Posted on 07/25/2018 9:36:45 AM PDT by libstripper
Markeis McGlockton and Michael Drejka both overreacted during their brief, fatal encounter in the parking lot of a Florida convenience store last week. McGlockton overreacted by pushing Drejka to the ground, and Drejka overreacted by drawing a pistol and shooting McGlockton in the chest.
Although it is hard to see how Drejka's use of lethal force could have been justified, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri declined to arrest him, claiming his hands were tied by Florida's Stand Your Ground law. But that is not true, and Gualtieri's misrepresentation of the law has renewed misguided criticism of Florida's approach to self-defense, which contrary to popular misconception does not give a free pass to armed hotheads who claim to have fired out of fear.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Are you from FL spetz? Most of the FL FReepers defending this shooting are doing so because the law specifies it was legal. We are engaged primarily in a legal rather than moral discussion.
I think many here believe no one should die over a parking space, or a shove, etc. But that is not the issue it is simply opinion and values.
We have rights and liberties because the reasoning within the Declaration of Independence and Constitution provide compelling reasoning in support of our freedom and right of self-determination. When people are allowed to act unreasonably and behave according to what they want and feel on a whim subject only to public opinion can we expect to retain our rights and liberties? Are children, guided by emotion and feelings, considered legally responsible? Then why would adults guided by emotion and feelings be considered responsible? You see where this leads?
Example: if Russia is meddling in our elections and changing the outcome should people retain the right to vote? Should such an important choice be left to them to decide? The Left is already going there.
After watching the video several times mine is that it was not justified. In all honesty, to me the shooter reacted like he'd been waiting on a chance to use his weapon, as has sometimes been seen with some police officers. My opinion stems in part from what I was taught in a CCW class conducted by serving LEO officers. We had cautionary tales drilled into us so we understood just how serious the responsibility is for anyone carrying a firearm and just how indisputable the circumstances must be for its legal use.
Florida law and how they interpret it may be different, and I can't say how I'd have reacted in that fellow's position. Nor can I swear how I'd react seeing a man getting nose to nose with my wife over a parking spot. I've got an Irish temper and shoving the guy away might just be how I'd react. This was not like having someone straddling you and pounding your head into the pavement, a'la Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. That shooting was clearly justified. This one? I don't believe so and I find it tragic that a man died in front of his son over something so trivial.
“The shooter was a guy who repeatedly made a pain in the ass of himself by being an irritating busybody and he carried a gun.”
There was at least one prior similar incident.
A few months ago, according to the Tampa Bay Times, Rick Kelly parked his tanker truck in the same handicapped spot and said he was confronted by Drejka.
Drejka walked around his truck, looking for handicap decals, then demanded to know why Kelly had parked there, the trucker told the Tampa Bay Times. At one point Drejka threatened to shoot Kelly.
“It’s a repeat. It happened to me the first time. The second time it’s happening, someone’s life got taken,” Kelly told the Tampa Bay Times. “He provoked that.”
That is actually un-true and there are cases to prove such. But, that un-armed man has to be considerably larger than you and menacing you to a degree you believe him when he says "I'm going to kill you". My wife and I belong to an organization that covers you in legal battles should we ever be involved in a shooting. Part of the requisite is attending their seminars and being carefully instructed on our state laws. Very eye opening some of the scenarios the lawyers put forth that were clean shoots. This one, however, I agree was a bad shoot. For some of the same reasons you and others have noted.
Look at video of decedent position and stance and see if you would feel threatened.
‘’’’’’’’’’’’/////////////’’’’’’’’’’’’’///////////////’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
I watched the video several times. I am somewhat undecided.
Now if I was on the jury and that video was the primary evidence I would not convict (depending of course on the charge).
Just remember that the court room standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
This episode gives credence to the saying/notion, “An armed society is a polite society.”
“Hmm....that leads to some rather interesting questions. What was the soon-to-be shooter saying to that woman in the car? Was it a polite - if stern - conversation? Or was he threatening to assault her?”
He was acting in a sufficiently threatening manner that a witness felt the need to alert the people in the store.
I can see both sides here, but in the man with the gun defence, what is being said is NOT accurate and leaves things out.
The armed citizen was “talking” to the girlfriend.
The now dead guy walks briskly up to the armed citizen with his hands in his pockets. The now dead guy “blindsides” the armed citizen. The armed citizen was VIOLENTLY shoved to the “pavement” (not ground, earth, grass, sand etc.).
The now dead guy takes several steps forward toward the armed citizen. The now dead guy takes a step and a half back, takes a stance, while BOTH hands go to his waistband area, (probably pulling down his shirt, but in the moment who knows what he has in his waistband. The armed citizen draws his weapon.
