Guy who shot Markeis McGlockton charged with Manslaughter.

[Taltarzac725]

Man who shot father in Florida '''stand your ground''' killing charged with manslaughter (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-who-killed-florida-father-markeis-mcglockton-charged-manslaughter-n900181)

This is an interesting development in the case where the shoved guy shot the guy who had pushed him over after an argument developed between the girlfriend and the shoved person about a handicapped parking space.

White man charged with fatally shooting black man in Florida - The Garden Island (http://www.thegardenisland.com/2018/08/13/news/white-man-charged-with-fatally-shooting-black-man-in-florida/)

[billethkid]

This not a surprise.

[manaboutown]

Well, more shall soon be revealed...

[BobnBev]

Man who shot father in Florida '''stand your ground''' killing charged with manslaughter (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-who-killed-florida-father-markeis-mcglockton-charged-manslaughter-n900181)

This is an interesting development in the case where the shoved guy shot the guy who had pushed him over after an argument developed between the girlfriend and the shoved person about a handicapped parking space.

White man charged with fatally shooting black man in Florida - The Garden Island (http://www.thegardenisland.com/2018/08/13/news/white-man-charged-with-fatally-shooting-black-man-in-florida/)

I'm a believer in the SYG law, but I agree, in this case, it did not apply. I'm sure at trial he will be found guilty.:popcorn:

[dewilson58]

Thanks for the update.

Will be interesting & expensive.

[Chi-Town]

Glad to see it.
Man who shot father in Florida '''stand your ground''' killing charged with manslaughter (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-who-killed-florida-father-markeis-mcglockton-charged-manslaughter-n900181)

This is an interesting development in the case where the shoved guy shot the guy who had pushed him over after an argument developed between the girlfriend and the shoved person about a handicapped parking space.

White man charged with fatally shooting black man in Florida - The Garden Island (http://www.thegardenisland.com/2018/08/13/news/white-man-charged-with-fatally-shooting-black-man-in-florida/)

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[graciegirl]

,,,

[retiredguy123]

My opinion

If I had been shoved to the ground for any reason, I would call the police, being sure I could identify the car.



If you saw the video, the guy may not have been alive to call the police. I wonder why someone would carry a legal concealed weapon if they cannot legally use it for self defense. Some have said that the shover was backing away. I didn't see it that way. I saw him back away only when he saw the gun.

[ColdNoMore]

Man who shot father in Florida '''stand your ground''' killing charged with manslaughter (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-who-killed-florida-father-markeis-mcglockton-charged-manslaughter-n900181)

This is an interesting development in the case where the shoved guy shot the guy who had pushed him over after an argument developed between the girlfriend and the shoved person about a handicapped parking space.

White man charged with fatally shooting black man in Florida - The Garden Island (http://www.thegardenisland.com/2018/08/13/news/white-man-charged-with-fatally-shooting-black-man-in-florida/)

:BigApplause:...:BigApplause:...:BigApplause:


Now let's wait and see if justice is actually served and the ammosexual that had been looking for a reason to shoot/kill someone for a while...gets what he deserves. :thumbup:

[Topspinmo]

If you saw the video, the guy may not have been alive to call the police. I wonder why someone would carry a legal concealed weapon if they cannot legally use it for self defense. Some have said that the shover was backing away. I didn't see it that way. I saw him back away only when he saw the gun.


I watched the video several times IMO it appears to me that the pusher backed up when he seen the gun come out in an "O" Shyt moment with only second or two before he was shot. But, I believe he had time not to pull the trigger. Which IMO will get him charged.

I also IMO he didn't have push the guy so hard he landed several feet to payment.

[manaboutown]

It will be interesting to see what facts and arguments come out during the trial which may be warranted or which may rather be a politically motivated decision by the powers that be. After all, the sheriff released the shooter; the dead man is the one with a rap sheet. In any event, the taxpayers will be forking over many dollars before the trial is over and for the appeal if the defendant is found guilty. Stay tuned!

[retiredguy123]

I have to feel sorry for the shooter charged with manslaughter. If he has any money, the defense attorney will take it all. And, even if he gets acquitted, his life will never be the same, and he may be in danger. I hope the prosecutor considered this in the decision to charge him, and that it was not a political decision.

