Why are you so mad at McGlokton? He pushed a guy over and in return was executed in front of his family.

Well... just like firing a gun isn't necessarily the correct action when faced with any threat, physical violence isn't necessary when met with any confrontation.


Although, I haven't commented on here about this issue until now, I felt at the time the shooter was out of line because a shot didn't need to be fired.
I also think McGlockton was out of line to put his hands on someone.

I'm overall content with the outcome, a charge of manslaughter and if he takes his day in court a jury of his peers can decide if his firing was justified.

No matter what, someone will make this about race...
and that is unfortunate because it isn't and shouldn't be about that.
If the races were reverse or the same (which is often the case in stand your ground law issues NOT covered by the media) I would feel the exact same.

As Florida's law is written I feel it may need to be revisited. As of now our law does not only include home but public areas such as this parking lot, which I think might be a bit much but even still many states implement a caveat that if you can retreat you should, or rather must. Our law does not have this wording in it and if Drjeka lawyers up could get off scott free due to this language. This retreat clause should definitely be apart of a law that allows citizens to defend their "ground" in public places.
I do not think there should be a retreat clause within your "castle" as it is called. i.e. You break into my home, you are fair game even if you run away from my big gun.

---

Why are you so mad at McGlokton? He pushed a guy over and in return was executed in front of his family.

Well... just like firing a gun isn't necessarily the correct action when faced with any threat, physical violence isn't necessary when met with any confrontation.


Although, I haven't commented on here about this issue until now, I felt at the time the shooter was out of line because a shot didn't need to be fired.
I also think McGlockton was out of line to put his hands on someone.

I'm overall content with the outcome, a charge of manslaughter and if he takes his day in court a jury of his peers can decide if his firing was justified.

No matter what, someone will make this about race...
and that is unfortunate because it isn't and shouldn't be about that.
If the races were reverse or the same (which is often the case in stand your ground law issues NOT covered by the media) I would feel the exact same.

As Florida's law is written I feel it may need to be revisited. As of now our law does not only include home but public areas such as this parking lot, which I think might be a bit much but even still many states implement a caveat that if you can retreat you should, or rather must. Our law does not have this wording in it and if Drjeka lawyers up could get off scott free due to this language. This retreat clause should definitely be apart of a law that allows citizens to defend their "ground" in public places.
I do not think there should be a retreat clause within your "castle" as it is called. i.e. You break into my home, you are fair game even if you run away from my big gun.

I'm hoping a jury will consider the fact that this is habitual behavior and he has gotten away with it until now. Now someone is dead and that is no small thing.

---

Bit quiet from the people desperate to pretend the shooter was the ultimate victim.

Seems to have been desperate for confrontation which was obvious from the video anyway in an empty parking lot. I bet we find out he was threatening use of his gun to the woman when he got pushed too.

Quiet? What is there to say? 

The prosecutor's office is making a political arrest. He's going to have the sheriff's office at his defense when this goes to trial. There's no chance there's a conviction when you have the cops on the stand saying it was justified.

Why, because there is no way a police officer can be wrong?

You, however, pretend all that McGlokton didn't do anything except touch Drejka. So, not quiet... just nothing left to add.

Who is claiming this? 

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Why are you so mad at McGlokton? He pushed a guy over and in return was executed in front of his family.

I'm not mad, and trying to misrepresent my stance doesn't prove your's.

Quiet? What is there to say? 

The prosecutor's office is making a political arrest. He's going to have the sheriff's office at his defense when this goes to trial. There's no chance there's a conviction when you have the cops on the stand saying it was justified.

Why, because there is no way a police officer can be wrong?

You, however, pretend all that McGlokton didn't do anything except touch Drejka. So, not quiet... just nothing left to add.

Who is claiming this? 

I'm saying that they aren't wrong here. You can disagree with their decisions, but that doesn't make them wrong. The law says he doesn't have to retreat and only has to believe he's in danger of great bodily harm to use deadly force. He's already been knocked to the ground. McGlokton continued to advance until he saw the gun. Sure, he backed away a few steps, but that doesn't eliminate the threat. About 1.5 seconds from the time McGlokton stopped advancing to when he was shot. McGlokton could have covered that distance in less time and attacked him again. 

