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

[Hraefn]

That's simple. MD wasn't using unlawful force. An argument isn't unlawful however forcefully shoving someone to the ground is.

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.

The statute as you quoted states “reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.”
That means they reasonably believe unlawful force is coming, not that it has already occurred. M could very well have reasonably believed D was about to be unlawfully forceful. Often screaming and threatening, as witnesses have described, would cause reason to believe unlawful force is imminent.

 

[Hraefn]

You cannot attack someone because you don't like what they're saying. That is NOT self defense. There was no danger of violence until MM attacked D.

You also cannot use deadly force in response to non-deadly force. D escalated the situation from non-deadly force to deadly force. That’s the problem many of us have. He was absolutely legally able to respond with equal or lesser force, but he escalated it to deadly force and that is my issue.

 

[Hraefn]

I’m not trying to be negative or argumentative in any way. I’m genuinely curious if people truly think that D reasonably believed his life was in imminent danger.
1. If you were a woman with your children in the car and a man circled your vehicle and yelled at you, a man who has a history at least of threatening patrons at this very store, would you feel threatened?
2. If you were watching your wife and kids in a vehicle being circled and yelled at by a strange man, would you feel she and they were threatened?
3. If you were screaming at a woman and her kids in a vehicle and were shoved to the ground by the spouse would you feel your life was at risk imminently?

I just personally find the first two situations more reasonable to justify non-deadly force than I find the third situation to justify deadly force. There is and absolutely should be a much higher threshold to justify deadly force. D actually had to believe his life was on the line in that moment. I don’t feel that was met. The police department obviously disagrees, as do posters here, but I feel other factors cause that disagreement. I prefer to objectively dissect the law and that often does not work with self defense laws such as SYG.

 

[glamourkitty1922]

You also cannot use deadly force in response to non-deadly force. D escalated the situation from non-deadly force to deadly force. That’s the problem many of us have. He was absolutely legally able to respond with equal or lesser force, but he escalated it to deadly force and that is my issue.

That's not true. You can use deadly force to defend yourself from a beating. Nobody is required to meekly submit to a beating just because they are weaker than the person attacking them. When MM violently slammed that man to the concrete and then left him no way to retreat, the only protection he had to save his life was to shoot. The video shows that. By the way, people have been KILLED by being violently slammed to the ground.

 

[glamourkitty1922]

I’m not trying to be negative or argumentative in any way. I’m genuinely curious if people truly think that D reasonably believed his life was in imminent danger.
1. If you were a woman with your children in the car and a man circled your vehicle and yelled at you, a man who has a history at least of threatening patrons at this very store, would you feel threatened?
2. If you were watching your wife and kids in a vehicle being circled and yelled at by a strange man, would you feel she and they were threatened?
3. If you were screaming at a woman and her kids in a vehicle and were shoved to the ground by the spouse would you feel your life was at risk imminently?

I just personally find the first two situations more reasonable to justify non-deadly force than I find the third situation to justify deadly force. There is and absolutely should be a much higher threshold to justify deadly force. D actually had to believe his life was on the line in that moment. I don’t feel that was met. The police department obviously disagrees, as do posters here, but I feel other factors cause that disagreement. I prefer to objectively dissect the law and that often does not work with self defense laws such as SYG.

Why would I feel threatened if I were in a car? If I was a big enough jerk to park in a handicapped parking slot, then I would deserve to be told I was depriving a handicapped person of their right to access a public building.
I saw a person yelling at my toddler, I quickly ran over and inserted myself BETWEEN THEM. If that person had touched me, I would have responded with my CCW. However, I would not ever have touched them first. That is assault and battery and I am law abiding.
Anyone who hits, shoves, or in any way violently touches me? OF COURSE I WOULD FEEL MY LIFE WAS AT RISK! The man already proved he was violent and dangerous by physically assaulting me. what would you do if the man slammed you to the ground? Say thank you???
By the way, there is no evidence of who was yelling at whom. However, yelling doesn't give you the right to attack another person. Especially is such a cowardly manner as what happened to poor D. The man ran out of the store and attacked him while his back was turned. Total coward move by a bully. However, the man who assaulted the older man had a history of assault and battery upon weaker people.

 

[Hraefn]

That's not true. You can use deadly force to defend yourself from a beating. Nobody is required to meekly submit to a beating just because they are weaker than the person attacking them. When MM violently slammed that man to the concrete and then left him no way to retreat, the only protection he had to save his life was to shoot. The video shows that. By the way, people have been KILLED by being violently slammed to the ground.