[Spikearoni]

If you saw the video, the guy may not have been alive to call the police. I wonder why someone would carry a legal concealed weapon if they cannot legally use it for self defense. Some have said that the shover was backing away. I didn't see it that way. I saw him back away only when he saw the gun.

So if you saw him backing away "only when he saw the gun," then you saw him BACK AWAY. There goes the self-defense argument. Why shoot to kill when the threat is leaving/ backing away?

[retiredguy123]

So if you saw him backing away "only when he saw the gun," then you saw him BACK AWAY. There goes the self-defense argument. Why shoot to kill when the threat is leaving/ backing away?
You are talking about one second. No one will ever know what would have happened next, if he had not fired the gun. Also, he may not have seen him back away.

[manaboutown]

So if you saw him backing away "only when he saw the gun," then you saw him BACK AWAY. There goes the self-defense argument. Why shoot to kill when the threat is leaving/ backing away?

The guy could have been going to the truck for a tire iron to beat up or a gun to shoot the man he had brutally shoved to the ground. The dead man had a history of criminal violence as shown on his rap sheet.

[eweissenbach]

The guy could have been going to the truck for a tire iron to beat up or a gun to shoot the man he had brutally shoved to the ground. The dead man had a history of criminal violence as shown on his rap sheet.

Yeah the guy could have been doing a lot of things. He, in reality was backing away. The guy with the gun held all the cards and used the one that snuffed out a life. Ridiculous argument.

[dotti105]

Thank goodness this case has been reviewed and charges have been brought against the gunman.
Simply viewing the video it was obvious that this was no “stand your ground” case.
The death of this young father was murder. Pure and simple. I’m so thankful that this has been reviewed and charges brought.
The “stand your ground” law is a mistake. It has emboldened men to commit murder and walk free. We saw that with Travon Martin. Zimmerman was a loose cannon ready to shoot anyone for any reason. And “stand your ground” let him get away with murder.
Hopefully, they will get it right this time.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

If you saw the video, the guy may not have been alive to call the police. I wonder why someone would carry a legal concealed weapon if they cannot legally use it for self defense. Some have said that the shover was backing away. I didn't see it that way. I saw him back away only when he saw the gun.

IMHO, that's all it would take. If I had to pull out my gun to defend myself and the threat backed off at the sight of it, I hope that I wouldn't shoot. Many crimes have been thwarted simply by the sight of a gun.

On the other hand, things happen so quickly that it's hard to say if this was justified or not.

What I don't like is the testimony that this guy has been in and around that store in the past causing trouble by confronting people. I avoid confrontation like the plague because I never want to be in a position where I feel my life is threatened, but it seems like this guy was looking to shoot someone.

It will be interesting to see the result and hear all the facts.

[manaboutown]

Yeah the guy could have been doing a lot of things. He, in reality was backing away. The guy with the gun held all the cards and used the one that snuffed out a life. Ridiculous argument.

Are you serious? The shooter had been brutally and unexpectedly criminally battered by a man with a history of violent criminal assaults and batteries! If he was in fear of further violent battery or death he was justified in shooting the thug.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

The guy could have been going to the truck for a tire iron to beat up or a gun to shoot the man he had brutally shoved to the ground. The dead man had a history of criminal violence as shown on his rap sheet.

If that was the case, I think that it would be incumbent for the guy on the ground to wait until he saw a tire iron or wait at least until the guy started to move toward him.

I like the stand your ground law, but I don't know if it applies in this case. Once the guy was thrown to the ground and the attacker backed off there was no longer a threat. If a threat returned, then I can see the shooting being justified, but you can't shoot someone who's moving away from you.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

I have to feel sorry for the shooter charged with manslaughter. If he has any money, the defense attorney will take it all. And, even if he gets acquitted, his life will never be the same, and he may be in danger. I hope the prosecutor considered this in the decision to charge him, and that it was not a political decision.

That is why if you carry a gun you should have insurance.

[manaboutown]

If one feels threatened one can defend oneself to the degree necessary. Simple self defense.

The dead man had a rap sheet of violent criminal behavior. He was a thug.

