Argument Over Parking Spot Turns Deadly in Florida

[Buzzrock 14947]

That’s about what it would take to make South Georgia valuable.

[Vic Mackey 47162]

On 7/24/2018 at 12:49 PM, BigHorn'13 said:

Lol at you having to use the gun if you pull it out. Not every instance is going to be some version of a Mexican standoff. 

I have always thought that was the dumbest motto some live by. That if they pull their gun they are going to use it. Why though? So many situations, especially this one, can be dissolved by the mere act of drawing your weapon to de-escalate the situation. The shooter in this incident drew his weapon and the victim put up his hands and backed away. He wanted no part of that. He threw up the white flag. Many times if you just merely draw your weapon, people will back off. Now you might run the risk of them drawing their own weapon once you put yours back but most of the time they aren't.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4977]

Yeah, you should be prepared to use it because who knows what will happen once you draw it. If you aren't prepared to use it you might just end up with it shoved somewhere you don't want it shoved, but that doesn't mean you should be of the mindset that if you have to draw it you have to pull the trigger.

[Texaskimo 135]

I think you guys are getting the mindset backwards to some extent. It's not "if you draw it, always use it" but rather "never draw it unless using it has become necessary, and then don't hesitate."

Never pull a gun as an intimidation tactic to try to defuse a situation. Drawing a gun introduces or escalates the threat of death in the situation.

[TwiceHorn 31551]

1 hour ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Yeah, you should be prepared to use it because who knows what will happen once you draw it. If you aren't prepared to use it you might just end up with it shoved somewhere you don't want it shoved, but that doesn't mean you should be of the mindset that if you have to draw it you have to pull the trigger.

Yeah, the notion is designed to retard or slow the brandishing of a weapon, as well as its use, not to commit you to using it if you pull it.

[HenryJames 66188]

 

[Catdaddyhorn 3447]

Of course he did.  

[Aqua Buddha 14624]

17 hours ago, HenryJames said:

So, he drives around with a gun looking for incidents and Florida law protects him?  George Zimmerman says "Hi."

 

[jettrink 40]

Fuck Florida

[Aqua Buddha 14624]

The fact that a guy like that has a legal concealed weapon permit is the reason I'm against them in the first place.

[mulletpelini 5216]

On 7/23/2018 at 1:23 PM, Fuck Tim Beck said:

Surly be slippin. Obviously the biggest crime here is that cornball reporters hair. 

Shit I thought it was letting the woman drive.

[4th and 5 4919]

On 8/10/2018 at 2:15 AM, HenryJames said:

 

I have tried these cases. The prior incidents will be presented to a grand jury and at trial to show motive, rebut lack of intent,  to rebut the defensive theory and prove provocation to defeat the jury instructions of presumption of reasonableness and/or shall not consider whether he had a duty to retreat. He’ll get a self defense charge but without the benefits of the stand your ground law. Then it will be old school self defense law .... was the deadly force reasonably necessary to protect himself from the use of force, or threatened force, against him. The defense will argue it shouldn’t be viewed in hindsight, this all happened in a matter of seconds, that the event must be viewed from the standpoint of the actor, not after watching the video in slow motion 20 times. However, the jury will be poisoned by his prior bad acts and say no, the force used was unreasonable. Verdict: not less than manslaughter, probably murder.

[4th and 5 4919]

and here we go!

 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/Shooter-charged-with-manslaughter-in-Clearwater-stand-your-ground-case_170853729

 

 

 

Prosecutors charged Michael Drejka, the man accused of killing Markeis McGlockton in a shooting that has reignited a debate around Florida’s stand your ground law, with manslaughter Monday.

According to the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, Drejka was taken into custody Monday morning. He is being booked into the Pinellas County Jail, where he will be held in lieu of $100,000 bail.

Drejka, 47, has avoided arrest since he shot 28-year-old McGlockton on July 19 because of the controversial self-defense law that eliminated one’s duty to retreat before resorting to force.

Pinellas Sheriff Bob Gualtieri announced July 20 that his agency was precluded from arresting Drejka because evidence showed it was "within the bookends of stand your ground and within the bookends of force being justified," which provides immunity from arrest, the sheriff said. He forwarded the case Aug. 1 to the Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney’s Office to make a final charging determination.

ORIGINAL STORY: No arrest in fatal shooting during argument over handicap parking space

DOUBLING DOWN: Sheriff Gualtieri defends ‘stand your ground’ decision in convenience store shooting

State Attorney Bernie McCabe’s decision to charge Drejka signals that prosecutors believe they can show by "clear and convincing" evidence that a stand your ground defense is not applicable in Drejka’s case.