A beating fits the statute though, so I agree you can often use deadly force to defend from a beating. This wasn’t a beating.

I don’t understand why you keep bringing up “weak” because that has nothing to do with the law. You can use self defense if you’re strong too. It’s a reasonable belief that you're at imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm, there’s no requirement for weakness.

Do you really believe if D hadn’t killed M that M would’ve killed D??

 

[Hraefn]

Why would I feel threatened if I were in a car? If I was a big enough jerk to park in a handicapped parking slot, then I would deserve to be told I was depriving a handicapped person of their right to access a public building.
I saw a person yelling at my toddler, I quickly ran over and inserted myself BETWEEN THEM. If that person had touched me, I would have responded with my CCW. However, I would not ever have touched them first. That is assault and battery and I am law abiding.
Anyone who hits, shoves, or in any way violently touches me? OF COURSE I WOULD FEEL MY LIFE WAS AT RISK! The man already proved he was violent and dangerous by physically assaulting me. what would you do if the man slammed you to the ground? Say thank you???
By the way, there is no evidence of who was yelling at whom. However, yelling doesn't give you the right to attack another person. Especially is such a cowardly manner as what happened to poor D. The man ran out of the store and attacked him while his back was turned. Total coward move by a bully. However, the man who assaulted the older man had a history of assault and battery upon weaker people.

You can’t say you’re law abiding after saying you’d shoot anyone who touches you. Deadly force is not justified for any physical touching. If you feel your life is at risk if anyone ever touches you in any way then I don’t know what to say to you except that’s not what the law allows at all.

Yelling does give you the right to use physical force if the yelling causes you to feel a reasonable risk of imminent unlawful force. Read the SYG statute! Read the case law on SYG! I’ve done so much research on this, I’ve taken classes on it, I’ve been to seminars and conferences and read published studies. You’re not reading, interpreting, or applying it correctly.

If I was screaming at someone for parking illegally (which I would never do because I don’t want to be physically harmed and I’m not stupid) I would be prepared to be physically harmed because I took the first aggressive action. You can’t just yell at people. You can’t just threaten people. Everyone has rights.

 

[Jackeee]

All the crap that is going on in the world and someone loses their life over a handicap parking space. This should never have happened.

 

[glamourkitty1922]

A beating fits the statute though, so I agree you can often use deadly force to defend from a beating. This wasn’t a beating.

I don’t understand why you keep bringing up “weak” because that has nothing to do with the law. You can use self defense if you’re strong too. It’s a reasonable belief that you're at imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm, there’s no requirement for weakness.

Do you really believe if D hadn’t killed M that M would’ve killed D??

I think M would have continued the beating. There is nothing in M's background or his actions that day that would make me consider that he would show mercy. If he could attack an older weaker man when he is not looking, he is capable of any cowardly act. I don't think he would have planned to kill D, but I don't think he would care all that much if the end result was D's death. M's police record shows that he didn't have much impulse control. What is obvious is that if M had acted civilized and kept his hands to himself, he would be alive today.

 

[glamourkitty1922]

You can’t say you’re law abiding after saying you’d shoot anyone who touches you. Deadly force is not justified for any physical touching. If you feel your life is at risk if anyone ever touches you in any way then I don’t know what to say to you except that’s not what the law allows at all.

Yelling does give you the right to use physical force if the yelling causes you to feel a reasonable risk of imminent unlawful force. Read the SYG statute! Read the case law on SYG! I’ve done so much research on this, I’ve taken classes on it, I’ve been to seminars and conferences and read published studies. You’re not reading, interpreting, or applying it correctly.

If I was screaming at someone for parking illegally (which I would never do because I don’t want to be physically harmed and I’m not stupid) I would be prepared to be physically harmed because I took the first aggressive action. You can’t just yell at people. You can’t just threaten people. Everyone has rights.

You don't have the right to attack someone for telling you or your woman that you're depriving other people of their right to access a building because you're insensitive enough to park in a handicapped slot. If you do, that person has the right to self defense. You see in the video that M went the coward's route and attacked that man while his back was turned. Nobody was threatened until that happened. The only victim here was D who was attacked by a cowardly bully.