[manaboutown]

Thank goodness this case has been reviewed and charges have been brought against the gunman.
Simply viewing the video it was obvious that this was no “stand your ground” case.
The death of this young father was murder. Pure and simple. I’m so thankful that this has been reviewed and charges brought.
The “stand your ground” law is a mistake. It has emboldened men to commit murder and walk free. We saw that with Travon Martin. Zimmerman was a loose cannon ready to shoot anyone for any reason. And “stand your ground” let him get away with murder.
Hopefully, they will get it right this time.

Trayvon Martin was a thug who attacked Zimmermnan who shot him in self defense.

[ColdNoMore]

Trayvon Martin was a thug who attacked Zimmermnan who shot him in self defense.

Wrong.

Zimmerman has been shown and proved...to be the real "thug."

[billethkid]

The game is easy to call after the fact.......from the grand stand!!

[BobnBev]

Wrong.

Zimmerman has been shown and proved...to be the real "thug."

Then why is he roaming free with a pistol permit (CCW)?

[ColdNoMore]

Then why is he roaming free with a pistol permit (CCW)?

Good question.

Here's George Zimmerman's history with the law since Trayvon Martin shooting - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/zimmerman-history-law-trayvon-martin-shooting-article-1.3990414)

He simply got lucky that the domestic violence charges were dropped.

His constantly going around saying "do you know who I am"...tells me all I need to know about what a scum he is.

Not to mention his other attributed comments towards blacks...makes it clear that he's a racist.

And someone paying $250,000 for the gun that killed Martin...is just plain sick. :ohdear:

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Wrong.

Zimmerman has been shown and proved...to be the real "thug."

I think that in that case, they were both less than perfect citizens.

Zimmerman at least had a reason to be following Martin. But Martin had no business in physically attacking Zimmerman.

Zimmerman's actions and words following his acquittal are of concern to me. But he had every right to defend himself while his head was being smashed against the ground.

[rjn5656]

I don't agree that the shooter was justified, but it is hard to say if you were the recipient of the shover. Who knows what he might have done next? Fear might have triggered the shooters response. I was not in his shoes and won't be the judge.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

It will be interesting to see what facts and arguments come out during the trial which may be warranted or which may rather be a politically motivated decision by the powers that be. After all, the sheriff released the shooter; the dead man is the one with a rap sheet. In any event, the taxpayers will be forking over many dollars before the trial is over and for the appeal if the defendant is found guilty. Stay tuned!

The sheriff did release him on the available evidence at the time but has since been quoted as saying that he agrees with the decision to prosecute.

This is why we have courts. They determine if the law was obeyed. if you shoot someone you really have to expect there to be an investigation and that you are likely to be charged with a crime unless the evidence is overwhelmingly in your favor.

The laws are not very clear in many instances when it comes to using a firearm. For instance, you have the right to shoot someone who enters your home uninvited, no questions asked. But does that mean if the person who enters your home looks confused and doesn't appear to pose a threat you have a right to shoot them? Does the law apply if you shoot a three-year-old who accidentally goes into the wrong house? How much of the person has to be inside your home. If they put a foot over the threshold can they be shot? Is your garage or lanai considered part of your home?

These questions will only get answered if cases are brought to trial.

[Taltarzac725]

The sheriff did release him on the available evidence at the time but has since been quoted as saying that he agrees with the decision to prosecute.

This is why we have courts. They determine if the law was obeyed. if you shoot someone you really have to expect there to be an investigation and that you are likely to be charged with a crime unless the evidence is overwhelmingly in your favor.

The laws are not very clear in many instances when it comes to using a firearm. For instance, you have the right to shoot someone who enters your home uninvited, no questions asked. But does that mean if the person who enters your home looks confused and doesn't appear to pose a threat you have a right to shoot them? Does the law apply if you shoot a three-year-old who accidentally goes into the wrong house? How much of the person has to be inside your home. If they put a foot over the threshold can they be shot? Is your garage or lanai considered part of your home?

These questions will only get answered if cases are brought to trial.

We have had neighbors with dementia who walk into the houses of other neighbors because they are quite mixed up.

The facts do matter a great deal with these cases.

Fortunately, I doubt if many of us have firearms easily available if someone comes through our front doors uninvited. Other things that could quickly become deadly weapons like a golf club, umbrella, or a knife, perhaps.

[retiredguy123]

The sheriff did release him on the available evidence at the time but has since been quoted as saying that he agrees with the decision to prosecute.