State legislators revised the law last year to put the onus on prosecutors to disprove a stand your ground claim instead of on defense attorneys to prove one.

Several questions must be considered in deciding whether someone can be protected under the law when they use force: Was the person acting lawfully? Did the person have a right to be there? And was the person in reasonable fear of serious injury or death?

The encounter between the two men started when Drejka confronted McGlockton’s girlfriend, Britany Jacobs, about why she had parked in a handicap-reserved parking space without a decal at the Circle A Food Store on Sunset Point Road near Clearwater.

McGlockton, inside the store with his 5-year-old son, caught wind of the heated argument from witnesses. Surveillance video shows him leaving the store, walking up to Drejka and pushing him to the ground. Drejka then pulls out a gun and shoots McGlockton. He told deputies he was in fear of further attack.

Gualtieri said Monday he supports McCabe’s decision. He reiterated that in order to make an arrest, the facts of the case would have to clearly show stand your ground doesn’t apply, which he said wasn’t the case here. Otherwise, Drejka would have been in custody while prosecutors considered whether they could meet the burden established under the law.

That differs from a normal arrest in which law enforcement officers "establish if we have the elements of a crime without considering the defenses," the sheriff said.

"This is very unique," he said. "There’s no other provision in Florida law that says we have to consider these defenses."

The shooting reignited a national debate around stand your ground — and race’s role in how it’s applied. McGlockton was black. Drejka is white.

 

TAMPA BAY TIMES COVERAGE: STAND YOUR GROUND CASE

 

Family to Pinellas prosecutor: File charges in death of Markeis McGlockton

Attorney calls Markeis McGlockton’s death ‘cold-blooded murder’ by ‘wannabe cop’

Nelson, Crist call for Department of Justice investigation into death of Markeis McGlockton

In latest ‘stand your ground’ case, a question: Who started it?

In latest ‘stand your ground’ case, a question: Who started it?

Benjamin Crump, the civil rights attorney known for representing unarmed black men who died in violent encounters, including Trayvon Martin, signed on to represent Jacobs. Five members of Congress, including Sen. Bill Nelson and Rep. Charlie Crist, called for the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division to open an investigation. State Sen. Darryl Rouson called for a special session to address stand your ground, an effort that failed on Friday.

And all the while, rallies and news conferences cropped up nearly every day to call for an arrest, organized by groups such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and Black Lives Matter.

Drejka has remained largely a mystery to the public in the weeks since the shooting. The Tampa Bay Times reported last week that he has been the accused aggressor in four incidents since 2012, including two in which he was reported to have shown a gun. He was not arrested in any of the cases and does not have a criminal history in Florida.

[crash_davis 23115]

On 8/10/2018 at 7:42 PM, Aqua Buddha said:

The fact that a guy like that has a legal concealed weapon permit is the reason I'm against them in the first place.

 

1 hour ago, 4th and 5 said:

Drejka has remained largely a mystery to the public in the weeks since the shooting. The Tampa Bay Times reported last week that he has been the accused aggressor in four incidents since 2012, including two in which he was reported to have shown a gun. He was not arrested in any of the cases and does not have a criminal history in Florida.

 

On 7/25/2018 at 11:49 AM, MissingInAction said:

Always been my opinion that only giant pussies carry guns among civilians. Cops being among the worst offenders.

 

 

cowards and psychos looking to shoot people.  is this what has become of CHL?  this motherfucker should be stoned to death.  what a fucking giant gaping psycho pussy.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Good.  That needs to go to trial. 

I'm not confident that he'll be convicted though, because Florida.

[crash_davis 23115]

at the very least, it will cost him tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees for the criminal and the civil suit that is sure to follow.  if he doesn't get convicted, he will be out a LOT of money.  hope it was worth it motherfucking pussy.

[Texaskimo 135]

He was in a verbal altercation with someone over an illegal parking job that person did, at this point nothing illegal has occurred. A third party enters the picture and shoves him to the ground, at this point a crime has been committed. He responds to being physically attacked by pulling a gun out.

If he shoots immediately with the guy standing over him on the ground I think there is no issue and he shouldn't be charged. He doesn't do this, he hesitates and doesn't shoot immediately. During the second or two while he's hesitating the guy backs off, then he shoots.

Is that enough time in a situation like this with adrenaline flowing for a reasonable person to realize the situation is no longer threatening and change their course of action? That seems like an appropriate question for a jury to answer, so I'm glad he is facing charges.

[Huckleberry 33112]

He was in a verbal altercation with someone over an illegal parking job that person did, at this point nothing illegal has occurred.

