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

[Jim G]

He was SLAMMED by the younger man, slammed violently to the concrete. A reasonable person would feel threatened, and remember poor D was still within easy kicking distance, glaring down upon D, and showing no sign of mercy.

750 die every year from hands and feet as weapons. most are when the victim is down on ground, and suffers repeated punches to the head

 

[glamourkitty1922]

Not if she though he was reaching for a gun (notice his hand near his waist band). Distance means a lot less with a pistol. Age and sex mean absolutely nothing. Could she have killed him t that point?.

Where did he touch her or threaten her? She says he didn't threaten her or harass her, and the video shows he never got close to her, let alone touched her. So, no, she was not being threatened with death or bodily harm, so she couldn't kill him. The only violence comes a few seconds later when MM does his surprise attack upon the older man.

 

[Jennifer17]

750 die every year from hands and feet as weapons. most are when the victim is down on ground, and suffers repeated punches to the head

And over 13,000 die each year from gunshot wounds. I am not sure what your point is. This man was not punched or kicked. He was pushed over.

 

[Jim G]

All MD was doing was expressing his First Amendment rights.
But the posters here on this forum seem to want to deny him those rights. Its very close to fascism.

 

[glamourkitty1922]

And over 13,000 die each year from gunshot wounds. I am not sure what your point is. This man was not punched or kicked. He was pushed over.

And people die from being slammed into concrete like D was slammed. That's why it was self defense.

 

[Cryptic]

Where did he touch her or threaten her?

He does not need to "touch her" in order to harm her with a gun. Look at the totality- angry man confronts a vulnerable female. He is then reaching towards his waist band.

Does she need to wait until she gets shot? What about her children? D saw them in the car, but still confronts the woman. Sounds like grounds for pre-emptive lethal force against a possible vigilante.

All that aside, I agree with you. MM did not make the prosecutors job easy and Dejka might not get charged. I just think that if D gets a broad definition of self defense, so should the woman.

 

[Jennifer17]

And people die from being slammed into concrete like D was slammed. That's why it was self defense.

I am sure people die after being slammed into concrete. He was not picked bodily up and slammed. He was pushed over.

 

[kimlynn]

He was SLAMMED by the younger man, slammed violently to the concrete. A reasonable person would feel threatened, and remember poor D was still within easy kicking distance, glaring down upon D, and showing no sign of mercy.

Glaring down? You could see his facial expression then? The more this goes on the more exaggerated it gets. So sad. IMO

 

[glamourkitty1922]

Glaring down? You could see his facial expression then? The more this goes on the more exaggerated it gets. So sad. IMO

The body language is very aggressive, look at the video. MM wasn't winking and throwing kisses.

 

[glamourkitty1922]

I am sure people die after being slammed into concrete. He was not picked bodily up and slammed. He was pushed over.

Not what the police say, and not what is seen on the video. He was very obviously slammed.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

And would you feel the same if the positions were reversed?

What do you mean?

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

It's been agreed upon by both sides of the conversation here and by video that Markeis was backing up. Again, please stop spreading mistruths

No mistruths here. You can plainly see in the video he takes a couple steps forward. The sheriff also said it in the press conference.

 

[andreww]

bbm... link?

This is a lot of speculation on your end. We can only go by what was on the footage and actually reported in MSM. He backed up and by the letter and spirit of the law he was not a deadly threat.

Also it is completely relevant as MM was not a threat when backing up. The situation was over after MM stepped back multiple steps before MD ever even pulled out a gun. If a man is 5-7 feet away and stepping backwards, imo that is not a immediate deadly threat to MD. IMO he had a itchy trigger finger as per reports he had harassed others and threatened to shoot them too.

“The guy is on the ground and he pulls the gun out. ... My dude steps back 'cause my dude is fearing for his life -- all of us were,” she added.

Also to say he is no longer a threat because he took a step back is ridiculous. MD is still on his on the ground, this giant of a man is above him, and somewhere to is right is the woman that he must keep track of as well. As MD had now pulled a gun he had know way of knowing how his attacker was going to react. I'd argue that MM is now even more dangerous because if he were in any way able to regain control of the situation, MD would have a very huge problem.