What you think will happen doesn't matter. What you think McGlokton's intent was doesn't matter.

McGlokton attacked someone and Drejka made a decision to defend himself in less than 2 seconds. Taking a few steps back doesn't take the potential of harm away. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone pretend to give up only to lure officers in so that they could attack again. A lot of people are overlooking the approximate 1.5 seconds from McGlokton stopping and being shot. It takes more time to read this sentence. The average reaction time is somewhere around .25 seconds. So, Drejka had approximately 1 second to decide what he was going to do, and that isn't something that can just be overlooked because we get to watch the video over and over again.

You can disagree with the law, but he's justified under the Stand Your Ground law. This law, by the way, is standard in many states--it just doesn't have that name associated with it. 

He implied that a push wasn't an assault and that he wasn't sure Drejka was ever in harm's way. If a push isn't an assault, and he isn't in danger, touching appears to be the accurate representation for his interpretation of what happened.

---

I didn't. I suggested it wasnt a serious assault where any normal person would fear for their life. Otherwise he would have continued it as he hit the ground, or punched him in the first place.

No normal person would escalate a situation of parking in an empty lot and also has previous of being a total lunatic.

It's also interesting no friends or family have said anything in defense of drejka or what a good guy he is.

I'm glad the drejkas of the world are very unlikely to ever have a weapon over here.

---

Why are you so mad at McGlokton? He pushed a guy over and in return was executed in front of his family.

I'm not mad, and trying to misrepresent my stance doesn't prove your's.






I'm saying that they aren't wrong here. You can disagree with their decisions, but that doesn't make them wrong. The law says he doesn't have to retreat and only has to believe he's in danger of great bodily harm to use deadly force. He's already been knocked to the ground. McGlokton continued to advance until he saw the gun. Sure, he backed away a few steps, but that doesn't eliminate the threat. About 1.5 seconds from the time McGlokton stopped advancing to when he was shot. McGlokton could have covered that distance in less time and attacked him again. 

What you think will happen doesn't matter. What you think McGlokton's intent was doesn't matter.

McGlokton attacked someone and Drejka made a decision to defend himself in less than 2 seconds. Taking a few steps back doesn't take the potential of harm away. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone pretend to give up only to lure officers in so that they could attack again. A lot of people are overlooking the approximate 1.5 seconds from McGlokton stopping and being shot. It takes more time to read this sentence. The average reaction time is somewhere around .25 seconds. So, Drejka had approximately 1 second to decide what he was going to do, and that isn't something that can just be overlooked because we get to watch the video over and over again.

You can disagree with the law, but he's justified under the Stand Your Ground law. This law, by the way, is standard in many states--it just doesn't have that name associated with it. 

He implied that a push wasn't an assault and that he wasn't sure Drejka was ever in harm's way. If a push isn't an assault, and he isn't in danger, touching appears to be the accurate representation for his interpretation of what happened.

I disagree with your opinion that it was justified and I'm glad the DA took the proper action and charged him. This case is absolutely not clear cut and deserves a trip to the courthouse for resolution. Hopefully the coming conviction will deter other vigilantes from taking the role of law enforcement upon themselves and killing people just because they want to. This kind of behavior endangers all our rights by giving a moral high ground to people like lastonealive who thinks no one should be allowed to own guns, and we can't bolster that position by failing to punish people like Drejka who try to hide their criminal intentions behind the law.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'm not mad, and trying to misrepresent my stance doesn't prove your's.






I'm saying that they aren't wrong here. You can disagree with their decisions, but that doesn't make them wrong. The law says he doesn't have to retreat and only has to believe he's in danger of great bodily harm to use deadly force. He's already been knocked to the ground. McGlokton continued to advance until he saw the gun. Sure, he backed away a few steps, but that doesn't eliminate the threat. About 1.5 seconds from the time McGlokton stopped advancing to when he was shot. McGlokton could have covered that distance in less time and attacked him again. 

What you think will happen doesn't matter. What you think McGlokton's intent was doesn't matter.

