Thoughts? - ‘Stand your ground’ law protects shooter in deadly fight over parking spacev

[Aim1]

I'm all for stand your ground laws. This particular case I don't know. The assailant comes out of nowhere and assaults the victim who is knocked to the ground. I don't know what they said but they appeared to exchange words while the victim is on the ground. The assailant appears to back away and the victim them shoots him. Maybe the assailant was threatening to assault him some more or something. I'm not sure the victim should have shot this guy.

No one wants to Monday Morning Quarterback but sometimes you need to learn from an experience.


What do you think?



https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/

‘Stand your ground’ law protects shooter in deadly fight over parking space: sheriff

By Joshua Rhett Miller July 20, 2018 | 3:07pm

An argument over a handicapped parking spot at a convenience store in Florida led to a fatal shooting and the man who pulled the trigger won’t be arrested under the state’s “stand your ground” self-defense law, authorities said.

Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri told reporters during a Friday press conference that Thursday’s shooting death of Markeis McGlockton, a 28-year-old father of three, is “within the bookends of stand your ground and within the bookends of force being justified,” the Tampa Bay Times reports.

 

[buck460XVR]

Stand your ground is just that. You do not have to retreat because someone else is threatening you and you are allowed to use deadly force if you feel your life and/or well being is threatened. Sooner bullies/jerks realize this and the more states defend the rights of individuals to protect themselves from such, the better off we will be. Sounds like the dead man and his girlfriend have had several altercations in the past, at the same convenience store over them using the handicap space without a permit. What the video does not show us is what may have been said during the altercation that may have led to the shooter fearing for his life besides being physically assaulted. Saw an interview with the "girlfriend" and she kept insisting they had done nuttin' wrong. Well, other than illegally parking in a handicap spot and physically assaulting someone.....and folks wonder why they get shot.

 

[labnoti]

I think it's safe to say that not every push, shove or punch merits a response of deadly force, and that it's important to be able to think clearly when you're flooded with emotions of fear and anger, and your ego has been humiliated. It can be morally just to defend life with lethal force, but there are also opportunities to "turn the other cheek." It's harder for the person to receive your forgiveness after you've wasted them.

Another thing to consider is that opponents of "stand your ground" may wish to outrage popular opinion against it by claiming it is the reason justice cannot be done, and they may refuse to see justice done unless "stand your ground" is first done away with.

 

[cjwils]

After watching the video and reading some commentary on another web site, I think two hotheads were each looking for trouble, and they both found it. This should not be an example of how citizens (armed or not) should behave.

 

[hdwhit]

Without an audio track there is a missing dimension, but just judging from the video, I don't see an imminent threat to the shooter's life at the time he decided to draw his gun and shoot.

The criminal justice system may decide to not prosecute the shooter, but win or lose, the ensuing civil lawsuit is going to end the shooter's life as he once knew it, so whether it is languishing in a jail cell, working for the rest of his life to provide for the children of his victim, or paying for his defense attorney's new boat, the shooter is going to have a lot of time to contemplate his action.

 

[Swifty Morgan]

The fact that someone said this is a stand your ground case doesn't make it so. People said the same thing about the Zimmerman case, which had nothing to do with stand your ground.

The stand your ground doctrine merely says you have no duty to retreat when you are in a situation calling for the use of deadly force. The victim in the parking lot shooting was on the ground, and he had some sort of disability. Like Zimmerman, who had an enraged criminal sitting on his chest, pounding his head on concrete, the shooter in this new case probably could not retreat. If you can't retreat, stand your ground doesn't apply.

I would not be sleeping easy if I were the shooter. Jeopardy doesn't attach until you have a finder of fact. If the state's attorney changes his mind, the shooter can still be charged.

The question, in my opinion, is whether the criminal remained a threat after the gun was pulled. If not, the shooting was probably second-degree murder. You can't shoot people as punishment. It has to be to prevent future harm. I have no sympathy for the criminal, but I am not so sure this was a justified shooting. It looks like the criminal gave up as soon as he saw the gun.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Looked to me like the victim waits almost two full seconds after he draws and kind of appears to follow (with his aim) the assaulter as he seems to turn away.

Doesn't appear to be justified to me but obviously we don't know exactly what happened.


I think HDWHIT is spot on.

 

[Wisco]

Thoughts? That looks an awful lot like murder to me.

Over a handicap spot?

She parked wrong. I’d like to know what the shooter said to them to get the shove.

Just a guess...the shooter had some words for the woman, the deceased walked into it and didn’t like it, the coward was thrown to the ground and was mad and shot the guy.

You can’t start a fight and claim self defense. Mutual combat at best. Murder at the worst.

 

[silicosys4]

Thoughts? That looks an awful lot like murder to me.

Over a handicap spot?

She parked wrong. I’d like to know what the shooter said to them to get the shove.

Just a guess...the shooter had some words for the woman, the deceased walked into it and didn’t like it, the coward was thrown to the ground and was mad and shot the guy.

