He can't play God over who is allowed to victimize his girlfriends. See my previous post edit...
LOCKED - OT:Justifiable?
- Thread starter tired
- Start date
- Status
You can bet your sweet *** this old man was about to get set upon again by the agressor and very likely the others - there would have been violent kicking and reach downs of violent hit to the head and face, we’ve seen this play out too many times, if this was my relative (or yours), we would all holdheartedly agree that it was justified.....
Sorry but you can use what might have happened to justify your actions. Especially in Florida where a reasonable belief is sufficient justification to shoot someone.
And it doesn't matter if you believe some old dude is about to pull your girl out of the car for an *** whipping or you believe that big dude that just shoved you is gonna do it again.
Others here are wrong to suggest there is a duty to retreat. Not in Florida. And your are right to suggest that these abuses will get our rights taken away.
That is why the Florida laws go to far.
Last edited:
Nothing in that video makes me believe the shooting was justified. The guy whom was shot was the aggressor, but he had ended his assault and was retreating when the shot was fired. No way in this world I take that shot. He was fully justified in drawing his weapon. This should have been one of those common instances where the presence of the firearm stops any further assault and everybody goes home having learned a valuable lesson. Instead, both parties pride got the best of them and one paid the ultimate price for it.
Last edited:
Unfortunately with both sides becoming so polarized on the gun control debate. I think this will become the new norm moving forward.
I agree with most of your post.
Yeah I can imagine someone yelling at my wife or gf (I don’t have either), but in no way what that video shows, does it justify to walk up and physically man handle a person like that. Took zero time to even ask a question. Just walked up and bam.
Now obviously the “old” guy didn’t take a lot of time either, but unfortunately for the deceased, the law seems to be on the old guys side.
Yeah I can imagine someone yelling at my wife or gf (I don’t have either), but in no way what that video shows, does it justify to walk up and physically man handle a person like that. Took zero time to even ask a question. Just walked up and bam.
Now obviously the “old” guy didn’t take a lot of time either, but unfortunately for the deceased, the law seems to be on the old guys side.
1. No one is responsible for your safety except for you. Ask those people on the Duck Boat or those people in Toronto how relying on others worked for them.
2. Maybe. But people act as if laws and rules don't apply to them and sometimes it pisses others off.
3. Old dude did not make any threatening moves towards the woman. Boyfriend is not "standing his ground" by walking to the guy and shoving him down.
This is reality and not this construct that is the current American society. This false sense that people will act as you expect is dangerous. Turning over your security to others is something that kind of works, but not always. Humans have killed each other since the beginning and will continue to do so. Be prepared and understand it can happen to you. Don't put yourself in a conflicting or dangerous position if you can help it.
2. Maybe. But people act as if laws and rules don't apply to them and sometimes it pisses others off.
3. Old dude did not make any threatening moves towards the woman. Boyfriend is not "standing his ground" by walking to the guy and shoving him down.
This is reality and not this construct that is the current American society. This false sense that people will act as you expect is dangerous. Turning over your security to others is something that kind of works, but not always. Humans have killed each other since the beginning and will continue to do so. Be prepared and understand it can happen to you. Don't put yourself in a conflicting or dangerous position if you can help it.
What would the cops and judge do? Would he be out on the street with little more than a warning? Something needs to be done to deter people from going around beating and slamming people into the ground.
I agree with you 100% on everything, except the law does not itemize what is or isn't considered an "aggressive action". It's left open to interpretation.
Getting shoved down to an old man may be considered more harmful than were it to you or me.
Girlfriend Of ‘Stand Your Ground’ Shooting Victim Says Gunman ‘Was Picking A Fight’
The girlfriend of a Florida man who was shot dead during an altercation over a parking space last week says the gunman “wanted someone to be angry at.”
Britany Jacobs witnessed Michael Drejka, 47, gun down her boyfriend Markeis McGlockton, a 28-year-old father of three, in a convenience store parking lot in Clearwater on Thursday. Police, citing Florida’s “stand your ground” gun law that allows gun owners to use deadly force if they feel threatened, filed no charges.
Jacobs described the shooting and demanded justice in an interview Monday with ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
The confrontation began when McGlockton left his car idling in a handicap space Thursday to run into the store to purchase snacks. Jacobs was waiting in the car with their two children when Drejka approached and began “harassing” her for parking in a handicap space without a permit, she said.
“He wanted somebody to be angry at,” Jacobs said. “He just wanted someone to fight him. He was picking a fight. I’m just sitting, waiting for my family to come back to the car.”
McGlockton, seeing the confrontation, shoved Drejka to the ground, according to Jacobs. That’s when Drejka, who is white, pulled a gun and shot McGlockton, who is black, in the chest, just a few feet from the car, Jacobs said.
“The guy is on the ground and he pulls the gun out,” Jacobs told ABC. “My dude steps back ’cause my dude is fearing for his life ― all of us were.”
ABC reported that the owner of the convenience store, who was not named, has previously called the police to report Drejka for confronting customers over parking.