This is a question of fact that is not proven. It is possible that he committed assault against the wife under the Florida statute before the husband showed up.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Your honor, I would like to refer to the case of Don't Start No Shit vs. Won't Be No Shit.

 

[JohnnyRage 1617]

At least this wouldn't fly in Texas. Fuck Florida for re-writing their law.

[Texaskimo 135]

10 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

 

This is a question of fact that is not proven. It is possible that he committed assault against the wife under the Florida statute before the husband showed up.

 

Would it make you feel better if I said "at this point we don't know that an illegal act has occurred?"

We don't know a crime has been committed until the dude shows up and shoves the shooter to the ground. Once he does that we have enough information to conclude that someone has committed a crime.

[TwiceHorn 31551]

On 8/13/2018 at 12:46 PM, 4th and 5 said:

 Five members of Congress, including Sen. Bill Nelson and Rep. Charlie Crist, called for the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division to open an investigation.

What a bunch of grandstanding bullshit.  This is how horrible federal criminal laws get passed.

[Huckleberry 33112]

Would it make you feel better if I said "at this point we don't know that an illegal act has occurred?"

We don't know a crime has been committed until the dude shows up and shoves the shooter to the ground. Once he does that we have enough information to conclude that someone has committed a crime.

I don't feel better either way but you're still kind of wrong. If the shooter had committed assault against the wife then the husband pushing him down could* have been perfectly legal. That's why it's an extremely important clarification.

 

* - I don't feel like researching affirmative defenses in Florida law.

 

[TwiceHorn 31551]

On 8/13/2018 at 12:46 PM, 4th and 5 said:

and here we go!

 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/Shooter-charged-with-manslaughter-in-Clearwater-stand-your-ground-case_170853729

 

 

 

Prosecutors charged Michael Drejka, the man accused of killing Markeis McGlockton in a shooting that has reignited a debate around Florida’s stand your ground law, with manslaughter Monday.

According to the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, Drejka was taken into custody Monday morning. He is being booked into the Pinellas County Jail, where he will be held in lieu of $100,000 bail.

Drejka, 47, has avoided arrest since he shot 28-year-old McGlockton on July 19 because of the controversial self-defense law that eliminated one’s duty to retreat before resorting to force.

Pinellas Sheriff Bob Gualtieri announced July 20 that his agency was precluded from arresting Drejka because evidence showed it was "within the bookends of stand your ground and within the bookends of force being justified," which provides immunity from arrest, the sheriff said. He forwarded the case Aug. 1 to the Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney’s Office to make a final charging determination.

ORIGINAL STORY: No arrest in fatal shooting during argument over handicap parking space

DOUBLING DOWN: Sheriff Gualtieri defends ‘stand your ground’ decision in convenience store shooting

State Attorney Bernie McCabe’s decision to charge Drejka signals that prosecutors believe they can show by "clear and convincing" evidence that a stand your ground defense is not applicable in Drejka’s case.

State legislators revised the law last year to put the onus on prosecutors to disprove a stand your ground claim instead of on defense attorneys to prove one.

Several questions must be considered in deciding whether someone can be protected under the law when they use force: Was the person acting lawfully? Did the person have a right to be there? And was the person in reasonable fear of serious injury or death?

The encounter between the two men started when Drejka confronted McGlockton’s girlfriend, Britany Jacobs, about why she had parked in a handicap-reserved parking space without a decal at the Circle A Food Store on Sunset Point Road near Clearwater.

McGlockton, inside the store with his 5-year-old son, caught wind of the heated argument from witnesses. Surveillance video shows him leaving the store, walking up to Drejka and pushing him to the ground. Drejka then pulls out a gun and shoots McGlockton. He told deputies he was in fear of further attack.

Gualtieri said Monday he supports McCabe’s decision. He reiterated that in order to make an arrest, the facts of the case would have to clearly show stand your ground doesn’t apply, which he said wasn’t the case here. Otherwise, Drejka would have been in custody while prosecutors considered whether they could meet the burden established under the law.

That differs from a normal arrest in which law enforcement officers "establish if we have the elements of a crime without considering the defenses," the sheriff said.

"This is very unique," he said. "There’s no other provision in Florida law that says we have to consider these defenses."

The shooting reignited a national debate around stand your ground — and race’s role in how it’s applied. McGlockton was black. Drejka is white.

 

TAMPA BAY TIMES COVERAGE: STAND YOUR GROUND CASE

 

Family to Pinellas prosecutor: File charges in death of Markeis McGlockton

Attorney calls Markeis McGlockton’s death ‘cold-blooded murder’ by ‘wannabe cop’

Nelson, Crist call for Department of Justice investigation into death of Markeis McGlockton

In latest ‘stand your ground’ case, a question: Who started it?

