Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[HereWeGoAgain]

Is this Saint McGlockton?

Markeis Mcglockton Mugshot | 06/25/08 Florida Arrest

Who will cure cancer now ?

There are a million Saint McGlocktons out there....one of em is sure to find a cure.
....before getting capped for being an asshole.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Repeat your mantra all you want....you admitted he didn't follow it

Yes but his not following it was not illegal ?

Tactically unsound IMHO, but not illegal. It is why he wasn't arrested.

 

[Circe]

Is this Saint McGlockton?

Markeis Mcglockton Mugshot | 06/25/08 Florida Arrest

Who will cure cancer now ?

Drug arrest in 2008, I read in that new article quoted above. Charges were dropped. And that's it for him, as far as they said: the Drejka character got into more trouble than the black guy. Okay, no Saint McGlockton carry-on because that's how we got into so much confusion with the Trayvon Martin case. He was presented by the lying media as a saint, but wow, he was just a thug, turned out. I just feel bad because it's so sad about the mom and the three little kids. And McGlockton was defending them! Darn.

 

[G.T.]

Its going to be an easy case for the Jurors.

But not easy for detectives or the Sheriff ?

Correct, this is under review of prosecutors ~ ultimately, the folks who make these decisions and the video and testimonies are pretty clear. He was a gun owner looking to aggravate a shooting per his previous threats to shoot folks over the spot....and he exercised trigger happiness when an event had finally occurred in shooting someone who was pacing backward as his gun was being drawn.

A human life was taken and its the guy who pulled the trigger that acted most hysterically and irrationally. Clearly

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Is this Saint McGlockton?

Markeis Mcglockton Mugshot | 06/25/08 Florida Arrest

Who will cure cancer now ?

Drug arrest in 2008, I read in that new article quoted above. Charges were dropped. And that's it for him: the Drejka character got into more trouble than the black guy. Okay, no Saint McGlockton carry-on because that's how we got into so much confusion with the Trayvon Martin case. He was presented by the lying media as a saint, but wow, he was just a thug, turned out. I just feel bad because it's so sad about the mom and the three little kids. And he was defending them! Darn.

But he was such a nice boy......

• #1 AGGRAVATED BATTERY DOMESTIC
  STATUTE: 784.045(1)(B)/F
  
  
• #2 RESISTING ARREST W/VIOLENCE
  STATUTE: 843.01/F
  
  BOND: $2500
  
  
• #3 DISORDERLY CONDUCT
  STATUTE: 877.03/M
  

 

[Circe]

You know what?

This is high on the Google News headline list. I bet all over America people are staying out of those stupid handicapped parking places. It was probably a mistake mandating them: I always thought so. Too many. Maybe one or two would be okay, but eight??? They are ALWAYS empty. Too much of a temptation.

 

[G.T.]

The steps backward the man clearly made as the gun was being pulled means the guy will be tried and convicted of Murder. Good, another scumbag off the street.

Not necessarily. We don’t know how the victims vision was effected by the assault. For all we know his vision may have been blurred from the impact, and was unable to read the actions of the assailant in the same manner as you. Additionally the perspective of the video is quite different than what the victim was seeing. His assailant still standing over him.
Nor can any of us say the assault was over. An assailant may step back to remove himself from his victims defensive range, or back up to get a kick in. Back up to buy time to produce a weapon of his own... the list goes on, and on, and on...

Looked pretty clear to me he was walking backward and it also seemed pretty clear the guys vision was good enough to hit center mass.

Its also clear he has a track record of trying to provoke a shooting. He's made threats. His intent is established, the video bolsters it.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You know what?

This is high on the Google News headline list. I bet all over America people are staying out of those stupid handicapped parking places. It was probably a mistake mandating them: I always thought so. Too many. Maybe one or two would be okay, but eight??? They are ALWAYS empty. Too much of a temptation.

They sure get used at the Wife and I's favorite Cajun joint.
They have I believe six of them..
All parked in by what appear to be able bodied black people.
They hop out of their Escalades,Lexus and a host of other high end vehicles and waddle on in showing no signs of disability whatsoever.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Correct, this is under review of prosecutors ~ ultimately, the folks who make these decisions and the video and testimonies are pretty clear. He was a gun owner looking to aggravate a shooting per his previous threats to shoot folks over the spot....and he exercised trigger happiness when an event had finally occurred in shooting someone who was pacing backward as his gun was being drawn.

A human life was taken and its the guy who pulled the trigger that acted most hysterically and irrationally. Clearly

The prosecutors rely on investigatory discovery by detectives including video. The fact they didn't arrest when the Sheriff wanted to speaks volumes.

Same as Zimmerman when everyone was so sure. That case came down to the fact Martin attacking Zimmerman.

 

[Vastator]

The steps backward the man clearly made as the gun was being pulled means the guy will be tried and convicted of Murder. Good, another scumbag off the street.

