didn't pull your gun he would have continued beating you.
Then it would have read on your tombstone that you refused to fire cand that's why you're in a grave instead of him.
Here lies wardaddy
who wouldn't fire his gun
Now he's in a casket
Instead of the thug
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.