You can’t start a fight and claim self defense. Mutual combat at best. Murder at the worst.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Sistema1927]

Lesson #1 : Mind your own business.

Lesson #2: Expect bad things to happen if you violate #1.

So, they parked in a handicap spot. Why did the shooter feel the need to be the enforcer for that law. It might also be that he felt safe talking to the female driver, not knowing that the male half of the equation was in the store. He gets blind sided when that party knocks him on his backside, but there doesn't appear to be any more escalation. He shoots the guy who shoved him long after the attack is over. It looks like a bad shoot from where I sit, but then again I wasn't there, I didn't hear what was said, I am not privy to what happened prior to the video, and a host of other things.

 

[Aim1]

Seems like the shooter is a jerk who has previously threatened people over parking in the handicap stop. Nothing wrong with asked people to move out of a handicap parking spot if they aren’t handicapped but this guy would then threaten and use racial slurs. Appears to be a George Zimmerman type vigilante.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...e-authorities-say-he-was-standing-his-ground/



From this article:

“Still, the Gualtieri told reporters, the legal question is not about whether Drejka was right in being the self-appointed protector of the handicap spot.

“What’s relevant is not whether this guy’s a good guy, nice guy, or whether he’s a jerk, or whether he’s a thorn in people’s side and what he’s done, whether it’s three weeks ago, three months ago or three years ago,” Gualtieri said. “What’s relevant and the only thing we can look at here is was he in fear of further bodily harm.”

Floridians have always had the right to defend themselves, but the state’s “stand your ground” law says people who believe someone is trying to kill or seriously harm them don’t have an obligation to retreat before using deadly force. The law was spotlighted following the 2012 slaying of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin when jurors discussed the statute in their deliberations before deciding to find George Zimmerman not guilty.”

 

[MEHavey]

Looking at it from purely the video evidence, it does not warrant the sheriff's finding of prima fascia/ipso facto justified-under-the-law (much less common sense)

Were I the DA, I'd take it to a Grand Jury.
Lay it all out and let them decide

 

[TarDevil]

I don't care about the law. I don't wanna shoot nobody over a parking space.

I can't imagine an argument favouring this shooter. He's got a lot to live with.

 

[BSA1]

It is a good shoot based on bad judgment by both parties as was with Zimmerman.

Handicap parking is badly abused where I live. Easily the majority of people I see park in them have no visible disability. Heck I have a heart condition so I could get a handicap sticker if I wanted one. Convenience stores are the worst violators as they only plan on being in the store for a few minutes and will be gone before the Police can arrive to give them a ticket.

We don't know why the shooter choose to confront the lady in the car. Maybe the shooter has a disability and was upset because she took the stall. Doesn't really matter as the video clearly shows he was standing several feet away from her car, both of his hands are visible showing he had nothing in them and made no moves towards the car.

Look at the .14 second mark and as McGlockton approaches the victim the woman gets out of the car. Now the victim is outnumbered 2 to 1. Setting your male ego aside for a moment women can be very violent and physically aggressive.

The attacker was a large man that hit the victim unexpectedly and knocked him violently to the ground. He did not pause and ask what the problem was. He simply choose to attack.

He hit the victim so hard he rolled on the pavement (.17 second mark). The posture of the attacker clearly shows he did not back off after attacking the victim. Look closely at the .21 second mark and the body position and movement of his arms suggests that is challenging the victim to get up and fight.

2 seconds is a very short period of time especially if he are still trying to regain your bearings after being blindsided.

Sadly in todays society the lack of respect some folks have makes it wise to avoid confrontations and allow them to break the law.

 

[Sistema1927]

He hit the victim so hard he rolled on the pavement (.17 second mark). The posture of the attacker clearly shows he did not back off after attacking the victim. Look closely at the .21 second mark and the body position and movement of his arms suggests that is challenging the victim to get up and fight.

I watched the video again. At the point that the shooter draws his weapon the original attacker is backing off. The woman is not a factor either. Yet, he pulls the trigger. Stand your ground or no, it is still a bad shoot. I think that he had justification to draw, but none to pull the trigger.

 

[Sistema1927]

I am not alone in my analysis: https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/...-doesnt-mean-its-lawful-to-press-the-trigger/

 

[BSA1]

It is a bad shoot because you have already decided so.

So you do not think that the woman was capable of physically attacking victim. Sorry but real world on the streets is otherwise. Why did she choose to get onto the car (.14 - .16 seconds) as McGlockton approaches? Maybe to switch positions in the car so McGlockton can drive?

ONE second later McGlockton attacks the victim.

At .22 second mark McGlockton is still facing the victim with his left leg extended out towards the victim so he can step forward to attack a second time. You probably have not been involved in as many fights as I have. McGlockton movements are consistent with someone challenging the victim to get up and fight. ONE second later the shot is fired.

You are basing on opinion without considering what McGlockton said to the victim. Maybe he had immediate remorse for attacking the victim and was using proper English politely apologizing for pushing the victim and was offering medical assistance to him.