Not necessarily. We don’t know how the victims vision was effected by the assault. For all we know his vision may have been blurred from the impact, and was unable to read the actions of the assailant in the same manner as you. Additionally the perspective of the video is quite different than what the victim was seeing. His assailant still standing over him.
Nor can any of us say the assault was over. An assailant may step back to remove himself from his victims defensive range, or back up to get a kick in. Back up to buy time to produce a weapon of his own... the list goes on, and on, and on...

Looked pretty clear to me he was walking backward and it also seemed pretty clear the guys vision was good enough to hit center mass.

Its also clear he has a track record of trying to provoke a shooting. He's made threats. His intent is established, the video bolsters it.

But center of mass of a blurr? Who knows? We’re talking fractions of a second here. The guy was blindsided. And again; the view offered by the video, is not the view the victim had.

 

[kaz]

You said I don't know what the guy was thinking. Go to the one minute mark of the video and the store owner tells you what he was thinking

How can the store owner possibly know what was said?

He doesn't, but after learning who was involved he made an assessment of his character, and then told about what he did know about his past actions at the market.

That doesnt mean he was threatening her.
He could have just as well been yelling about how handicap people need those spaces over the able bodied.

A full grown man yelling that at a woman in the parking lot is threatening her. It doesn't matter what he's saying if he initiated the confrontation. There is clear unequal force on the two sides

That is categorically false.

Again, you already admitted it wasn't, that you and your wife would both take it as threatening.

No long term memory?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.

So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?

Easy to be am armchair quarterback in these situations but you weren't the one who was assaulted and you have no idea what your own reaction would be to being the victim of a violent physical assault.

Doesn't make it legal what the shooter done next.

Doesn't make it illegal either

If I was on the jury I'd say it was justified
I really don't give a shit that some asshole who would physically assault someone else got dead

 

[kaz]

What specifically am I pointing to when I keep referring you to the one minute mark of the video? What happens then?

You know, that's a darn good question. Would you mind describing what you think is at the one minute mark of the video? I bet several people would be interested.

Go to the one minute mark of the video and tell me what happens

Naaaaaaaah, it's your court, your ball. You keep bringing it up, mysteriously. You can't give people homework assignments on threads, really. Make your claim. I did watch it earlier, and whatever you saw (and by now I have no idea WHAT that was relating to) I didn't see anything except what I've already described. The speed of the event is what impressed me: it was a doom.

OK, got it

 

[G.T.]

The steps backward the man clearly made as the gun was being pulled means the guy will be tried and convicted of Murder. Good, another scumbag off the street.

Not necessarily. We don’t know how the victims vision was effected by the assault. For all we know his vision may have been blurred from the impact, and was unable to read the actions of the assailant in the same manner as you. Additionally the perspective of the video is quite different than what the victim was seeing. His assailant still standing over him.
Nor can any of us say the assault was over. An assailant may step back to remove himself from his victims defensive range, or back up to get a kick in. Back up to buy time to produce a weapon of his own... the list goes on, and on, and on...

Looked pretty clear to me he was walking backward and it also seemed pretty clear the guys vision was good enough to hit center mass.

Its also clear he has a track record of trying to provoke a shooting. He's made threats. His intent is established, the video bolsters it.

But center of mass of a blurr? Who knows? We’re talking fractions of a second here. The guy was blindsided. And again; the view offered by the video, is not the view the victim had.

Correct, the victim's view was backing away from a man as he pulled his gun....gleefully, if we are to believe the testimony of the store clerk and the gentleman he had previously threatened to shoot over a parking space he was mentally derranged and obsessed with.

 

[Skull Pilot]

True, but we are supposed to be trained to overcome our emotions once the situation was under control, and the attacker disengaged, and even stepped back.

Retreat does not indicate the attack is over. Is someone knocked me to my feet that way I would suspect the attack to likely continue.

It is why it is good not attack others. You open yourself up to the response which may viewed as reasonable since you previously engaged an attack.

Retreat is an indication that the attack is over, and especially if your weapon caused the retreat. He knew (it appeared) that he was out of danger once pulled his weapon and the assailant retreated in his body language given, but the shooters emotions caused him to take the shot in which shouldn't have been taken at that point.

Or the piece of shit who assaulted the guy was backing up to come at him again

 

[kaz]

Buy a dictionary and look up the definition of "tone." Screaming at someone isn't "tone." Tone is the impression you're giving. Screaming at someone is entirely different. You used a word to create a false narrative. That is a strawman

Your personal definition of "time" versus what constitutes "screaming" is irrelevant. Neither are legal grounds for commiting assault.

But getting pushed down by a guy who is protecting his woman is a cause for murder.