At this moment, from The armed citizen’s perspective, is this confrontation over? Does The now dead guy have a weapon (in his pocket/waistband)? He has already proven how physically strong he is. He is only several feet away. What if he lunges at me again?
The armed citizen fires his weapon. THEN, The now dead guy retreats. The armed citizen does NOT fire on the now dead guy as he retreats.
I just don’t see how the armed citizen can be convicted, if even charged, in this shooting.
It’s not a question of whether it could have been avoided, it CAN’T. IT HAPPENED!
Can the armed citizen present a credible case for self defence? YES, I just did.
I wrote "in accord with the Florida Stand Your Ground law which states" and quoted part of the law. (Emphasis added.)
The whole law is:
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. 2014-195Emphasis added.) (
The whole thing is called the "Stand Your Ground" law and my quote is in accord with it.
It’s called steel courage for a reason
//////////////////////////
was not sure which of your multiple weak (a/k/a ignorant) comments to copy above.
.
Maybe you want to help the baby mama find a lawyer. She is apparently looking to file a civil suit against the shooter.
.
Eventually a lawyer will suggest to her that they also sue the store, etc. Then it will get interesting, because this guy was a known entity. But what should management have KNOWN? Etc.
You cannot kill an unarmed man because you feel threatened
Does anyone here have balls.
##################################
Some people here have ball/s. But first I should ask you what that question (absent question mark) means.
Anyway - I don’t know if you are posting sarcasm, or otherwise.
.
Try some thought experiments. Your brain could benefit from the exercise.
I believe it’s been said by various people:”I don’t care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right.”:)
I was just thinking of what I would have done in either person’s shoes.
First of all, I played college football, attended on an athletic scholarship. I am a fairly large person, in fact a lot larger than most. In my youth I was tough.
Now I am 71 years old, infirm and couldn’t fight my way out of a paper bag.
First of all, I never would have parked in a handicapped space. I would never have said anything to someone who did.
If someone were arguing with my wife, I would probably have asked her to come away with me. If the person kept on haranguing her, I would have gotten between them and tried to calm things down.
Would I have blind sided a much smaller guy who appears infirm? Never in a million years. That is in fact the one act which went way beyond normal behavior.
Now the final question. Would I shoot a big guy who just sent me sprawling from the side? The guy then begins to approach the little guy.
Yes, in my present state of health, I would very definitely pull a gun. I am not certain if there was time to stop the trigger pull. Just don’t know. I do know it was a very short timeline, not several seconds as someone said.
Yes, it has.
You don't violently knock someone to the ground like that—certainly not for a mere verbal altercation which had no indication of turning violent.
A police officer would doubtless be justified in shooting someone in such a case, even though the person was backing off. It was a "heat of the moment" situation and the shooter's frame of mind at that moment must be considered. An armed citizen should "get away" with that if a police officer would.
Never initiate a violent assault against anyone without due cause. The decedent had absolutely no justification to do what he did, and that's why he's dead.
A close call, but I agree with the "no charge". No jury would convict the shooter in any event, since he didn't initiate any violence. People are sick and tired of thugs who think they can get violent simply because they don't like a non-violent situation that's going on.
Did the shooter overreact? Yes—but he had already been violently assaulted and was in "fight or flight" mode, and "flight" was not an option. In such a situation, many reasonable people might overreact—such as a police officer, for instance. But, as I said, it is a close call.
This is a teachable moment for anyone who thinks they can walk up to someone and violently shove them to the ground or punch them—out of the blue, essentially—without a damn good reason for doing so...
Maybe the witness who went into the store and reported the confrontation to the boyfriend should bare some responsibility. He might have said the shooter was acting more aggressively than he was.
Are you equating “defend yourself” to “killing someone who pushes you”? Seriously, it’s sick!
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
It does not look to me like the writer is making that equivalency.
;
You are one that is doing the absurd extrapolation/s.
If someone was disrespecting/barking at my wife, I might very well react just like McGlockton.
If I'm not mistaken, stand your ground requires that you cannot shoot if the threat is retreating. If that's correct, Drejka should be charged and the cop who failed to arrest Drejka should be educated or fired.
I didn't dispute your quote. I'm disputing this idea, that the whole thing is called "Stand Your Ground". It isn't. This is the common misunderstanding. "Stand Your Ground" refers to the duty to retreat. That is all. The rest of it is fairly standard self-defense law.
Says who?
Interesting post. It’s best to avoid such situations, but at times that may not be possible.
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.