McGlokton attacked someone and Drejka made a decision to defend himself in less than 2 seconds. Taking a few steps back doesn't take the potential of harm away. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone pretend to give up only to lure officers in so that they could attack again. A lot of people are overlooking the approximate 1.5 seconds from McGlokton stopping and being shot. It takes more time to read this sentence. The average reaction time is somewhere around .25 seconds. So, Drejka had approximately 1 second to decide what he was going to do, and that isn't something that can just be overlooked because we get to watch the video over and over again.

You can disagree with the law, but he's justified under the Stand Your Ground law. This law, by the way, is standard in many states--it just doesn't have that name associated with it. 

He implied that a push wasn't an assault and that he wasn't sure Drejka was ever in harm's way. If a push isn't an assault, and he isn't in danger, touching appears to be the accurate representation for his interpretation of what happened.

I disagree with your opinion that it was justified and I'm glad the DA took the proper action and charged him. This case is absolutely not clear cut and deserves a trip to the courthouse for resolution. Hopefully the coming conviction will deter other vigilantes from taking the role of law enforcement upon themselves and killing people just because they want to. This kind of behavior endangers all our rights by giving a moral high ground to people like lastonealive who thinks no one should be allowed to own guns, and we can't bolster that position by failing to punish people like Drejka who try to hide their criminal intentions behind the law.

+1 

Well said.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Well... just like firing a gun isn't necessarily the correct action when faced with any threat, physical violence isn't necessary when met with any confrontation.


Although, I haven't commented on here about this issue until now, I felt at the time the shooter was out of line because a shot didn't need to be fired.
I also think McGlockton was out of line to put his hands on someone.

I'm overall content with the outcome, a charge of manslaughter and if he takes his day in court a jury of his peers can decide if his firing was justified.

No matter what, someone will make this about race...
and that is unfortunate because it isn't and shouldn't be about that.
If the races were reverse or the same (which is often the case in stand your ground law issues NOT covered by the media) I would feel the exact same.

As Florida's law is written I feel it may need to be revisited. As of now our law does not only include home but public areas such as this parking lot, which I think might be a bit much but even still many states implement a caveat that if you can retreat you should, or rather must. Our law does not have this wording in it and if Drjeka lawyers up could get off scott free due to this language. This retreat clause should definitely be apart of a law that allows citizens to defend their "ground" in public places.
I do not think there should be a retreat clause within your "castle" as it is called. i.e. You break into my home, you are fair game even if you run away from my big gun.

I'm hoping a jury will consider the fact that this is habitual behavior and he has gotten away with it until now. Now someone is dead and that is no small thing.

Indeed.
I had a heated discussion with a friend of mine who happens to (wrongly) believe that Drejka was well within his rights to not only shoot this man, but to be all up in their window for parking in a handicap spot.....

I mentioned the previous 'record', if you will, of the man and it was no deterrent for my friend. 
I wouldn't be surprised if he pleas out and gets "not enough time" to some people.
I also won't be surprised if he's charged and convicted of manslaughter 10-15 years (which is a lot less than people were clamoring for, I heard some people say he should be charged with 2nd degree murder).

---

I'm hoping a jury will consider the fact that this is habitual behavior and he has gotten away with it until now. Now someone is dead and that is no small thing.

Indeed.
I had a heated discussion with a friend of mine who happens to (wrongly) believe that Drejka was well within his rights to not only shoot this man, but to be all up in their window for parking in a handicap spot.....

I mentioned the previous 'record', if you will, of the man and it was no deterrent for my friend. 
I wouldn't be surprised if he pleas out and gets "not enough time" to some people.
I also won't be surprised if he's charged and convicted of manslaughter 10-15 years (which is a lot less than people were clamoring for, I heard some people say he should be charged with 2nd degree murder).

I don't know enough about the degrees of murder and manslaughter and such to comment on that, but this dude needs to pay for his actions. Yes, he was shoved, but HE initiated it all by sticking his angry nose into a situation that didn't require it. Also, the other fellow was turning to walk away so how is that considered so grave a threat that he is shot and killed?