This is why we have courts. They determine if the law was obeyed. if you shoot someone you really have to expect there to be an investigation and that you are likely to be charged with a crime unless the evidence is overwhelmingly in your favor.

The laws are not very clear in many instances when it comes to using a firearm. For instance, you have the right to shoot someone who enters your home uninvited, no questions asked. But does that mean if the person who enters your home looks confused and doesn't appear to pose a threat you have a right to shoot them? Does the law apply if you shoot a three-year-old who accidentally goes into the wrong house? How much of the person has to be inside your home. If they put a foot over the threshold can they be shot? Is your garage or lanai considered part of your home?

These questions will only get answered if cases are brought to trial.
My problem with the system is that it doesn't cost the prosecutors anything to charge someone with a crime. In fact, they actually benefit because they are placating the political and racial groups who are demanding a trial. However, the guy being charged basically has his life totally disrupted, if not destroyed. He loses his reputation, his wealth, and his safety. It doesn't seem like a fair system, especially if he is acquitted, which many have been in similar cases.

[ColdNoMore]

My problem with the system is that it doesn't cost the prosecutors anything to charge someone with a crime. In fact, they actually benefit because they are placating the political and racial groups who are demanding a trial. However, the guy being charged basically has his life totally disrupted, if not destroyed. He loses his reputation, his wealth, and his safety. It doesn't seem like a fair system, especially if he is acquitted, which many have been in similar cases.

You're worried about a trial that is more than justified based on video (imagine if there wasn't a video), yet no concern about the guy who shoved the jerk harassing his girlfriend...and is now dead? :oops:


One can't help but think there is another agenda going on here.

[Taltarzac725]

My problem with the system is that it doesn't cost the prosecutors anything to charge someone with a crime. In fact, they actually benefit because they are placating the political and racial groups who are demanding a trial. However, the guy being charged basically has his life totally disrupted, if not destroyed. He loses his reputation, his wealth, and his safety. It doesn't seem like a fair system, especially if he is acquitted, which many have been in similar cases.

Lawyers and judge rarely bend to any kind of pressure from ordinary people nor if ever from political groups, etc., unless they are up for re-election.

They do change their minds due to influence from other judges and lawyers.

[Topspinmo]

Wrong.

Zimmerman has been shown and proved...to be the real "thug."

Wrong! Zimmerman was the one blooded tray only had 9mm hole.

[Topspinmo]

Lawyers and judge rarely bend to any kind of pressure from ordinary people nor if ever from political groups, etc., unless they are up for re-election.

They do change their minds due to influence from other judges and lawyers.

BS all about the money, the more money the more pleasant the outcome. No money quick case and locked up

[Topspinmo]

We have had neighbors with dementia who walk into the houses of other neighbors because they are quite mixed up.

The facts do matter a great deal with these cases.

Fortunately, I doubt if many of us have firearms easily available if someone comes through our front doors uninvited. Other things that could quickly become deadly weapons like a golf club, umbrella, or a knife, perhaps.

Only in central Nevada where they keep they're doors unlocked and in this day an age I doubt even their doors are unlocked. Unlooked doors invites trouble now matter where you live.

[manaboutown]

Wrong.

Zimmerman has been shown and proved...to be the real "thug."

No, it was proven Travon Martin was assaulting and battering Zimmerman who shot the thug in self defense.

[manaboutown]

My problem with the system is that it doesn't cost the prosecutors anything to charge someone with a crime. In fact, they actually benefit because they are placating the political and racial groups who are demanding a trial. However, the guy being charged basically has his life totally disrupted, if not destroyed. He loses his reputation, his wealth, and his safety. It doesn't seem like a fair system, especially if he is acquitted, which many have been in similar cases.

This sadly true. The shooter, if found not guilty, will have paid a heavy price in many ways.

[John_W]

Having grown up in the St. Pete/ Clearwater area, the jury will be picked from the local voter pool, which will be made up of mostly seniors like ourselves. People who are generally fed up with crime and thugs dominating our cities. The prosecutor will probably emphasize that the incident started over illegally parking in a handicap stop, that alone is enough to probably find this guy innocent in Pinellas County. Waste of taxpayer money, if not for Al Sharpton this trial would not be happening.

[jebartle]

It was none of his business. Call police let them handle parking violation, period!