Maybe but I doubt it.

 

[BSA1]

I am not alone in my analysis: https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/...-doesnt-mean-its-lawful-to-press-the-trigger/

So what? That is just his opinion. He seems to be basing his opinion without knowing what McGlockton said to the victim. The argument was loud enough that a witness reported it to the clerk in the store so other people may have heard what McGlockton said. Only ONE second elapsed before the shot was fired and the video shows after the victim still sitting on the ground after firing the shot perhaps due to his injuries from being pushed and landing on the hard pavement.

Maybe McGlockton decided at the .22 second mark he had made a bad decision and had decided to leave.

Or maybe he was challenging the victim to get up and fight.

and maybe he said something like here I will back up and let you take the first swing.

Then again maybe McGlockton had immediate remorse for attacking the victim and was apologizing and offering to get him medical assistance. I am sure the media and activists will be presenting that story.

 

[paulsj]

Insufficient data for me to comment let alone make a jugdement call. Interesting name Mc GLOCK ton.

 

[Sistema1927]

It is a bad shoot because you have already decided so.

I could say the same about you in reverse. It is a good shoot because you have already decided so.

I truly think that when we carry a weapon we should be held responsible if we screw up. Presentation of the weapon had the attacker backing up, it did what was needed. What wasn't needed was a shot fired. He makes all of us look bad.

He might avoid criminal prosecution. Might. But I have a feeling that he is going to lose every thing that he has in a civil suit.

 

[TarDevil]

You probably have not been involved in as many fights as I have.

Why have you been in so many fights? Not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious. I've been in a couple of fights in my 63 years. All other confrontations I've managed to de-escalate without blows, threats or shots.

McGlockton movements are consistent with someone challenging the victim to get up and fight. ONE second later the shot is fired.

See above. I've been challenged many times. A challenge doesn't have to mean a fight. Perhaps your line of work puts you in different circumstances.

You may be correct in you assessments of this shoot, but I can't see the video as did you. I see no reason anyone had to die.

 

[Wisco]

I’ve now watched the video a dozen times.

I want to know what was said. Or the witness’s versions of what was said.

Absent the dialogue, I can’t feel any other way about this than that the shooter is a coward.

Seems like a monkey dance that got stepped up to homicide because the self appointed parking enforcer with a history of vigilante parking justice got thrown on his fourth point of contact for running his mouth.

This shooter, much like others, needlessly put himself in a bad situation he could, but didn’t need to, shoot his way out of. Makes humans look bad.

 

[TarDevil]

At the point that the shooter draws his weapon the original attacker is backing off.

Exactly as I saw it. At 22 with Drejka's gun drawn McGlockton is clearly backing away, yet still gets shot.

 

[herrwalther]

McGlockton (the deceased) had a drug filled and violent history. He had already served a prison sentence for drugs and narrowly escaped going to prison again for aggravated battery. At 27 he thought he would shove an old man to the ground. More people are beat to death with fists and kicks than shot with firearms. Drejka likely knows this, figured his life was in danger, and shot in defense. Justified shooting in my opinion.

 

[BSA1]

I could say the same about you in reverse. It is a good shoot because you have already decided so.

I am basing my opinion on the video and my knowledge of the elements required to use deadly force.

I am willing to change my opinion if other evidence is presented such as cell phone video, other security camera video and eyewitness testimony.

The Sheriff obviously agrees with me.

Presentation of the weapon had the attacker backing up, it did what was needed. What wasn't needed was a shot fired.

Six seconds elapsed from the moment of the attack to the shot being fired. 4 seconds(.17 - .21) were the victim rolling on the ground reeling from the blow. The victim took two seconds to determine he was in danger.

He might avoid criminal prosecution. Might. But I have a feeling that he is going to lose every thing that he has in a civil suit.

Please share your knowledge of Florida Law why the victim "is going to lose every thing that he has in a civil suit."

Why have you been in so many fights? Not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious. I've been in a couple of fights in my 63 years. All other confrontations I've managed to de-escalate without blows, threats or shots.

21 years working on correctional facilities of which 19 years working in maximum security prison along with several years as a street cop.

See above. I've been challenged many times. A challenge doesn't have to mean a fight. Perhaps your line of work puts you in different circumstances.

Look at the video again. The victim was not challenged but physically attacked.

You may be correct in you assessments of this shoot, but I can't see the video as did you. I see no reason anyone had to die.

I don't carry a firearm to kill someone. I carry it to end the threat as quickly as possible. I don't know why the victim was carrying the gun.

But if you are not willing to accept the fact that the attacker may die if you shoot him then I suggest you should not carry a gun.

Exactly as I saw it. At 22 with Drejka's gun drawn McGlockton is clearly backing away, yet still gets shot.

However we are looking at only one angle without any other relevant evidence such as cell phone videos. other security cameras and eyewitnesses.

The video clearly shows he was close enough and still in a position to attack the victim quickly a second time while he was unable to get away.