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

[Hraefn]

The dispute that triggered the stand your ground law between the two men was initiated by MM's shoving.

Physical violence is not the reasonable equivalent of an argument.


MM does not rise to the definition of legally provoked, imo, as he was not a party to the origins of the disorder but instead an uninformed interloper who had various alternative options.

Provocation (legal) - Wikipedia


imo

Deadly force is not the reasonable equivalent of a shove to the ground, IMO.

SYG laws allow for physical response in some circumstances and I and many posters feel it may have been met in this scenario, just like some posters feel the shove allowed for deadly force under SYG.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

 

[justchrissy47]

IMO
She got out of the car because she felt safe to do so because MM was there. She felt safe. She stayed in the car when DM was there because she felt unsafe.

 

[andreww]

Deadly force is not the reasonable equivalent of a shove to the ground, IMO.

SYG laws allow for physical response in some circumstances and I and many posters feel it may have been met in this scenario, just like some posters feel the shove allowed for deadly force under SYG.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

The section you quoted relates to home protection. I believe this is the relevant section...

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.

As you can see, there is no mention of "Deadly force" being a requirement to defend yourself, only "great bodily harm". I think we can all agree that in this case that criteria was met.

 

[andreww]

IMO
She got out of the car because she felt safe to do so because MM was there. She felt safe. She stayed in the car when DM was there because she felt unsafe.

Well, he really want there, he had just exited the store. If she felt unsafe she would have stayed in the car until MM actually confronted MD in my opinion. Regardless, she has already admitted that MD wasn't acting in a threatening manner.

 

[Hraefn]

The section you quoted relates to home protection. I believe this is the relevant section...

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.

As you can see, there is no mention of "Deadly force" being a requirement to defend yourself, only "great bodily harm". I think we can all agree that in this case that criteria was met.

You are correct. I meant to cite the same statute I posted numerous times earlier on in this thread. My mistake!

And again, part one says "himself or herself or another" so it would include M's actions to protect his family.

 

[Jade]

The excuses for BJ’s & MM’s behavior sound like negative bias.

What I am hearing is:

MM was overcome by an animalistic instinct to protect his hardly helpless girlfriend with violence despite the presence of children.


When provoked by the sound of his girlfriend arguing can’t be expected to show a level of self control. There is no expectation that he utilize social competence


BJ who is a single mother with a car full of kids and just got off work can do and say what she pleases with no repercussions.


BJ not expected to admit her mistake that started all this or be a cooperating member of a civilized community and a good example of graceful behavior to her children. [BJ says she did nothing wrong- link up thread]​

I think everyone should be held to the same standards so there can be equality.

No society can function unless it gives the individual member social status and function, and unless the decisive social power is legitimate power. The former establishes the basic frame of social life: the purpose and meaning of society. The latter shapes the space within the frame: it makes society concrete and creates its institutions. If the individual is not given social status and function, there can be no society but only a mass of social atoms flying through space without aim or purpose.​

A Functioning Society -


IMO

 

[andreww]

You are correct. I meant to cite the same statute I posted numerous times earlier on in this thread. My mistake!

And again, part one says "himself or herself or another" so it would include M's actions to protect his family.

Uhm, no it wouldn't.

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.

You are going to have to go a long way to convince anybody that the man standing four or five feet away from the car was posing any kind of threat of death or bodily harm to his family, especially since MM was not privy to the verbal altercation outside.

 

[Hraefn]

Uhm, no it wouldn't.

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.

You are going to have to go a long way to convince anybody that the man standing four or five feet away from the car was posing any kind of threat of death or bodily harm to his family, especially since MM was not privy to the verbal altercation outside.

Not if they had prior encounters/knew of his threats to shoot people for parking in handicapped spaces at that very convenience store/saw that he was armed. JMO though.

 

[bluesneakers]

I would find it threatening if a man was yelling at me and using foul language to do it. The use of his profanities means, to me, that he is not in control of himself. He was looking for a fight and he got one.IMO

If a man was harassing me and my husband stepped in to help I would think he's defending or protecting me, not bullying the harasser. Was he supposed to just let the harasser continue attacking his wife? Who expects a spouse to do nothing in that situation?

 

[andreww]

If a man was harassing me and my husband stepped in to help I would think he's defending or protecting me, not bullying the harasser. Was he supposed to just let the harasser continue attacking his wife? Who expects a spouse to do nothing in that situation?