[ColdNoMore]

Having grown up in the St. Pete/ Clearwater area, the jury will be picked from the local voter pool, which will be made up of mostly seniors like ourselves. People who are generally fed up with crime and thugs dominating our cities. The prosecutor will probably emphasize that the incident started over illegally parking in a handicap stop, that alone is enough to probably find this guy innocent in Pinellas County. Waste of taxpayer money, if not for Al Sharpton this trial would not be happening.

Say what? :oops:

That anyone would think that armed vigilante's looking for a reason to shoot/kill someone, should be able to use deadly force while playing 'handicap parking police'...is way beyond the pale.

Simply unbelievable. :ohdear:

[ColdNoMore]

It was none of his business. Call police let them handle parking violation, period!

It really IS...as simple as that.


Any other attempted justification, exposes the disgusting ugly underbelly...that currently infects this nation. :ohdear:

[WarrenWilliam]

Couple of things here: One comment described the pusher as "this young father." What possible connection can this have to the case? All being a father means s that you are capable of reproducing. The media often portrays people in terms of their reproductive status. The implication is that because they are a father, or a grandmother, or whatever, that means they are a good person. Inf act, they could be the worst father or grandmother ever. Irrelevant.

And as to the shooter "harassing his girlfriend" -- SHE pulled into the handicapped zone. The man who called her out for it didn't pull out his gun or threaten her. If she is old enough to be driving and making a decision to park illegally, she is old enough to verbally defend herself against verbal criticism. There was no call for her boyfriend to "protect" her here. This isn't the 1700s.

[ColdNoMore]

Michael Drejka, Florida ’stand your ground’ shooter, charged with manslaughter - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/08/13/sheriff-called-parking-lot-shooting-legal-under-stand-your-ground-laws-prosecutors-disagreed/?utm_term=.f1025ea358d2)

In court documents, prosecutors allege Drejka has brandished firearms or threatened to shoot other drivers during confrontations in at least three other incidents, including at the same store.


Here's hoping this armed, bully thug...gets what he deserves. :ho:

[John_W]

Couple of things here: One comment described the pusher as "this young father." What possible connection can this have to the case? All being a father means s that you are capable of reproducing. The media often portrays people in terms of their reproductive status. The implication is that because they are a father, or a grandmother, or whatever, that means they are a good person. Inf act, they could be the worst father or grandmother ever. Irrelevant.

And as to the shooter "harassing his girlfriend" -- SHE pulled into the handicapped zone. The man who called her out for it didn't pull out his gun or threaten her. If she is old enough to be driving and making a decision to park illegally, she is old enough to verbally defend herself against verbal criticism. There was no call for her boyfriend to "protect" her here. This isn't the 1700s.

I was just watching HLN and heard them make the same comment, "the young father" was the pusher. Other than putting a bias slant on the story, there was no reason as you say to label the person a father. Should they call the shooter "the older father?" Someone posted why didn't the shooter call the police about the parking infraction rather than confront the girlfriend. Same could be said, why doesn't "the young father" call the police to report a man harassing them". I'm sure the shooter's defense lawyer will bring all of this to light.

Had the shooter been 68 years old instead of 48, this would of played out much differently. Also if this was the shooter's first time he had pulled his gun would of made a difference, however it's not. Those past bad acts that might be his downfall if he's convicted. Here's hoping the jury upholds the law of the state of Florida and finds him innocent. :ho:

[manaboutown]

The WP story did not mention much less delve into the fact that the pusher had a history of criminal battery but focused solely on allegations of past gun waving/threatening behavior by the shooter on which no charges were ever made. Remember how the media displayed a photo of Trayvon Martin when he was about 12 rather than a recent photo showing how large and physically mature he actually was? Media bias at work?

To me the event is a "Man bites dog" story which is why it is getting so much attention. In Chicago where this kind of thing is happening multiple times a day it would not be newsworthy except perhaps because it was not a black on black killing. 2018 Stats | Chicago Murder, Crime & Mayhem | HeyJackass! (https://heyjackass.com)

[Spikearoni]

This sadly true. The shooter, if proven innocent, will have paid a heavy price in many ways.

Defendants are INNOCENT unless PROVEN GUILTY in a court of law. They are NOT proven innocent! The burden of proof rests with the prosecution.

