The number of deadly force incidents increased by a factor of 4 after Florida passed SYG. That means that 75% if the killings would not be happening. It’s state-sponsored death.
This guy was out hunting a la George Zimmerman. Florida sanctions it.
Florida is the same state where a rapist got acquitted because his victim wore a short skirt. No way this guy gets convicted.
If we assume your 75% number is accurate, that would not mean that 75% less people would have died.
There should be a law against pushing a guy down(in response to a verbal argument) and being threatening.
We need laws for physical assault control.
There has to be at least reasonable doubt …
@ucbalumnus - Thanks for the cite to the SYG statute. Looking at it, specifically Fl. Stat. 776.012(2), I think the shooter here will have a very strong defense (both the “great bodily harm” as well as the “forcible felony” conditions appear to have been met, and so “reasonable belief” will be the only issue). Relative sizes and ages of the two people involved will be explored at trial no doubt.
It appears from the video that the “victim” is quite a lot larger than the shooter and immediately engaged with no apparent prior conversation (note how he quickened his step just prior to the shove). The shove itself is also quite forceful. Most importantly, note that immediately after the shove, the “victim” appears to start to reach into his pockets and/or hike up his shirt. Defense counsel will no doubt point out that the shooter could have reasonably believed that the “victim” was going for a weapon. Also, the defendant’s subjective state of mind will be considered in light of all the evidence, including that a substantially larger man advanced aggressively, committed an obvious aggressive felony, and continued to advance after the shooter’s ability to retreat was cut off (not that he had a duty to retreat, but when you are knocked off your feet, the choice has been taken away). Given the burden of proof, this is perhaps not such a close call as I initially thought.
Oh, also thanks for the castle doctrine clarification. The Hispanic woman (fairly recent immigrant from Colombia) in recounting the story smiled and specifically mentioned SYG. So the law, at least in her case, had a very good effect, even if technically she was relying on prior legal principles involving home defense.
There are such laws. A car with a handicapped placard displayed can park in such a spot, one without a placard or license plate cannot. That is not the issue here, but whether a citizen can confront another for parking illegally.
Battery in Florida is generally a misdemeanor (784.03) unless it “causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement”, in which case it is a felony (784.041).
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.03.html
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.041.html
So a significant question in the case would be whether Drejka (the accused) suffered “great bodily harm” when McGlockton (the deceased) shoved him (committed battery).
Something else here is that * a second guy * followed McGlockton out of the store and headed in the direction of the altercation as if he too might get involved. So the guy is on the ground, with two guys and the girlfriend potentially against him. We also don’t know (and probably never will) what was said between the girlfriend and Drejka, or what the girlfriend said to McGlockton when she called him in the store. Obviously, he came out of the store loaded for bear, so it doesn’t take much imagination.
Some cases merit the outrage they engender. This is not one of them.
McGlocklin responded to the threat made to his girlfriend with physical force - but not deadly force. We don’t know exactly what threats were made to her, but had this not turned out this way, we can imagine he would have claimed self defense. Given this guy’s history, it seems as if maybe he’s looking for an excuse to pull his gun - he instigates, gets them to push “threaten him” then he feels entitled to shoot them. He seems to have appointed himself guardian of the HP spaces, but if he approached people nicely he might find they will move once called out.- or at some point he might find that the person he’s calling out does in fact have a right to use the space.
In this case I don’t think race matters - I think he has it out for just about everyone - but it just might end up mattering when it goes to trail, unfortunately. If he isn’t convicted, it will certainly look like another case of a white man getting away with provoking and then killing a black man.
“McGlocklin responded to the threat made to his girlfriend with physical force - but not deadly force.”
You’re forgetting that Florida is the Land of the Senior Citizen. Seniors are all acutely aware that one small fall often means a broken hip which often ends up as the beginning of the end (of independence, of health, even of life.) Any jury picked in that area is likely to include at least a few seniors who will view that push as deadly force.
It is outrageous that one person shot another, unarmed person to death in an argument over a parking space. It is outrageous that anyone is willing to defend that as acceptable, either substantively or within a zone of error that’s tolerable.
The Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court may give individuals the right to bear arms other than as part of a well-regulated militia, but it does not give anyone the right to kill anyone else. If Florida gives the defendant a right to use deadly force in these circumstances, that’s an outrageous disregard for human life.
Where was the threat?
