FL - Markeis McGlockton shot and killed in front of family, Clearwater, July 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.

glamourkitty1922

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Messages
2,126
Reaction score
6,302
Reverend Al Sharpton joins protesters at the St. John Primitive Baptist Church to rally for Markeis McGlockton, the man killed earlier this month during an argument over a handicapped parking spot. wfla.com/1332107997
They sure don't mention the fact that the "victim" brutally attacked a smaller weaker man for no other reason than telling a woman she was in the handicapped space. Sharpton and Co must really hate the handicapped.
 

Jennifer17

Former Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2017
Messages
9,555
Reaction score
50,515
They sure don't mention the fact that the "victim" brutally attacked a smaller weaker man for no other reason than telling a woman she was in the handicapped space. Sharpton and Co must really hate the handicapped.
Because he didn't. He shoved a man who was using profanity and yelling at his wife.
 

glamourkitty1922

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Messages
2,126
Reaction score
6,302
Because he didn't. He shoved a man who was using profanity and yelling at his wife.
There is no proof of that on the video and the woman stated that she wasn't harassed. This was nothing more than a bully attacking another man for telling that woman the truth.
 

glamourkitty1922

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Messages
2,126
Reaction score
6,302
Per the video posted above they are against vigilantes like poor weak D. IMO
When did telling an insensitive thoughtless person that they're depriving the handicapped of their right to access become vigilantism?
 

Cryptic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
3,030
Reaction score
15,009
Yeah, it's such a funny bit of fiction. 33 states have SYG laws. Most people value their lives over that of the **** attacking them.

Very true, SYG laws are not going away (nor should they- but Florida's needs to be modified). MM's girlfriend needed a weapon that day. I, for one, would have been very wary of the situation:

- Despite a lot of empty parking spaces, unknown male pulls up and does not get gas or shop

- Starts circling the car of a woman, peering inside, unknown intent, looking for weaknesses?

- Might be armed with a fire arm weapon. He can easily hit everyone in the car with a pistol. Neither his ethnicity, his socio economic status, nor his "good" intentions prevent him from being a criminal.

- He then angrily confronts the woman, used profanity, hand is near his waistband.

As she was unarmed, she put herself at risk. Maybe exit the car with her weapon at the ready? Try to warn him off- only use deadly force if his hand remains near his waistband?
 
Last edited:

Cryptic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
3,030
Reaction score
15,009
see someone illegally parked in handicapped? sorry, they tell you to shut up
someone cut in front of you at mcdonalds? don't say anything, cuz they'll call you a vigilante
someone talking loudly in theater during movie? zip it, cuz they say your harassing

Way over simplified. A counter oversimplification would be: One of the great unwashed Somebody uses a handicapped space, talks in a theatre, cuts in line? - Loudly order him to stop being a "". If he gets insolent and raises his hand against you, kill him.

I can see three ways to limit the above two over simplifications:

1. Give all the same broad right of self defense. Under broad definition, the girl friend had plenty of reasons to pre emptively onfront D with a pistol. (Of course, she is obligated to give him a brief warning to move his his hand away from his waist band before engaging him).

2.) Modify Florida' SYG to read like the Texas law (one can not incite or provoke the other party, then claim SYG). The people of Texas get to decide what constitutes inciting or provoking.

3. Drop SYG and return to the Common Law concepts that the previous laws were based on. Common Law was built on centuries of common sense that took into account that black and white blurs into grey more often than SYG law writers think.

Option 3 is not realistic. Thus, option 2 is far more realistic. Option 3 would be a last resort as it continues the deviation from Common Law concepts based on common sense.
 
Last edited:

kimlynn

Former Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
2,086
Reaction score
2,681
Way over simplified. A counter oversimplification would be: One of the great unwashed Somebody uses a handicapped space, talks in a theatre, cuts in line? - Loudly order him to stop being a "". If he gets insolent and raises his hand against you, kill him.

I can see three ways to limit the above two over simplifications:

1. Give all the same broad right of self defense. Under broad definition, the girl friend had plenty of reasons to pre emptively onfront D with a pistol. (Of course, she is obligated to give him a brief warning to move his his hand away from his waist band before engaging him).

2.) Modify Florida' SYG to read like the Texas law (one can not incite or provoke the other party, then claim SYG). The people of Texas get to decide what constitutes inciting or provoking.