The thing here is that what exactly was the threat level to the girlfriend? She was in the car and MD was being quite respectful of her space, standing a good distance from the vehicle. Any good husband would diffuse the situation, but pummelling someone half your size to the ground is not an appropriate response. And again, everyone is assuming that MD was the aggressor in the conversation between them but the video doesn't seem to indicate that. If anything you could describe his demeanour as chilled and relaxed. I'd love to hear an honest account from the girlfriend as to how the conversation unfolded but I highly doubt that we will ever hear that.

 

[Hraefn]

Cases in the past have required a very low threshold for "threat".

For example in the case State v. Simon, a man (Simon) who shared a duplex with an Asian man (Wong) shot and killed Wong as Wong attempted to enter his own home. Simon claimed self defense because he was afraid of Asians moving into the neighborhood and was afraid that Wong knew martial arts. Simon claimed Wong walked towards him cursing before the shooting but evidence showed Wong was at his own door to the duplex. The jury found in favor of Simon and said the killing was justified.

Similarly in the case State v. Peairs, a man (Peairs) shot a 16 year old exchange student (Hattori) who had rang his doorbell mistaking the address for a party he was attending that night. Peairs wife first opened the door, saw that Hattori was a stranger (allegedly dancing in I believe a Risky Business costume on the doorstep) and yelled to her husband to bring his gun. Peairs shot and killed Hattori and was acquitted because his wife was found to have reasonably believed Hattori was a threat. Peairs was actually so devastated after the facts came out that he swore to never own a gun again.

In neither of these cases did the person claim they had actually been threatened.

If M himself reasonably believed his wife was threatened, he was allowed to exhibit force, JMO of the law based on the hundreds of cases, papers, studies, etc. I have read. I actually have a published journal article on the topic of self defense law.

Now thankfully the laws have changed somewhat in that the "reasonable belief" is supposed to be objective in the circumstances. It is still applied subjectively, though, IMO, by numerous jurors and police departments. Which is what I believe happened here with the sheriff. And I truly think if this case goes to a jury it could come out either way. I just personally do not feel the killing was justified. I do not think the situation should have escalated to deadly force.

 

[Jade]

If M himself reasonably believed his wife was threatened, he was allowed to exhibit force,

But on what basis is he reasonably assuming his girlfriend was in danger?

He in no way assessed the situation. He wasn’t even on the scene long enough to make a determination of danger.

Was she yelling help? Was there a gun pointed? Was she being drug from the car?

The sheriff is also a lawyer.

 

[Hraefn]

But on what basis is he reasonably assuming his girlfriend was in danger?

He in no way assessed the situation. He wasn’t even on the scene long enough to make a determination of danger.

Was she yelling help? Was there a gun pointed? Was she being drug from the car?

The sheriff is also a lawyer.

Most of those are facts we don't have. But I gave a few examples upthread.

 

[andreww]

Cases in the past have required a very low threshold for "threat".

For example in the case State v. Simon, a man (Simon) who shared a duplex with an Asian man (Wong) shot and killed Wong as Wong attempted to enter his own home. Simon claimed self defense because he was afraid of Asians moving into the neighborhood and was afraid that Wong knew martial arts. Simon claimed Wong walked towards him cursing before the shooting but evidence showed Wong was at his own door to the duplex. The jury found in favor of Simon and said the killing was justified.

Similarly in the case State v. Peairs, a man (Peairs) shot a 16 year old exchange student (Hattori) who had rang his doorbell mistaking the address for a party he was attending that night. Peairs wife first opened the door, saw that Hattori was a stranger (allegedly dancing in I believe a Risky Business costume on the doorstep) and yelled to her husband to bring his gun. Peairs shot and killed Hattori and was acquitted because his wife was found to have reasonably believed Hattori was a threat. Peairs was actually so devastated after the facts came out that he swore to never own a gun again.

In neither of these cases did the person claim they had actually been threatened.

If M himself reasonably believed his wife was threatened, he was allowed to exhibit force, JMO of the law based on the hundreds of cases, papers, studies, etc. I have read. I actually have a published journal article on the topic of self defense law.

Now thankfully the laws have changed somewhat in that the "reasonable belief" is supposed to be objective in the circumstances. It is still applied subjectively, though, IMO, by numerous jurors and police departments. Which is what I believe happened here with the sheriff. And I truly think if this case goes to a jury it could come out either way. I just personally do not feel the killing was justified. I do not think the situation should have escalated to deadly force.