 

[andreww]

Drejka trapped her in with his car. Circled the car peering in. Thats scary no matter who it is.

You keep making things up that simply didn't happen, then when you are proved wrong, you just make something else up. Drejka never circled her car. He checked the back plate, as thats where the permit should be, then he checked the front plate as he walked by. I think he was hoping that the person would move because of it. He then began to walk away, saying over his shoulder that she was in a handicapped space.

Problem is that some people decided this case is unjust without looking at all the evidence clearly. Now they try to bend evidence to fit their narrative, mainly trying to paint MD as some sort of monster. The fairytales I've heard about this guy are incredible. He was screaming profanity, he was banging on her window, he was circling her car, he waited 4 seconds before shooting, and on and on. Yet, on the other hand, there is nothing but sympathy for the person that parked in a handicapped spot, the person that argued after clearly being busted, and the person that physically attacked MD another man without warning.

 

[Hraefn]

He was SLAMMED by the younger man, slammed violently to the concrete. A reasonable person would feel threatened, and remember poor D was still within easy kicking distance, glaring down upon D, and showing no sign of mercy.

Feeling threatened does not justify deadly force under the statute.

 

[Hraefn]

750 die every year from hands and feet as weapons. most are when the victim is down on ground, and suffers repeated punches to the head

There were no punches, no kicks, no beating, no pummeling. There was one singular shove.

 

[Jim G]

Toxicology may tell an interesting tale

 

[Jim G]

"Crime in the News"??
There was no crime here

 

[Jennifer17]

You keep making things up that simply didn't happen, then when you are proved wrong, you just make something else up. Drejka never circled her car. He checked the back plate, as thats where the permit should be, then he checked the front plate as he walked by. I think he was hoping that the person would move because of it. He then began to walk away, saying over his shoulder that she was in a handicapped space.

Problem is that some people decided this case is unjust without looking at all the evidence clearly. Now they try to bend evidence to fit their narrative, mainly trying to paint MD as some sort of monster. The fairytales I've heard about this guy are incredible. He was screaming profanity, he was banging on her window, he was circling her car, he waited 4 seconds before shooting, and on and on. Yet, on the other hand, there is nothing but sympathy for the person that parked in a handicapped spot, the person that argued after clearly being busted, and the person that physically attacked MD another man without warning.

As I see it, the people who think that this was justified are wildly exaggerating making MM into giant of a man and making MD into a frail old man, making a shove into pummeling using fists and feet, and making out that he spoke to her politely. Using the F word to a stranger, man or woman, is not polite and is profanity.

 

[SeesSeas]

. . . the law is aimed at protecting law-abiding people who defend themselves. He said the aggressor is who turns the encounter violent.
In latest ‘stand your ground’ case, a question: Who started it?
Published: August 3, 2018
But, as with this latest controversy, it’s not always that simple. Rose compared it to an onion.

"Every single layer has a potential legal argument that could send it off in another direction," he said.

That includes the initial aggressor section. While the law doesn’t contain a definition of "provokes," which, in dictionary terms means "to arouse to a feeling or action,’’ you have to consider it within the context of the whole statute, Romine said, which talks about use or threatened use of force.

"Provocation is generally going to be a battery or an assault or some type of act that permits another person to respond with force," he said.

In fact, jury instructions from the Florida Supreme Court regarding justified use of force are narrower than the law’s language. The law says "initially provokes.’’ The high court’s jury instructions are a more specific "force or the threat of force to initially provoke.’’

The instructions cite a 2001 case, Joelle Gibbs vs. State of Florida, that boiled down to whether offensive language or a punch started a fight between two women that would end with one of them dead.

An appeals court judge determined the definition of provocation should be clarified to "make the jury aware that the word ‘provoked,’ as used in the instruction, did not refer to mere words or conduct without force."

Florida Sen. Dennis Baxley, one of the law’s original authors, wouldn’t comment on McGlockton’s case in a recent interview, but he said the law is aimed at protecting law-abiding people who defend themselves. He said the aggressor is who turns the encounter violent.

"You don’t have to attack somebody because you don’t like what they said," he said. The "potential exists anytime you exert violence against another person, this can be the outcome."