This story seems to have the best description of events, and of course the video is pretty self explanatory:
https://6abc.com/not-stand-your-ground—charge-filed-in-parking-spot-shooting/3947709/
McGlockton came out of the store and did not even attempt to engage in any conversation. There was not even time to adequately assess the situation. Also note that simultaneously Jacobs was getting out of her car, which is an unlikely decision if she was actually being threatened, I’d think.
I’m not saying that the shooter handled the situation appropriately - of course not. But being needled about improperly parking in a handicapped spot by a fusspot - especially when there were nearby non-handicapped spots that were free - is the sort of thing that happens once in a while in normal society. Especially in Florida. But McGlockton immediately escalated to violence what normal people would take to be a small indignity visited upon someone who is in the wrong himself. He never learned what people usually do in preschool: “use your words.” He got his lesson late in life!
@jhs I don’t know, I had a friend nearly beaten to death by four unarmed individuals (was in the hospital for four months). If you’re saying that you have to meet like force with like force (fists to fists) I disagree. These cases should be looked at individually as to whether they meet the bar for self defense. A man can beat you to death with his fists as well as shoot you to death. The size and capabilities of both parties has to be taken into account.
Considering how fearful of crime people in the US seem to be (e.g. the “helicopter parent” phenomenon), it could very well be that the norm these days is to see every other person initially as a criminal threat. That is a sad state of affairs when that can lead to quick escalation of violence (whether a shove or a shooting) in (perceived) self defense (regardless of how this particular case ends in court).
Except this guy was not being beaten nearly to death by four people. He wasn’t “beaten” at all. He was shoved down. He drew his weapon. The other man backed off. Then the armed man fired. He’s lucky to get off with voluntary manslaughter.
There were lots of little wrongs here, or more-than-little ones. Parking in a handicap space, harassing someone for parking in a handicap space, shoving the harasser. None of that comes close to meriting the death penalty.
What an inappropriate, callous thing to say! Regardless, I hope the shooter also gets an important lesson late in life. Not as late in life as his victim, though. People who use their guns with such blatant disregard for life deserve to spend some time in prison thinking about what they could have done differently.
Question: if the shooting victim had pulled out a gun and shot the shooter (before being shot) could he claim innocence under the SYG doctrine or great bodily injury?
I can see some problems with the right to carry a concealed weapon in a public setting.
^If the other guy already had his gun out, I would think so. Sounds like the OK Corral.
I am not arguing that the shooter wasn’t wrong in killing the man, he had another choice. However back to the original question, and the fact that I just can’t see a conviction here, not in Florida at least.
It will be defined as a case of mutual combat originated by the deceased who made the initial physical contact. At that point the stand your ground concept allows the person who was “attacked” (defined by the recipient of the initial physical abuse betweeen parties) to use all means available to defend themselves. Regrettably this includes the deadly force of a firearm.
Never know how a jury will respond or the quality of the lawyers involved but under the law he should be acquitted. There are other statutes you could and should go after him for but that would be political suicide for a DA.
FYI I find my anticipated result morally abhorrent. Deadly force should only be an absolute last resort and was completely unnecessary in this situation. The shooter is a murderer but unfortunately the law as written doesn’t define him that way.
No, it doesn’t work like that. The law will not shield the initial aggressor except in the very limited circumstance in which the initial aggressor withdraws but is pursued by the other party. See, e.g., pp.113-114 here: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2841&context=facpubs
Here, McGlockton took the possibility of retreat away from his victim by knocking him off his feet and continuing to advance. His girlfriend also appeared ready to abandon her infant and toddler kids as she exited the vehicle to join in the melee. In these circumstances, I think it is going to be very hard to convince a jury that Drejka did not have a reasonable fear of imminent, great bodily harm; whether the initial shove and fall constituted such bodily harm is immaterial in itself, but the act of shoving and its aggressiveness (this was no mere push) will inform whether Drejka’s belief is objectively reasonable. I am particularly struck by McGlockton’s appearing to reach into his pockets and/or hike up his shirt immediately after the shove and while continuing to advance, which I think could reasonably be interpreted as going for a weapon, especially by someone who himself is carrying a licensed, concealed weapon. See pp. 115-116 in the above cited article for a specific discussion of reaching into a pocket.
I wonder many times McGlockton immediately escalated to violence over the course of his life? That his own children were watching him apparently made no difference, and speaks to his apparent propensity to violence perhaps more eloquently than the video itself.
I’m also struck by Drejka’s apparent composure - perhaps the prosecutor may be able to make something of that. Single shot, deadly accurate to center of mass in the seconds after being physically assaulted, no wild emptying of the mag, no collateral damage. Quite a lot better than many trained police officers can do in stressful settings!