The differences in these case are huge. In State vs Simon it was proved that Simon suffered from severe mental issues. Also, the victim was advancing on him. Similarly, in the State vs Peairs case, the victim continued to advance quickly despite the fact Peairs was pointing a gun at him and demanding that he stop. Apparently the victim didn't speak english and did not have his contact lenses in.

Another big difference that you failed to point out was that both these men were charged and had their days in court. There were extenuating circumstances in both cases, but in both, the victims were advancing on the shooters.

In this case it is quite evident that MD was doing his best to keep a distance and not be physically intimidating. Looking at the video it would be difficult for anybody to actually feel physically threatened. They may have felt uncomfortable, angry and embarrassed for being chastised publicly, but I see no reason why either should have felt frightened for their lives.

 

[kimlynn]

I'm not going to argue with you. I will tell you something I learned more than a quarter century ago though. Any time that you enter in to a physical altercation with somebody, there is always the chance that the person you are battling may be armed. You can never underestimate someone because they look small and weak. In fact, someone that is small and weak that is acting tough is even more likely to be carrying a weapon. I guess MM just wasn't smart enough to get that concept. Bottom line, 29 year old men should not be getting in fist fights, especially when they already have a record for such behaviour. I'm sorry if you think I'm being harsh but MM brought this on himself when he turned to violence to solve a verbal altercation.

I don't think MM should have died however. I am against the SYG law and truly believe that MD should have taken the opportunity to use the gun as a deterrent rather than as a weapon. However, the SYG law is there and it is applicable in this case.

By the same token it is a shame that MD never learned of the possibility that when you confront people you can never know what to expect. And we know that was his thing as he had done it in the past.
He knew (IMO) that if the situation went bad he had his trusty weapon for 'defense'
That is why (IMO) he felt emboldened to keep doing it.
I hope he has learned and will now leave it up to LE in the future.
Just think if BJ had a weapon. She could have shot him and claimed fear for her life.
I know if a stranger came up to me and I was sitting in my car and that person started ranting I would at the very least feel a sense of danger.IMO

 

[Hraefn]

The differences in these case are huge. In State vs Simon it was proved that Simon suffered from severe mental issues. Also, the victim was advancing on him. Similarly, in the State vs Peairs case, the victim continued to advance quickly despite the fact Peairs was pointing a gun at him and demanding that he stop. Apparently the victim didn't speak english and did not have his contact lenses in.

Another big difference that you failed to point out was that both these men were charged and had their days in court. There were extenuating circumstances in both cases, but in both, the victims were advancing on the shooters.

In this case it is quite evident that MD was doing his best to keep a distance and not be physically intimidating. Looking at the video it would be difficult for anybody to actually feel physically threatened. They may have felt uncomfortable, angry and embarrassed for being chastised publicly, but I see no reason why either should have felt frightened for their lives.

The statute doesn't require fearing your life for physical force; only for deadly force.

 

[andreww]

The statute doesn't require fearing your life for physical force; only for deadly force.

Yes, but there must be some sort of aggression beyond being yelled at?

 

[AC's Grandma]

No, did not she say she was not. Would you be afraid if stranger came up to you and shouted a profanity laced tirade at you?

There was no profanity, no threats and he NEVER raised his voice to her. That was her statement to the police. You should listen to the press conference by the sheriff or read it from yesterday. You would know that what you're accusing MD of doing is incorrect.

 

[flourish]

But on what basis is he reasonably assuming his girlfriend was in danger?

He in no way assessed the situation. He wasn’t even on the scene long enough to make a determination of danger.

Was she yelling help? Was there a gun pointed? Was she being drug from the car?

The sheriff is also a lawyer.

Several customers in their way into the store looked at the disturbance being caused by the...."interaction," so perhaps he noticed that and saw through the store window what was going on. Or someone entered the store and said something about it..."wow that guy is really yelling at that lady." We don't know what information he had or what he heard it saw from the store or if his lady texted or called him while he was in the store. I likely would have texted my husband to "get out here!"

 

[Jennifer17]

There was no profanity, no threats and he NEVER raised his voice to her. That was her statement to the police. You should listen to the press conference by the sheriff or read it from yesterday. You would know that what you're accusing MD of doing is incorrect.

What do call 'Do you know this is a effing disabled parking space' (but he said the word)? No profanity?