 

[glamourkitty1922]

You can’t say you’re law abiding after saying you’d shoot anyone who touches you. Deadly force is not justified for any physical touching. If you feel your life is at risk if anyone ever touches you in any way then I don’t know what to say to you except that’s not what the law allows at all

Stop being so dramatic. I said I would shoot someone for VIOLENTLY touching me. I don't have to put up with anyone assaulting me. Do you believe just because I am a woman that I have no rights? Newsflash, I have as much rights as any man. I know you think otherwise, but my life is as valuable as any other person's and I have the right to defend my life. D was not screaming, it was the woman screaming at him. D just told her what she didn't want to hear and she went nuts. You can see D in the video. Where is there any indication of him screaming or threatening? There is a video of what happened, so you have to accept reality. It was self defense.[/QUOTE]

 

[cybervampira]

Do you believe just because I am a woman that I have no rights?

Oh, please! Who is being dramatic now? Where does it say you don't have no rights because you're a woman? SMH.

 

[Trident]

All the crap that is going on in the world and someone loses their life over a handicap parking space. This should never have happened.

Nor would it have happened if M hadn't broken the law in the first place by parking in a handicapped space. It is NOT all right to break "small" laws, then follow them up later on with assault.

The law is the law, obey it, then maybe we can avoid these idiotic confrontations.

 

[Hraefn]

Stop being so dramatic. I said I would shoot someone for VIOLENTLY touching me. I don't have to put up with anyone assaulting me. Do you believe just because I am a woman that I have no rights? Newsflash, I have as much rights as any man. I know you think otherwise, but my life is as valuable as any other person's and I have the right to defend my life. D was not screaming, it was the woman screaming at him. D just told her what she didn't want to hear and she went nuts. You can see D in the video. Where is there any indication of him screaming or threatening? There is a video of what happened, so you have to accept reality. It was self defense.

First of all, I am a woman. Do you not know women can be attorneys? (O/T it is truly amazing how many people refer to me as "him" or assume I'm an "assistant" because I am female)

You never said violently in your original post, you said "If that person had touched me, I would have responded with my CCW." That left a lot of grey area and given your other comments and response to this incident I genuinely believed you meant you'd use your gun for any unwanted touching. Apologies for misunderstanding, and I am relieved that is not what you meant.

Non-deadly force and deadly force are different concepts in reality and legally. We clearly have a different idea of what the definitions of each are and when they are justified under the law.

This is a perfect example of how terrible SYG laws are because they can be interpreted in vastly different ways, allowing conscious and unconscious bias to be the ultimate decider over someone's life.

 

[Hraefn]

Nor would it have happened if M hadn't broken the law in the first place by parking in a handicapped space. It is NOT all right to break "small" laws, then follow them up later on with assault.

The law is the law, obey it, then maybe we can avoid these idiotic confrontations.

The unlawful parking has nothing to do with the shooting. It is a logical fallacy to connect the two in this way, IMO.

 

[andreww]

Sorry to disagree with many of you but I can clearly see why Drejka would feel intimidated. It was McGlockton that initiated the violence. At no point IMO did Drejka look threatening. McGlockton's car was clearly sitting where it shouldn't have been and despite Drejka pointing this out, I see no effort to relocate the car. But no matter what he was saying, Drejka keeps his distance from the vehicle and does not get in the wife's face. When McGlockton exits the store there is no effort on his part to understand the situation or to try and reason with Drejka. He leads off with violence. Its been described as a push but it looks a lot more violent than that, more a two armed shot to the chest. Given the size difference between the two men, Drejka was right to feel threatened.

Now I'm not a fan of the stand your ground law, but that is not the point here. The parking spot and the argument with the wife does not matter either. What matters is that when McGlockton exited the store he violently assaulted Mr. Drejka without warning. That itself satisfies the requirements of the stand your ground law. IMO police have handled this case correctly given the laws that are in place.

 

[scadagirl28]

Stand Your Ground convenience store shooting: Why did he pull the trigger? IMHO It was really who or when with Mr. Drejka.

 

[bluesneakers]

Nor would it have happened if M hadn't broken the law in the first place by parking in a handicapped space. It is NOT all right to break "small" laws, then follow them up later on with assault.

The law is the law, obey it, then maybe we can avoid these idiotic confrontations.

This is called blaming the victim.

 

[AC's Grandma]

Just to throw it out there - but there are two victims here, the first who was assaulted by the deceased. People who only want to stand up for M however he put his hands on D first, who was slammed to the ground. He's a victim too.

 

[Hraefn]

Just to throw it out there - but there are two victims here, the first who was assaulted by the deceased. People who only want to stand up for M however he put his hands on D first, who was slammed to the ground. He's a victim too.

I agree D was a victim of physical force. The wife and kids were also a victim of verbal harassment and watching their husband/father be killed. And any handicapped person who tried to park at the convenience store was a victim of that parking spot being taken. However, only one person is dead.