---

Indeed.
I had a heated discussion with a friend of mine who happens to (wrongly) believe that Drejka was well within his rights to not only shoot this man, but to be all up in their window for parking in a handicap spot.....

I mentioned the previous 'record', if you will, of the man and it was no deterrent for my friend. 
I wouldn't be surprised if he pleas out and gets "not enough time" to some people.
I also won't be surprised if he's charged and convicted of manslaughter 10-15 years (which is a lot less than people were clamoring for, I heard some people say he should be charged with 2nd degree murder).

I don't know enough about the degrees of murder and manslaughter and such to comment on that, but this dude needs to pay for his actions. Yes, he was shoved, but HE initiated it all by sticking his angry nose into a situation that didn't require it. Also, the other fellow was turning to walk away so how is that considered so grave a threat that he is shot and killed?

Well.... Murder in the first or 2nd carries much more jail time than manslaughter.

One could argue that prior to pulling the gun the victim was standing over him and he could have feared for his safety. Though likely not his life.
It is up to the courts now... and I have a feeling that something will be done. And that to some it won't be enough and to others too much.

---

I'm not mad, and trying to misrepresent my stance doesn't prove your's.






I'm saying that they aren't wrong here. You can disagree with their decisions, but that doesn't make them wrong. The law says he doesn't have to retreat and only has to believe he's in danger of great bodily harm to use deadly force. He's already been knocked to the ground. McGlokton continued to advance until he saw the gun. Sure, he backed away a few steps, but that doesn't eliminate the threat. About 1.5 seconds from the time McGlokton stopped advancing to when he was shot. McGlokton could have covered that distance in less time and attacked him again. 

What you think will happen doesn't matter. What you think McGlokton's intent was doesn't matter.

McGlokton attacked someone and Drejka made a decision to defend himself in less than 2 seconds. Taking a few steps back doesn't take the potential of harm away. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone pretend to give up only to lure officers in so that they could attack again. A lot of people are overlooking the approximate 1.5 seconds from McGlokton stopping and being shot. It takes more time to read this sentence. The average reaction time is somewhere around .25 seconds. So, Drejka had approximately 1 second to decide what he was going to do, and that isn't something that can just be overlooked because we get to watch the video over and over again.

You can disagree with the law, but he's justified under the Stand Your Ground law. This law, by the way, is standard in many states--it just doesn't have that name associated with it. 

He implied that a push wasn't an assault and that he wasn't sure Drejka was ever in harm's way. If a push isn't an assault, and he isn't in danger, touching appears to be the accurate representation for his interpretation of what happened.

I disagree with your opinion that it was justified and I'm glad the DA took the proper action and charged him. This case is absolutely not clear cut and deserves a trip to the courthouse for resolution. Hopefully the coming conviction will deter other vigilantes from taking the role of law enforcement upon themselves and killing people just because they want to. This kind of behavior endangers all our rights by giving a moral high ground to people like lastonealive who thinks no one should be allowed to own guns, and we can't bolster that position by failing to punish people like Drejka who try to hide their criminal intentions behind the law.

That's the most sensible thing I've seen you post.

---

I don't know enough about the degrees of murder and manslaughter and such to comment on that, but this dude needs to pay for his actions. Yes, he was shoved, but HE initiated it all by sticking his angry nose into a situation that didn't require it. Also, the other fellow was turning to walk away so how is that considered so grave a threat that he is shot and killed?

Well.... Murder in the first or 2nd carries much more jail time than manslaughter.

One could argue that prior to pulling the gun the victim was standing over him and he could have feared for his safety. Though likely not his life.
It is up to the courts now... and I have a feeling that something will be done. And that to some it won't be enough and to others too much.

Hopefully he'll be made an example of. 

Like flsprtsgod said, "Hopefully the coming conviction will deter other vigilantes from taking the role of law enforcement upon themselves and killing people just because they want to. This kind of behavior endangers all our rights by giving a moral high ground to people like lastonealive in general who thinks no one should be allowed to own guns, and we can't bolster that position by failing to punish people like Drejka who try to hide their criminal intentions behind the law."