Secondly, with regard to the financial cost of his trial, the shooter has the right to request a court-appointed attorney.

Thirdly, in such high profile cases, those who are sympathetic with the defendant or the cause that he or she may represent, quite often raise considerable sums of money for that individual and/or obtain a lawyer for the accused.

[retiredguy123]

Defendants are INNOCENT unless PROVEN GUILTY in a court of law. They are NOT proven innocent! The burden of proof rests with the prosecution.

Secondly, with regard to the financial cost of his trial, the shooter has the right to request a court-appointed attorney.

Thirdly, in such high profile cases, those who are sympathetic with the defendant or the cause that he or she may represent, quite often raise considerable sums of money for that individual and/or obtain a lawyer for the accused.
The shooter can only get a court appointed attorney if he cannot afford to pay for an attorney. So, if he has substantial assets, he will get "cleaned out" by a defense attorney. And, the attorney will demand a huge upfront payment because, once they take the case, the judge will make them finish it.

[manaboutown]

Defendants are INNOCENT unless PROVEN GUILTY in a court of law. They are NOT proven innocent! The burden of proof rests with the prosecution.

Secondly, with regard to the financial cost of his trial, the shooter has the right to request a court-appointed attorney.

Thirdly, in such high profile cases, those who are sympathetic with the defendant or the cause that he or she may represent, quite often raise considerable sums of money for that individual and/or obtain a lawyer for the accused.

Of course you are correct. Defendants are presumed innocent. The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt...What is the difference between innocent and not guilty? | MacDonald Law Office, LLC (https://www.amacdonaldlaw.com/blog/2016/may/what-is-the-difference-between-innocent-and-not-/)

[Trayderjoe]

I see a lot of comments on both sides that the shooter is guilty or innocent. I also see again, references to the Zimmerman/Martin case in which people continue to refer to Zimmerman as the guilty party when he was found innocent at trial. I don't condone Zimmerman's behavior since his trial in the Martin case, however finding the current shooter guilty "just like Zimmerman" is disingenuous and sounds more like a lynch mob. The criminal justice system will move forward and since charges are being filed, there will be a conviction (either through trial or plea) or the shooter will be exonerated. Many point to McGlockton backing away and then being shot. This will be thoroughly examined by both the prosecutor and defense. What was the time between pulling out the gun, the response, and the trigger pull? Were any threats being made after Drejka was pushed to the ground? Reports are that McGlockton was 11 feet from Drejka at the time of the shooting. BEFORE anyone claims that McGlockton was too far away to hurt Drejka, I suggest you review the Tueller Drill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill). The Tueller Drill is not a rule or a law, but it demonstrates reaction times and distance relationships. There is also a lack of understanding of what Stand Your Ground means. If the shooter is found guilty, it will be because his claim of self defense would be invalidated. Stand Your Ground indicates that a person does not have to leave a place he is legally entitled to be BEFORE he is allowed to defend himself.

I am curious about Drejka's historic behavior that is being reported AFTER the shooting. For example, it is against the law to brandish your firearm UNLESS you are in fear of your life. The Washington Post (per another poster's link) reports three separate events but no charges being filed or in at least one case, declining to press charges. Additionally, if it was known that the shooter was "harassing people" for parking in the handicap spot in this parking lot, why weren't trespassing charges filed against Drejka? Had someone tied to the business that owned/operated the parking lot filed such a complaint, then Drejka would not have been on the premises legally. Stand Your Ground, and quite possibly a self defense claim might be more tenuous (I will leave that to the attorneys). Yes, Drejka should not have appointed himself to question people about parking in a handicapped zone and should have let the police handle it, but WHY DIDN'T people who observed illegal or threatening behavior by Drejka NOT press charges or call the police to begin with?

Whether the shooting was justified or not, there are many lives that are/will be impacted by these tragic events. The genie can't be put back in the bottle, and now the criminal justice system is involved. Isn't it also tragic that no one wanted to step up and get them involved before the shooting?

[rjn5656]

I believe prosecutor fell to demands of media and racial groups.

[Mr Hanky]

No matter what the outcome of the trail one thing is certain, the criminal will never ever push or batter anyone else ever again.

[billethkid]

No matter what the outcome of the trail one thing is certain, the criminal will never ever push or batter anyone else ever again.

