FL - Markeis McGlockton shot and killed in front of family, Clearwater, July 2018

[SeesSeas]

I would imagine dad would have gotten another good lick or two or three in before D pulled the gun. Let's not forget M's history of violence. In the past he's been arrested for aggravated assault.

well, he did not, and was shot anyways so my point is proven. and he was not charged in that case from YEARS ago.

^^BBM
It was AGGRAVATED BATTERY DOMESTIC, and he was charged:
06/26/2008 ORDER OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOUND
Yet, one week after the arrest, this occurred:
REQUEST: NOT TO PROSECUTE/REQUEST FOR CONTACT
(which is typically what happens when victim no longer cooperates)

MM has several convictions:
POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA
POSSESSION OF COCAINE
POSSESSION OF COCAINE
RESISTING AN OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE

https://ccmspa.pinellascounty.org/PublicAccess/default.aspx

 

[Wagtales10]

 

[cvaldez1975]

The

Look at the frames right before that one. He takes a step or two toward MD his hands are at his waist. MD pulls the gun and MM starts to retreat.

BUT HES RETREATING.

 

[cvaldez1975]

^^BBM
It was AGGRAVATED BATTERY DOMESTIC, and he was charged:
06/26/2008 ORDER OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOUND
Yet, one week after the arrest, this occurred:
REQUEST: NOT TO PROSECUTE/REQUEST FOR CONTACT
(which is typically what happens when victim no longer cooperates)

MM has several convictions:
POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA
POSSESSION OF COCAINE
POSSESSION OF COCAINE
RESISTING AN OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE

https://ccmspa.pinellascounty.org/PublicAccess/default.aspx

my husband has a long list all through the 90's and squeaky clean since soooooo don't care. anything more recent? I admit I haven't researched it, as quite frankly I don't care because I can clearly see he retreated prior to this blowhard pulling his gun.

 

[AzPistonsGirl]

right but im thinking some of these ppl would turn around and blow away someone for accidently brushing against them. guns escalate situations that would have blown over. case in point.

yep, this bears repeating IMO. guns escalate situations, period.

 

[cvaldez1975]

they wont see it. doesn't fit their narrative.

Look at the video. BEFORE the gun was ever pulled Markeis takes 2-3 steps backwards. Its clear as day, slow down the footage and look.

Markeis takes multiple steps back and starts to turn away BEFORE the gun was pulled.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

they wont see it. doesn't fit their narrative.

That sentiment is mutual.

 

[SeesSeas]

my husband has a long list all through the 90's and squeaky clean since soooooo don't care. anything more recent? I admit I haven't researched it, as quite frankly I don't care because I can clearly see he retreated prior to this blowhard pulling his gun.

Simply providing the FACTS, so that non-facts aren't presumed to be facts.

 

[cvaldez1975]

That sentiment is mutual.

and that's part of the problem in this country. toodle loo.

 

[SeesSeas]

That sentiment is mutual.

 

[cvaldez1975]

Simply providing the FACTS, so that non-facts aren't presumed to be facts.

to clarify I just don't jump to criminal history in cases like this. if he was out robbing someone and got shot different story.

 

[glamourkitty1922]

I don't see him back away until after he is shot. Look at the video. It's self defense, through and through.

BUT HES RETREATING.

 

[cvaldez1975]

and that's not what I see. so... I disagree.

I don't see him back away until after he is shot. Look at the video. It's self defense, through and through.

 

[SeesSeas]

After Parking Lot Shooting, Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' Law Scrutinized Again
July 25, 20182:34 PM ET
[...]
Last year Florida's legislature strengthened the law, shifting the burden of proof from the defense to the prosecution.

"The immunity that people are granted under the stand your ground law is not just an immunity from being charged. Not just an immunity from being convicted, but is an immunity from arrest," Gualtieri said at a news conference Friday.

Law enforcement officers who make an arrest later determined to be unwarranted face legal fees and civil penalties. "One, we've got to follow the law," Gualtieri says. "Two, if we don't follow the law, we're civilly liable."

Gualtieri's department is wrapping up its investigation and will then refer the case to the state attorney for Pinellas County, Bernie McCabe, who will determine whether Drejka should be charged in McGlockton's death.
[...]

 

[Wagtales10]

I don't see him back away until after he is shot. Look at the video. It's self defense, through and through.

He clearly takes two steps backwards before the gun is ever pulled.

 

[Hraefn]

I see a lot of posts that people shouldn't put hands on others, that assault caused this situation, that if M hadn't pushed/slammed/whatever then M wouldn't have been shot. Personal responsibility doesn't start with something physical. Verbal harassment causes a lot of physical reactions; you'd have to be an idiot to think you can verbally harass someone and be shocked when there are consequences. If D wasn't ready to fight, then D should not have started the fight. This situation should never have escalated to deadly force.

 

[Hraefn]

Does Markeis not have the right to defend his family? Or is that only reserved for...

I am in agreement with you. Maybe my post was confusing or you replied to the wrong one. IMO, D verbally harassing the woman for where she parked was picking a fight and M was reacting to that harassment and defending his family. D should have known by screaming at someone like that there will likely be physical consequences. I do not think D has any right to claim SYG. He escalated a situation (that he himself started) to deadly force. I do not think deadly force was justified in this situation. I do not think M's shove/slam/whatever-you-want-to-call-it was deadly force. It was certainly physical force and if D had hit him and a fight ensued then I wouldn't have much to say about it. The shooting was not justified at all, IMO.

 

[Hraefn]

What I REALLY want to know is, what are the reasons D felt the shooting "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm"? Getting shoved/slammed to the ground does not fit this statute, in my personal opinion and in my legal opinion as an attorney. If a person could kill anyone who shoved/slammed them, we would see a heck of a lot more killings. I think some other factors must have come into play in D's "fear". Of course that's assuming D actually was fearful for his life and not just driven by ego.

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.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
BBM to show relevant part of statute.

 

[Wagtales10]

I am in agreement with you. Maybe my post was confusing or you replied to the wrong one. IMO, D verbally harassing the woman for where she parked was picking a fight and M was reacting to that harassment and defending his family. D should have known by screaming at someone like that there will likely be physical consequences. I do not think D has any right to claim SYG. He escalated a situation (that he himself started) to deadly force. I do not think deadly force was justified in this situation. I do not think M's shove/slam/whatever-you-want-to-call-it was deadly force. It was certainly physical force and if D had hit him and a fight ensued then I wouldn't have much to say about it. The shooting was not justified at all, IMO.

I agree with you. I was adding on

 

[justchrissy47]

Can't give this enough likes...one will have to suffice

I am in agreement with you. Maybe my post was confusing or you replied to the wrong one. IMO, D verbally harassing the woman for where she parked was picking a fight and M was reacting to that harassment and defending his family. D should have known by screaming at someone like that there will likely be physical consequences. I do not think D has any right to claim SYG. He escalated a situation (that he himself started) to deadly force. I do not think deadly force was justified in this situation. I do not think M's shove/slam/whatever-you-want-to-call-it was deadly force. It was certainly physical force and if D had hit him and a fight ensued then I wouldn't have much to say about it. The shooting was not justified at all, IMO.