---

Don't go laying your hands on and physically assaulting another human being that has not physically assaulted you and you probably won't be shot. Knock a much smaller human being backwards by 10 feet smashing him on the pavement and you get what you get. Always assume that everyone is carrying a firearm, ALWAYS.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

Don't go laying your hands on and physically assaulting another human being that has not physically assaulted you and you probably won't be shot. Knock a much smaller human being backwards by 10 feet smashing him on the pavement and you get what you get. Always assume that everyone is carrying a firearm, ALWAYS.

The flip side is if you walk out of a store and see your spouse/significant other in an animated verbal exchange, the natural response is to defend them.  It was a push, not a punch.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I disagree with your opinion that it was justified and I'm glad the DA took the proper action and charged him. This case is absolutely not clear cut and deserves a trip to the courthouse for resolution. Hopefully the coming conviction will deter other vigilantes from taking the role of law enforcement upon themselves and killing people just because they want to. This kind of behavior endangers all our rights by giving a moral high ground to people like lastonealive who thinks no one should be allowed to own guns, and we can't bolster that position by failing to punish people like Drejka who try to hide their criminal intentions behind the law.

That's the most sensible thing I've seen you post.

Don't worry, we'll convert you yet!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Don't go laying your hands on and physically assaulting another human being that has not physically assaulted you and you probably won't be shot. Knock a much smaller human being backwards by 10 feet smashing him on the pavement and you get what you get. Always assume that everyone is carrying a firearm, ALWAYS.

Go and pick a fight with a woman while you're carrying and then shoot her SO for defending her against your aggression, shoot him while he's moving away from you no less, and you're nothing but a coward and get to spend time in the jailhouse.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Don't go laying your hands on and physically assaulting another human being that has not physically assaulted you and you probably won't be shot. Knock a much smaller human being backwards by 10 feet smashing him on the pavement and you get what you get. Always assume that everyone is carrying a firearm, ALWAYS.

Bad take...

But.. it takes all kinds of kinds to make the world go round

---

I'm just saying. Had the man not physically assaulted the dude he would not have been killed that day. Plain and simple. He had zero right to assault the man. Call it a shove , a push or whatever you want. In the eyes of the law it is assault/battery. He was not in the act of defending his woman because she did not require defense at that moment as she was not under physical attack. I suspect the guy will walk on the charge.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

I'm just saying. Had the man not physically assaulted the dude he would not have been killed that day. Plain and simple. He had zero right to assault the man. Call it a shove , a push or whatever you want. In the eyes of the law it is assault/battery. He was not in the act of defending his woman because she did not require defense at that moment as she was not under physical attack. I suspect the guy will walk on the charge.

Physical attack is not a prerequisite of the legal use of force (other than deadly force) against a person per Florida law. FL Statute 776.012 (1) states: "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." In fact, deadly force could even be used if the person believes that the use of "such force is necessary to prevent great bodily harm to himself or herself or another..." (776.012 (2)). 
  
For example, if Markeis McGlockton had heard Michael Drejka say something like "I am armed and will blow your head off if you don't get back in the car!" to Britany Jacobs, McGlockton would likely be considered justified in pushing Drejka away from his girlfriend. Now, there is no evidence that this was the case, and as far as I have heard Jacobs is not asserting that something like this happened. However, to say that just because Jacobs was not under physical attack means that McGlockton could not be justified in his shove is not accurate.

---

I'm just saying. Had the man not physically assaulted the dude he would not have been killed that day. Plain and simple. He had zero right to assault the man. Call it a shove , a push or whatever you want. In the eyes of the law it is assault/battery. He was not in the act of defending his woman because she did not require defense at that moment as she was not under physical attack. I suspect the guy will walk on the charge.

I agree he had zero right to assault the guy.
Drejka didn't have any right to confront them about the spot. Though he could have called the police dept and reported the license plate...
But judging from his past encounters he isn't a civil person.
Also.. could have held the man at gunpoint.
Also could have shot the man to injure instead of kill shot.

There is no way to say one person was more justified in their egregious action, however, one persons action was deadly.
The end result matters.

---