Can the same be said for the shooter?
No matter the outcome....can it be certain....he will never ever shoot and KILL someone again?

[Steve9930]

He will not be convicted. The shoot was justified. This is a case of a prosecutor succumbing to pressure from the demonstrators. If you push someone to the ground, its assault. All that is necessary at this point is for you to fear for your life. Waste of taxpayers money to prosecute this case.

[yabbadu]

If you saw the video, the guy may not have been alive to call the police. I wonder why someone would carry a legal concealed weapon if they cannot legally use it for self defense. Some have said that the shover was backing away. I didn't see it that way. I saw him back away only when he saw the gun.

I guess one should define legal use....in this case the victim was walking away ...no need to shoot!!!!:pray:

[CFrance]

I guess one should define legal use....in this case the victim was walking away ...no need to shoot!!!!:pray:
I'm not sure who the victim was.

But I just read something in a book that struck home... "Some people are like that... if there's not a war, they will start one."

It probably applies to both of these people. On the edge of anger, ready to fight.

I feel for the child.

[Marathon Man]

Here is a question that this case has created in my mind. Is the act of drawing a gun to defend yourself and then shooting the gun a single act or two separate acts? I mean legally. I wonder this because when the pusher began retreating, it was as the shooter was reaching for his weapon. So did he back away before the act of shooting began, or did he back away after the act of drawing/shooting began. I guess maybe this will be answered at this trial (assuming there is one).

[Steve9930]

Here is a question that this case has created in my mind. Is the act of drawing a gun to defend yourself and then shooting the gun a single act or two separate acts? I mean legally. I wonder this because when the pusher began retreating, it was as the shooter was reaching for his weapon. So did he back away before the act of shooting began, or did he back away after the act of drawing/shooting began. I guess maybe this will be answered at this trial (assuming there is one).

Good post. Here's more. First it's now impossible to seat an impartial jury a this point. Second I believe the prosecutor is filing this knowing the judge is going to hear the defense claim SYG, feared for his life. The Judge will rule the shooting was justified because in the mind of the shooter he feared for his life (All that is necessary under the law). Bullet was in the front not the back, or the side, never turned away, one shot, no overly aggressive action by the shooter. Backing up, are you sure, was he done or did he realize he was about to get shot, did he also have a weapon? No clear definite evidence the threat was over. Case is dismissed under SYG. This gets the pressure off the prosecutor to levy charges. The case then moves to civil court. Were the rules are different. Total waste of taxpayer money. This also shows why if you have a CCW, you also better have CCW insurance. Always amazes me how people stand up for a thug who got shot because he assaulted someone. He committed a crime that caused his death. What part of that do people not understand? Did he deserve to die? Probably not in my opinion. However we are not a nation of opinions but laws. Don't like the law change it.

[dotti105]

Then why is he roaming free with a pistol permit (CCW)?

Because, like OJ Simpson, the jury got it wrong.
Zimmerman has been arrested several times since then. He is a murderer who was set free in error.
Travon Martin was walking home with candy and a soft drink he had just bought at a convenience store.
He was an innocent black teen in a hoody.

[manaboutown]

Because, like OJ Simpson, the jury got it wrong.
Zimmerman has been arrested several times since then. He is a murderer who was set free in error.
Travon Martin was walking home with candy and a soft drink he had just bought at a convenience store.
He was an innocent black teen in a hoody.


Trayvon Martin was a thug who attacked George Zimmerman. His candy and soft drink combination was a drug concoction leading to aggressive behavior. duh!

Among its reports, Trayvon Martin’s drug use, explaining how the Skittles and Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail drink he carried that night are ingredients that, when mixed with dextromethorphan (DXM) cough syrup, create “Lean”, a concocted high which can cause psychosis and aggression over the longer term. According to the autopsy report, Martin’s liver showed damage consistent with DXM abuse.
Read more at It wasn’t just Skittles Trayvon was carrying (https://www.wnd.com/2013/07/it-wasnt-just-skittles-trayvon-was-carrying/#Kz6xECzCFaTPH84g.99)

[manaboutown]

I'm not sure who the victim was.

But I just read something in a book that struck home... "Some people are like that... if there's not a war, they will start one."

It probably applies to both of these people. On the edge of anger, ready to fight.