In latest ‘stand your ground’ case, a question: Who started it?

Benjamin Crump, the civil rights attorney known for representing unarmed black men who died in violent encounters, including Trayvon Martin, signed on to represent Jacobs. Five members of Congress, including Sen. Bill Nelson and Rep. Charlie Crist, called for the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division to open an investigation. State Sen. Darryl Rouson called for a special session to address stand your ground, an effort that failed on Friday.

And all the while, rallies and news conferences cropped up nearly every day to call for an arrest, organized by groups such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and Black Lives Matter.

Drejka has remained largely a mystery to the public in the weeks since the shooting. The Tampa Bay Times reported last week that he has been the accused aggressor in four incidents since 2012, including two in which he was reported to have shown a gun. He was not arrested in any of the cases and does not have a criminal history in Florida.

Also, the sheriff gives better reasoning for not making an arrest in this than previously.  But since an officer didn't personally witness the alleged crime and the alleged self-defense, could an arrest be made without a warrant and formal charging documents, anyway?

[Tom 2959]

On 7/24/2018 at 10:24 AM, TornACL said:

The one thing you've got right is that you're a small, weak man if you feel the need to draw and fire when you've been pushed to the ground.

 

I mean, this is the guy who poisons dogs you're quoting here. 

Edited August 15, 2018 by Tom

[Texaskimo 135]

10 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

I don't feel better either way but you're still kind of wrong. If the shooter had committed assault against the wife then the husband pushing him down could* have been perfectly legal. That's why it's an extremely important clarification.

 

* - I don't feel like researching affirmative defenses in Florida law.

 

I'm not wrong, when all that has happened is the argument with the shooter and wife there *might* have been a crime committed (that would make the deceased's subsequent violence legal) but we don't know that there has been a crime. When the deceased comes over and shoves the shooter to the ground we know that a crime has been committed. Either the deceased actions are legal because they are in response to an assault on his wife (that we don't know happened, but might have) or if his actions are in response to a totally legal verbal argument then he has himself committed a crime.

[TwiceHorn 31551]

Here's the Florida statute setting out the "affirmative defense" nature of reasonable use of force:

Quote

(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)

So, there's a pre-trial hearing at which the defendant has to bring forth at least some evidence ticking all the boxes on reasonable use of force.  Then its the prosecution's burden, at trial presumably, to overcome that with clear and convincing evidence.

After looking at it, it occurs to me that this may actually be unconstitutional as it relieves the prosecution of proving all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

The boxes to tick would be the following:

Quote

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.

Maybe the clear and convincing proof has to come at the pretrial hearing as well, so maybe that avoids the unconstitutionality.

Edited August 15, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Passing shitty laws has consequences. 

[crash_davis 23115]

3 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Passing shitty laws has consequences. 

bro, do you even freedom?

[El Diablo 4232]

Convicted of manslaughter, sentencing in October. Could get up to 30 years.

https://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Florida-man-convicted-in-parking-lot-shooting-of-black-man-558067501.html

[WhatTheBuck 28805]

Good. Give him the max. 

Mind your own business and don't think your gun gives you a justification to be confrontational simply because you can shoot the other party as soon as you realize you've gotten yourself in over your head. Fucking pussies. 

[4th and 5 4919]

On 8/12/2018 at 1:25 PM, 4th and 5 said:

I have tried these cases. The prior incidents will be presented to a grand jury and at trial to show motive, rebut lack of intent,  to rebut the defensive theory and prove provocation to defeat the jury instructions of presumption of reasonableness and/or shall not consider whether he had a duty to retreat. He’ll get a self defense charge but without the benefits of the stand your ground law. Then it will be old school self defense law .... was the deadly force reasonably necessary to protect himself from the use of force, or threatened force, against him. The defense will argue it shouldn’t be viewed in hindsight, this all happened in a matter of seconds, that the event must be viewed from the standpoint of the actor, not after watching the video in slow motion 20 times. However, the jury will be poisoned by his prior bad acts and say no, the force used was unreasonable. Verdict: not less than manslaughter, probably murder.

 

On 8/24/2019 at 5:36 AM, El Diablo said:

Convicted of manslaughter, sentencing in October. Could get up to 30 years.

https://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Florida-man-convicted-in-parking-lot-shooting-of-black-man-558067501.html

Conviction, prior incidents were admitted, jury sends note they are confused by the law of self defense. Very predictable.

 

[SDG 3319]

Sentenced to 20 years. 

[High Plains Drifter 11052]

Good.

[Steel Shank 9432]

Now he can be a badass in prison. Good luck, asshole.