3. Drop SYG and return to the Common Law concepts that the previous laws were based on. Common Law was built on centuries of common sense that took into account that black and white blurs into grey more often than SYG law writers think.

Option 3 is not realistic. Thus, option 2 is far more realistic. Option 3 would be a last resort as it continues the deviation from Common Law concepts based on common sense.
Number 2 on the list sounds very reasonable to me. People should have the right to defend themselves but if they instigate or cause the situation they should accept part of the blame.
Also I think if you have the ability to retreat without using a weapon you should take it versus pulling out a gun and killing another.
And for sure you shouldn't be able to kill a person because they shoved you. IMO
 

Jim G

the Handsome Sailor
Joined
Jul 19, 2018
Messages
272
Reaction score
818
Number 2 on the list sounds very reasonable to me. People should have the right to defend themselves but if they instigate or cause the situation they should accept part of the blame.
Also I think if you have the ability to retreat without using a weapon you should take it versus pulling out a gun and killing another.
And for sure you shouldn't be able to kill a person because they shoved you. IMO
Disagree with you on about everything, but ultimately we need to wait and hear what the Pinellas State's attorney has to say. Regret the loss of life, better to resolve issues with words, not hands. Peace. Out.
 

glamourkitty1922

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Messages
2,126
Reaction score
6,302
Number 2 on the list sounds very reasonable to me. People should have the right to defend themselves but if they instigate or cause the situation they should accept part of the blame.
Also I think if you have the ability to retreat without using a weapon you should take it versus pulling out a gun and killing another.
And for sure you shouldn't be able to kill a person because they shoved you. IMO
How can one "retreat" when they are flat on the ground with their attacker looming above them? Why do you believe an attacker will stop after the first assault? Think of all the people who are murdered by being beaten to death. This was self defense and just because you tell someone that they're in a handicapped space doesn't mean a third person has the right to attack you from behind.
 

glamourkitty1922

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Messages
2,126
Reaction score
6,302
Very true, SYG laws are not going away (nor should they- but Florida's needs to be modified). MM's girlfriend needed a weapon that day. I, for one, would have been very wary of the situation:

- Despite a lot of empty parking spaces, unknown male pulls up and does not get gas or shop

- Starts circling the car of a woman, peering inside, unknown intent, looking for weaknesses?

- Might be armed with a fire arm weapon. He can easily hit everyone in the car with a pistol. Neither his ethnicity, his socio economic status, nor his "good" intentions prevent him from being a criminal.

- He then angrily confronts the woman, used profanity, hand is near his waistband.

As she was unarmed, she put herself at risk. Maybe exit the car with her weapon at the ready? Try to warn him off- only use deadly force if his hand remains near his waistband?
Did you watch the video? He commented to her and she spoke back, that is why he paused and they were talking. SHE SAYS SHE WASN'T THREATENED WASN'T HARASSED. He wasn't looming over her, he was a respectable distance from her car. You cannot kill someone for words, only for actions. That's why MM's death is self defense. He attacked D.
 

Cryptic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
3,030
Reaction score
15,009
Did you watch the video? He commented to her and she spoke back, that is why he paused and they were talking. SHE SAYS SHE WASN'T THREATENED WASN'T HARASSED. He wasn't looming over her, he was a respectable distance from her car. You cannot kill someone for words, only for actions.

The woman needed to be pro active with her safety when confronted by an angry individual with his hand by his waist band. Too bad she was unarmed.

He was well with in pistol range of her car- and her family. I agree, you cannot kill for words, just actions. Thus, D's words did not make him a threat. Rather, he became a threat by confronting somebody and by keeping one hand near his waistband. I believe it was his right hand (saw the video a few times). My guess is that D could be right handed and shoots right handed. Go figure.

Too bad she was unarmed.

.
 

Jennifer17

Former Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2017
Messages
9,555
Reaction score
50,515
How can one "retreat" when they are flat on the ground with their attacker looming above them? Why do you believe an attacker will stop after the first assault? Think of all the people who are murdered by being beaten to death. This was self defense and just because you tell someone that they're in a handicapped space doesn't mean a third person has the right to attack you from behind.
Think of all the people who are shot to death because someone takes offence at something that they have said or done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top