I feel for the child.

Which one? The pusher with a rap sheet of criminal battery had, in the truck, three b*****d children by the woman who parked illegally in a handicapped zone.

[Trayderjoe]

Because, like OJ Simpson, the jury got it wrong.
Zimmerman has been arrested several times since then. He is a murderer who was set free in error.
Travon Martin was walking home with candy and a soft drink he had just bought at a convenience store.
He was an innocent black teen in a hoody.

I disagree with this post. On what basis is the claim that Zimmerman being set free was in error? Was all of the evidence reviewed before making this claim or is the basis of the post generated solely from media reports? Are we to believe everything in the media when the integrity of the media is in question? Is there an awareness that the media published photos of Martin that were years younger than he was at the time of the incident? Is there an awareness that the case was NOT brought to a grand jury for review as is the normal process, but was sent directly to trial by the attorney general even though the prosecutor and the investigators had found that the basis of self defense by Zimmerman was met? Why was the grand jury not allowed to review the case?

Is there an awareness that Martin had mounted Zimmerman on the ground and that Zimmerman's head was pounded against the ground (his blood on the concrete and the abrasions on the back of his head being evidence of the attack) and that Martin was reaching for Zimmerman's gun? Is there an awareness that when the detectives who conducted the interview of Zimmerman, lied and told him that they had a video of the entire engagement, and that his response to them was "thank God"?

Perhaps when all of the evidence was reviewed, independent of what the media chose to report, that was why Zimmerman was found not guilty AT TRIAL of murder?

[tagjr1]

You are entitled to your own thoughts on the Martin matter, but you obviously don't understand the law as written and intended! Martin attacked Zimmerman and paid the ultimate price.

[Steve9930]

You are entitled to your own thoughts on the Martin matter, but you obviously don't understand the law as written and intended! Martin attacked Zimmerman and paid the ultimate price.

I see you have arrived at the simple truth. Thank You. Should we rejoice that another human died in violence, No. But if someone opens the door than what happens is a consequence of their actions. You apply the law, not legislate it. In all these cases the result was initiated by the action of the aggressor. Lesson to be learned is this, keep your hands to yourself, don't try to enforce laws that someone else is ignoring, and always treat people with respect, even if you'd like to choke the life out of them.

[Trish Crocker]

The victim had a few things on his rap sheet...all over 7 years old. The shooter has a history of threatening to kill people, showing his gun and using racial slurs. I pray he goes to jail for a long, long time. I know if my husband came out of a store and found a man harassing me he would do what he had to do to keep me safe...and there were children in the car.

[JSR22]

The victim had a few things on his rap sheet...all over 7 years old. The shooter has a history of threatening to kill people, showing his gun and using racial slurs. I pray he goes to jail for a long, long time. I know if my husband came out of a store and found a man harassing me he would do what he had to do to keep me safe...and there were children in the car.

I 100% agree with you!

[CFrance]

The victim had a few things on his rap sheet...all over 7 years old. The shooter has a history of threatening to kill people, showing his gun and using racial slurs. I pray he goes to jail for a long, long time. I know if my husband came out of a store and found a man harassing me he would do what he had to do to keep me safe...and there were children in the car.
I just read something in a Fredrik Backman book, Us Against You: A Novel (Beartown) that fits this bill: "Some people are like that. If there's not a war, they will start one."

[Jdmiata]

Hey , if a guy shoves you , you have the right to kill him ?

[GoodLife]

Hey , if a guy shoves you , you have the right to kill him ?

People die from being shoved all the time, they fall, hit their head on a curb or pavement, and boom they are dead. Don't shove people, they may be armed and shoot you.

[Chi-Town]

Shooter still in jail. Bond reduction denied.

Shooter in stand your ground case in Clearwater denied bond reduction (https://www.wfla.com/news/pinellas-county/shooter-in-stand-your-ground-case-in-clearwater-denied-bond-reduction/1391593657)

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[Steve9930]

I hope those of you who do exercise CCW now see the reason you also must have the Insurance. Right or Wrong you could be charged. Now it plays out in the courts. Do not see how they will seat an impartial jury. My best guess is the Judge throws it out on Stand Your Ground. Remember just because you get past the Criminal proceedings then comes the Civil. Be smart, get the insurance protect yourself.