Florida CCW shoot, good or bad?

jfrey123

I aim to misbehave...
Staff member
Moderator
Forum Supporter
#3
If I was on the jury, I’d convict. Getting shoved and falling over, with not physical indication the attack is about to continue, does not constitute a threat of grave bodily injury of death. They look to even yell at each other as he’s pointing the gun, and the perp turns his body away before being shot.

This case makes lawful carriers look bad.
 

Ricci

uber Member
Forum Supporter
#4
To me it looked like after he went down the guy was going to advance perhaps for a kick-who knows? Once the pistol was presented it looks like that alone stopped the threat. Either way, that was a hard push to the ground and could have been one hell of a head injury or other.
 

ZilWin

Obsessed Member
#5
IMO as soon as he started the adversarial conversation with the GF in the car over a parking space he became the initial aggressor. You get outside of the MYOB role and you are really on slippery ground if things go south.
 

Ricci

uber Member
Forum Supporter
#6
IMO as soon as he started the adversarial conversation with the GF in the car over a parking space he became the initial aggressor. You get outside of the MYOB role and you are really on slippery ground if things go south.
True. And it's a slippery ground he'd been down before. The store owner had asked him to stop doing that very thing before but he obviously felt pretty strongly about people parking in blue lanes without a tag.
 
#7
They were both losers.

The shooter was a miserable guy who apparently got off on trying to tell people what to do, while he was packing heat, and the dead guy was just another thug, who attacked someone with a surprise blindside hard check/shove - lesser assaults HAVE killed people. Just another version of the sucker punch.

The media is also conveniently NOT reporting on the extensive criminal history of the thug who got killed. Has been arrested for assault, etc.
 

pick_six

Adjusting to the west!
Forum Supporter
#8
there seems to be a break in the video. i am curious about what is missing. how much time, smack talk, any threats, etc. and lack of audio.

you see the man down pointing the gun, other man standing over him,

then you see the guy half way back to the door, staggering.

no telling what has been cut or missed. maybe just edited to avoid showing the actual show. or maybe editing out important details.

the verbal stuff between the shooter and the woman is one thing, but the assault by the guy who got shot is another.

that said, i am thinking this guy is probably going to be charged. then trial. then even if found not guilty, in severe debt, after representation by a good lawyer. and as folks note, the shooter had a reputation for this sort of confrontation. either a convicted felon/Nth degree murder or the next Zimmerman.

cbs had an interview with the woman. i'll say i found it interesting, her comments about some of the events, and leave it there.

and MYOB is a good rule. you may meet someone crazier, faster, and better armed than you. neither position here, having killed someone of having a friend killed is worth it, if it can be avoided.
 

jim

Obsessed Member
#9
The vigilante meter maid should be going to jail. Carrying is a right that everyone should be allowed to exercise but not everyone should.
 

Kinoons

Obsessed Member
Forum Supporter
#10
I dunno - I understand the idea of MYOB but it’s sad that our society has fallen to the point that when we see a fellow citizen being a douchbag, like using the handicap spot when when not, we cannot call them out for their douchbaggery without fear of being shoved to the ground by some dude half our age. We don’t know the verbal exchange that took place between the two men. And since when is calling out someone for being an (a**hole) = a physical fight. The guy asking them to move may have initiated the conversation, but he didn’t initiate the physical conflict.

Perhaps he didn’t need to shoot as the guy seemed to back up when he saw the pistol, but if the guy on the ground (who may very well be disabled given his reaction) who has a large man standing over him who is half his age, may have made the decision to fire given the evidence at hand in his mind. Big younger guy standing over me likely using profanity and I’m in a very precarious position.

It’s not worth shooting over but I’m going to have to agree with the cops on this one. It’s too bad simple disagreements come to physical fights.
 

SundevilSG

Minute of Barn
Forum Supporter
#11
I agree the shoot was perhaps questionable when viewed through a camera.

The man was very clearly immobilized after being blindsided and looked to be a in a lot of pain, in a very vulnerable position. Having the ability to watch the video over and over and with the benefit of hindsight, it DOES look that the attacker recoils from seeing the gun. However its not clear that the shooter saw that, and he was also distracted by the gf as well as the fact that he was just knocked on his ass. All that is required for him to legally shoot was that a reasonable person would believe he was in legitimate fear of his life, having only the information that the shooter possesed at the time. I believe he thought that, and I would absolutely not convict him for it. You have to give the benefit of the doubt to the guy that just got whallopped.

I dont agree with him starting the argument either, but at the end of the day he did not deserve to be physically assaulted. It was the deceased decision to take it to that level, and he paid for it with his life.

Sucks that even if I had a jury of pro gun NV shooters members theres a good chance I'd be put in jail if I have to defend myself. Pretty shocked at the responses ITT.

