‘Stand Your Ground’ Did Not Kill Markeis McGlockton

Reason ^ | Jul. 25, 2018 | Jacob Sullum

[bort]

We don’t have audio, so we don’t know what the shooter said to the baby’s momma, how he said it, etc. However, I think we Freepers can safely assume the conversation went something like this:

Shooter: Pardon me, ma’am, did you know you are parked in a handicapped spot?
Baby Momma: F*** yo momma, cracker.
Shooter: Ma’am, its very rude to park in a spot meant for disabled people.
Baby Momma: F*** you momma, bitch.

[spetznaz]

Three principles = four

[Gay State Conservative]

The video alone is not,IMO,sufficient to determine whether or not the shooter was justified in doing what he did.We cannot know what,if anything,was said by any of the participants.We also don’t have any idea what facial expressions the dead guy may,or may not,have displayed.

[Justa]

“Plus, if there’s a civil case (100% likely), Drejka is not going to enjoy being in front of that jury.”

FL’s ‘stand your ground’ statute also imparts immunity to civil liability.

[semaj]

"...you HAVE to shoot to avoid brandishing charges."

That is complete and utter BS.

[jaydubya2]

That very well may be true.

[Durus]

In what manner was he speaking to her, and what is your evidence?

[backwoods-engineer]

What amazed me is probably 80 percent of freeper men are the sorts who think it’s justifiable to murder someone for knocking you down or hitting you

Get some self-defense training from a world-class self-defense trainer/lawyer like Massad Ayoob, and you'll change your mind. It is NOT murder. It is the use of deadly force to counter deadly force. People have been killed from just one punch to the head.

[certrtwngnut]

And we thiMk that all liberals are lunatics. We are right of course.

[G Larry]

The video shows that the shooter had time to recognize that the threat stopped once he produced the weapon.

YOU are the one who concluded that being shoved to the ground was sufficient reason to shoot.

[libstripper]

"In any case, I see no need for an honest citizen to engage in fisticuffs when attacked by some jerk. Jerks should become familiar with the fact that their lives are at stake when they attack, and find more productive ways to entertain themselves." My concern here is neither with the shooter pulling his gun nor with the decedent being "unarmed." Indeed, being violently knocked to the ground with a probable follow-on stomping is more than enough to create a legitimate fear of death or great bodily harm, fully justifying pulling the weapon. The shooter's problem is the decedent didn't commence a follow-on battery. Instead the decedent backed off on seeing the gun, ending the shooter's right to use deadly force. That's why this looks to me like voluntary manslaughter.

[backwoods-engineer]

Guy on the ground had no rights except to take a beating.

This is exactly what many FReepers are saying, it seems.

If I am the guy on the ground, yep, I'm going to use deadly force to stop deadly force.

[BitWielder1]

It looked like an abuse of the Stand Your Ground law to me.
Drejka had no business taking it on himself to be a parking spot guard.
He was setting in other peoples faces and then claimed to feel threatened.
McGlockton was defending his woman from a man who was standing way too close and yelling at her. He had every bit as much claim to feeling threatened. He backed off, once Drejka was on the ground.
That should have been enough but I don't know what was said or how menacing the men appeared face to face.
Tough call, I wasn't there, but my impression is that the shooting was the work of a hothead who provoked the encounter.

[lee martell]

She might still get ticket for parking in a handicapped zone.
She thinks it’s ‘her right’ to park anyplace she wants to.

[backwoods-engineer]

You cannot kill an unarmed man because you feel threatened Does anyone here have balls.

You clearly have NO training in the law of self-defense. Pick up a book, for your own sake, or get training.

[Mr Rogers]

You are allowed to defend yourself from an active threat. If you pull a gun and the guys starts backing away, you are not allowed to shoot. It is no longer "self-defense".

[redgolum]

My last refresher class talked about this.

In Iowa, it MAY be called “assault”, but the bar is rather high. The instructor stated that if you draw, be prepared to shoot, but that the act of drawing a gun often stop the situation.

[DoughtyOne]

I think you've pretty well spelled it out here.

It was an eye opener for me when KrissKringle posted THIS to the long thread discussing this topic.

It's the Florida Statutes that address what constitutes Assault and what constitutes Battery. It also defines what is the reasoned reaction to Assault, and that Assault is not limited to physical activity.

What McGlockton was guilty of was battery, not assault. And when he committed battery, he may have been justified by Florida legal code to do pretty much exactly what he did.

[Kickass Conservative]

Defend her verbally or physically attack the guy she had a disagreement with? It’s called escalating the situation.
The whole episode was avoidable and a waste of life. One bad decision leading to another. More people are being damged by what happened than just the guy who was shot.

[NorthMountain]

This one probably should go to a jury, for a lot of reasons. The one you mentioned, and also that the shooter was not a totally innocent party to the altercation. His conduct toward the female occupant of the car could easily be construed as assaultive.

I'm glad there's a zero probability of me being on that jury.