I pointed out that you're massively contradictory. The victim was supposed in your mind to go to extraordinary lengths and you put no onus on the shooter at all to not even scream at women in parking lots

The two are separate events. One was an interaction between the victim, and the woman. Then the assailant created another scenario between the assailant, and the victim. To his credit the victim compartmentalized them well. He maintained only verbal with the woman, and defended himself a against violence, with violence. He never allowed these one event to bleed back into the first.
The second event was entirely violent, and initiated by the assailant. It was ended as it began with violence from the victim. I don't grant any sympathy to the assailant just because, he may have thought that he might get away with it. It was poor judgment on his part. It doesn't appear that he expected to get shot for assaulting the man.Turns out he was wrong.

Bull shit, there weren't separate events. There was one scenario initiated by the murderer

Wrong. And the primary act of violence was initiated by the assailant. And it cost him his life. Raising one's voice is not an act of violence.

Again the flagrant hypocrisy that you hold the victim to an incredibly high standard and the shooter to none at all

 

[sealybobo]

If you’re attacking me and I pull a gun and you stop, I can’t shoot

Not necessarily.

I just ran this scenario by my dad. He said of course he’d shoot someone who violently threw him to the ground. What more does he need to do to me before I get to shoot?

I think the message behind stand your ground is keep your hands off people

Did you mention the part to your dad where in the scenario he is in the parking lot screaming at the guys wife when he came out of the store?

Yes. Then he back peddled but still he had no right to escalate from words to physical. Even if someone’s screaming at my wife I don’t have the right to punch the screamer. You ever argue with someone’s mother or wife?

Like I said the lesson should be don’t touch people but some people deserve to be punched. But if they have a gun they might also have the right to strike back the only way they can.

I would find the guy guilty.

So you're saying that your father said that if he was screaming at a woman in a parking lot and her boyfriend came out and shoved him, your father said he'd waste his sorry ass because he deserves to die and he wouldn't think twice.

Just making sure I understand

I just asked him and he said no.

 

[Vastator]

How can the store owner possibly know what was said?

He doesn't, but after learning who was involved he made an assessment of his character, and then told about what he did know about his past actions at the market.

That doesnt mean he was threatening her.
He could have just as well been yelling about how handicap people need those spaces over the able bodied.

A full grown man yelling that at a woman in the parking lot is threatening her. It doesn't matter what he's saying if he initiated the confrontation. There is clear unequal force on the two sides

That is categorically false.

Again, you already admitted it wasn't, that you and your wife would both take it as threatening.

No long term memory?

I think you have me confused with another poster...

 

[Vastator]

Your personal definition of "time" versus what constitutes "screaming" is irrelevant. Neither are legal grounds for commiting assault.

But getting pushed down by a guy who is protecting his woman is a cause for murder.

I pointed out that you're massively contradictory. The victim was supposed in your mind to go to extraordinary lengths and you put no onus on the shooter at all to not even scream at women in parking lots

The two are separate events. One was an interaction between the victim, and the woman. Then the assailant created another scenario between the assailant, and the victim. To his credit the victim compartmentalized them well. He maintained only verbal with the woman, and defended himself a against violence, with violence. He never allowed these one event to bleed back into the first.
The second event was entirely violent, and initiated by the assailant. It was ended as it began with violence from the victim. I don't grant any sympathy to the assailant just because, he may have thought that he might get away with it. It was poor judgment on his part. It doesn't appear that he expected to get shot for assaulting the man.Turns out he was wrong.

Bull shit, there weren't separate events. There was one scenario initiated by the murderer

Wrong. And the primary act of violence was initiated by the assailant. And it cost him his life. Raising one's voice is not an act of violence.

Again the flagrant hypocrisy that you hold the victim to an incredibly high standard and the shooter to none at all

The shooter IS the victim. Did you even watch the video?

 

[kaz]

The guy was screaming at his girlfriend in the parking lot. How is that possibly unclear to you?

Does one forfeit their right to defending themselves against an assault by a third party, if the third party decides he doesn't like your tone?

Once the gun defused the situation, it wasn't nessesary to take the shot. Emotions running high may have caused the mistake, but if it is proven that the shooter had some sort of issues like in the cases of these mass shooters, and they were being ignored then what a tragedy it is yet again for the victim and his or her family.

We have more and more cases of pure stupidity in this countey running wild, and it is destroying our freedoms and nation if ignored. It's best to not defend the indefensible, and to instead ajudicate these cases properly in order to protect our freedoms and this nation. Separate the bad from the good no matter who or what is involved.

I'm not sure where the victims family enters this scenario for you. But as for the situation being defused... That's pure speculation. You have no idea what the assailant intended to do. Nor do you know what the victim saw through his eyes. He was just knocked violently, an unexpectedly to the ground. Was his vision blurred from the assault? We don't know. But simply stepping back is not the determining moment that ends a confrontation.

You don't know what the victims family had to do with the shooting? OMG, that's priceless

While I'm sure they may be concerned about him having to be run through the legal wringer to disprove the charges, which as of yet,thavent been brought against him... They have no relevance to the incident itself.

What are you talking about? We were talking about the victim's family, not the shooters family