If I was on the jury, I’d convict. Getting shoved and falling over, with not physical indication the attack is about to continue, does not constitute a threat of grave bodily injury of death. They look to even yell at each other as he’s pointing the gun, and the perp turns his body away before being shot.

This case makes lawful carriers look bad.
Sorry bud, but you are twisting the chain of events to fit your interpretation of what happened.

I see it like this:

1) Carrier gets knocked on his ass. He's stunned and in a lot of pain
2) He looks up to see the aggressor continuing to approach him (as can be seen in the video)
3) Carrier decides its go time, draws the gun and fires in a fluid motion
4) Carrier did not notice the man start to retreat (which was not an obvious retreat by the way - Look at the other man in the video who RAN AWAY not took a half step when the gun came out. Why didnt the attacker run away?)


It was at least possible that the attacker would continue the assault. It seems the police agreed with my chain of events.

IMO as soon as he started the adversarial conversation with the GF in the car over a parking space he became the initial aggressor. You get outside of the MYOB role and you are really on slippery ground if things go south.
He became the initial aggressor by speaking with someone... Not the guy who (fack)ing attacked him? Are you kidding me? We use words in this society. You want to go hands on you dont get to control how far that goes.
 
Last edited:
#12
This story hit home for me more than I'd like to think about. The complex I manage has covered parking spots that are reserved for the tenants, and uncovered spots that are open to the public. But because of the heat here in the summer months, many visitors ignore the reserved signs, and park in the covered spots. The result is the tenants complain to me, and I have to handle it. I could simply call our towing company. Which guarantees the vehicle owner becomes confrontational. Or I can go looking for the vehicle owner, and most of the time they'll simply feign ignorance and move their vehicle. But once in awhile, someone will become confrontational over having to park in the sun, demanding someone be responsible for whatever they have in their vehicle that can't handle heat . I always try to de-escalate any situation, and try to be as rational as possible. But many of the visitors are here to see therapists, and thus have some behavioral issues, and are irrational. I'm just thankful it's never gotten physical. Every time I wished MYOB was an option for me.

Another issues I constantly deal with are homeless people coming onto property, and many of them start bush crafting, so you can clearly see they're armed with a knife. Or they come with a shopping cart, and start collecting our landscaping rocks, many of them easily large enough to be a blunt force weapon. Our security patrols only work after business hours, and police response takes hours for non emergency calls. Asking them to leave nicely is my first move. But it's a bit nerve wracking when someone is collecting rocks, and sticks while holding a blade in plain sight during broad daylight. Often it's obvious they're not all there mentally, whether from mental issues, or chemically induced. Again, I wished MYOB was an option in these situations, but getting metro to remove vagrants is hit or miss.

I also check on the condition of vacant residences for out of state owners on a weekly basis. Squatters breaking in are a huge problem here. If I see signs of forced entry, I get back in my car and call metro, then spend the rest of the day waiting for them to respond and check the house for me (it has taken as long as 9 hours). If they even come, sometimes they give me the excuse they need the actual property owner to request. But a couple of times I didn't see any signs of forced entry, and simply walk in, and find signs of someone living there.It's usually in the form of used needles, crack pipes, porn, latex gloves.lube, clothing etc. In those situations I draw, pray I don't run into anyone as I try to get the hell out of there asap, and call metro and play the waiting game.

It's easy to say people should MYOB, but that's a luxury not everyone always has. You can try all you want to be calm, and rational. But fact is although most people are rational, lots of people aren't. Then you have to factor in what the odds are of someone being rational, when they're doing something irrational in the first place? Rational people do not park in a handicapped spot, and potentially deny an actually handicapped individual of a spot, for their own convenience.

I'm not going to take sides, but I'm extra aware I could've been in the shooter's position myself more times than I know. The outcome is terrible, but probably could've been avoided if either side just changed one decision.
 

Fogie

Swimming Pool Monkey
Forum Supporter
#13
Head-stomping is the latest craze amongst thugs. I wouldn't ask the victim to wait for some.
 

jfrey123

I aim to misbehave...
Staff member
Moderator
Forum Supporter
#16
I agree race is being used to blow this case up into something bigger. I still think the charged are valid.
 

jim

Obsessed Member
#17
It gets old having race constantly brought into situations where it's not a factor. He was either within his rights to shoot or wasn't. Based off of the limited info I believe the charges should've been filed but it damn sure shouldn't be clouded with a fabricated emotional issue.
 
#19
As I stated earlier, they were BOTH losers.

Markeis McGlockton was a thug. The media would like to make him a saint, as they did with Trayvon.

http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/backlash-continues-following-stand-your-ground-shooting

Drejka does not have a criminal history, but back in 2012, Drejka was accused of pulling out a handgun during a road-rage incident. The driver declined to press charges, and Drejka denied showing the weapon.

McGlockton’s criminal record includes drug charges, petit theft, and an aggravated battery arrest that all happened before 2011.