The girlfriend of a Florida man who was shot dead during an altercation over a parking space last week says the gunman “wanted someone to be angry at.”
Britany Jacobs witnessed Michael Drejka, 47, gun down her boyfriend Markeis McGlockton, a 28-year-old father of three, in a convenience store parking lot in Clearwater on Thursday. Police, citing Florida’s “stand your ground” gun law that allows gun owners to use deadly force if they feel threatened, filed no charges.
Jacobs described the shooting and demanded justice in an interview Monday with ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
The confrontation began when McGlockton left his car idling in a handicap space Thursday to run into the store to purchase snacks. Jacobs was waiting in the car with their two children when Drejka approached and began “harassing” her for parking in a handicap space without a permit, she said.
“He wanted somebody to be angry at,” Jacobs said. “He just wanted someone to fight him. He was picking a fight. I’m just sitting, waiting for my family to come back to the car.”
McGlockton, seeing the confrontation, shoved Drejka to the ground, according to Jacobs. That’s when Drejka, who is white, pulled a gun and shot McGlockton, who is black, in the chest, just a few feet from the car, Jacobs said.
“The guy is on the ground and he pulls the gun out,” Jacobs told ABC. “My dude steps back ’cause my dude is fearing for his life ― all of us were.”
ABC reported that the owner of the convenience store, who was not named, has previously called the police to report Drejka for confronting customers over parking.
Of course she's going to say that, whether true or not. That's the problem for most of us, we don't know what was said and how it was said. Did the older guy intially request they not park there cordially and calmly, or was he an *** right out of the gate? Did the guy think because he had a gun he could behave and speak to people in any way he chose, and if something popped off, he good?
To me that matters, because if what she says is true, those who carry need to be more responsible than he was.
I just get a sad eerie feeling from watching the video & regardless of the aggressors background, those kids are now without a father. Just tragic, I don't know what to make of it.
To me that matters, because if what she says is true, those who carry need to be more responsible than he was.
I just get a sad eerie feeling from watching the video & regardless of the aggressors background, those kids are now without a father. Just tragic, I don't know what to make of it.
I took the time to read the law. You apparently have not. Hard to see how there could be an imminent threat of unlawful force by the shooter initially. If he had said something verballly about having a gun and threatening to pull it out and shoot her, then the guy wouldn't have been so surprised when the gun was pulled. So the deceased was the original aggressor under the statute. That said, "initially provoked" is terrible drafting.
[FONT="]776.041 [/FONT][FONT="]Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.—[/FONT][FONT="]The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who
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.
[/FONT]
Seems more reasonable to put the burden of the mistake on the person that initiated violence. You can't attack somebody, especially a smaller, older person, and then complain that they don't use perfect judgment. And it's not reasonable to put somebody in jail for failing to exercise perfect judgment.
Are you serious?
You're advocating people going vigilante because they think the judicial system may not handle it in a way they feel is appropriate. Look, Im sure every guy on here would want to go kill a guy that harmed their family or friend, its natural. But most don't because they're sensible people. Clearly you're not one of those people.
You're advocating people going vigilante because they think the judicial system may not handle it in a way they feel is appropriate. Look, Im sure every guy on here would want to go kill a guy that harmed their family or friend, its natural. But most don't because they're sensible people. Clearly you're not one of those people.
I can say this. If it was a black old man and a white guy doing the pushing, I’d feel the same way I do now.
Everyone was stupid but the white punk doesn’t have the law on his side.
I’m gonna guess that 60% plus of the people on the opposite side of me would change how they felt abt it.
Everyone was stupid but the white punk doesn’t have the law on his side.
I’m gonna guess that 60% plus of the people on the opposite side of me would change how they felt abt it.
Wait a second, you mean a persons past record of right and wrong should be held against them?***
He would be charged with assault which is all you could really ask for. He also becomes educated to the fact that not everyone is willing to be a victim. No shot has to be fired. The altercation is over as soon as he draws his weapon. That is where it should have ended. This guy is the reason so many people are against concealed carry. He got his pride hurt, so he killed someone. That’s what the video shows.
It's obvious that pulling the gun diffused the situation, but that's from our angle after watching the video a few times. In real life, things happen quickly, in the heat of the moment, and people die. It's the feeling of a threat. That's how cops make mistakes and shoot people. They have to make a snap judgement, and it can't be taken back. They aren't rationally able to calculate what is happening in real time. The entire thing is beyond senseless and awful for all involved. And over a damn parking space.
Last edited:
That's very true. There is always a trade off for everything in life. This situation is the trade off for concealed carry. These kinds of deaths are the price you have to pay for concealed carry. Is the trade off worth it? I have no idea. I don't own a gun and am ambivalent on gun issues mainly due to ignorance.
Here's the deal, a man shoves a man to the ground, a man kills a man for being shoved to the ground. I guess in today's society those two events are equal. God help us.
I can see being angry over healthy young folks parking in a handicap space. But he isnt the law so mind your own business.
Secondly, the guy who comes out is posturing all the way into a violent assault. He could have just as easily of said, sorry I was in a hurry and it wont happen again. He didnt. He loaded up and violently slammed this guy to the ground. And this guy wasn't going to stop. He was looking for more when the old guy pulled a gun.
As bad as all that was, that should have been the end of it and anything else should have been based on a police investigation. But this is where we are today as a society. There is no discussion there is only two sides in their corners without finding middle ground. None of it was necessary.
Secondly, the guy who comes out is posturing all the way into a violent assault. He could have just as easily of said, sorry I was in a hurry and it wont happen again. He didnt. He loaded up and violently slammed this guy to the ground. And this guy wasn't going to stop. He was looking for more when the old guy pulled a gun.
As bad as all that was, that should have been the end of it and anything else should have been based on a police investigation. But this is where we are today as a society. There is no discussion there is only two sides in their corners without finding middle ground. None of it was necessary.
In my mind, one should never pull a gun as a threat. The gun is pulled out as the first move toward shooting it. When the old guy pulled out the gun, from that moment, he was not pulling the gun, he was shooting it He was in the act of shooting the gun. And in the moment as he pulled it, he was still in danger.
It may be defensible by Texas law but that is murder in my book. The threat had ended. Even if the guy backed off at the sight of the gun still...the threat had ended. Guy on the ground should have picked himself up, took his lumps, got in the car in left. Instead, he was angry about the lady parking in the wrong spot and his pride was hurt that he got shoved down...so he killed the guy. The video very clearly shows the victim was backing away when he was shot. If this was a police officer shooting the police officer would be charged with at least manslaugter. I believe (since there is no premeditation here) that it should be manslaughter.
I agree with you that this was a bad shooting, but police officers and civilians are held to different standards. I do believe a police officer would have faced a murder trial had he fired a shot in a similar scenario, but the law will hold this guy to a different standard.
In all the cc classes I have taken and all the conversations I have had with police, I have been told to never brandish your firearm unless you are going to use it. If he had not shot, the deceased could have gone around the car grabbed his piece (if he had one) and shot the other guy. This looks justified to me.
I had a similar thought. That was a pretty savage take down... the older guy had a right to be scared, at the very least, and more than likely was rattled on a physiological level.You don't do your best thinking in situations like that.
I have no sympathetic for young powerful men attacking the defenseless. He deserved to go to jail, at the very least, but got more punishment than the situation really warranted. Let's say they both miscalculated.
I have no sympathetic for young powerful men attacking the defenseless. He deserved to go to jail, at the very least, but got more punishment than the situation really warranted. Let's say they both miscalculated.
It's not the understanding of prima facie, it's the understanding of "claim" and "raise". If the statute just said "prima facie defense", I would say that in no way means that simply stating you believed you were at risk of serious bodily harm establishes a prima facie case of self defense. But saying "claima" and "raise" does make it sound like the shooter (or however he did it) just needs to state the elements.
I'm not sure it's a practical difference though. It ultimately comes down to whether the prosecutor can prove by clear and convincing evidence that there's no valid self defense claim. If they wait until trial, the prosecutor is going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. So it makes sense that people shouldn't be bankrupted by a trial (and most would be) in order to benefit from a valid self defense claim. There are going to be some bad results with this approach, but without this approach, there will be a lot of bad results where in addition to being the victim of an assault, people will have to deal with the added insult of bankrupting them for having the temerity to defend themselves rather than just taking their beating and/or murder.
You are misinterpreting Florida's law. You can't use whatever might have happened. It has to be a reasonable fear of something imminent. Not sure what Florida caselaw says on that, but generally, that's not going to be "you feared the assailant was going to retreat to his car to get a gun" or "you feared he might advance on the car, open the door, pull the wife out, and then beat her." Imminent is generally interpreted to be much more limiting than that.
I would guess, without looking at Florida's caselaw, that if prosecutors decide not to charge, it is going to be heavily dependent on how to judge his actions after being assaulted. Had the deceased just made a threat, started to advance, and then stopped when he saw the gun, shooting is a clear cut illegal shooting (I assume murder but possibly manslaughter). But being subjected to a surprise attack that was pretty forcible, he may not be held to that standard.
Maybe, but generally police officers are held to an easier standard than civilians.
Yes, it is. THey are generally given leeway and accommodation for errors in judgment or worse that will not be given to civilians.
- Status
Latest
-
01
Maroon and White Basketball
Sam Purcell praises Mississippi State's offensive breakout: "The way they played at UT Martin was what I've been seeing in practice"
-
02
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State Week 11 Preview: Auburn Players to Know
-
03
Rivals Football Recruiting
JUCO Intel: Top recruits taking mid-week, final officials before decision time
-
04
Maroon and White
Mississippi State S Kendel Dolby speaks on defensive adjustments ahead of Auburn game
-
05
Maroon and White Basketball
"His part in our team, no coach can do": Josh Hubbard impact felt on the court and in the locker room as much as in the record books