Why is Cenk Uygur so dumb? (Although, in fairness to him, he doesn't screw these stories up too much more than the rest of the media.

Incident that happened in Clearwater, FL, where I live. No, I didn't see it. I was probably safely at home or the gym when this happened.

Black woman Britany Jacobs parks illegally in handicapped parking spot at convenience store, while her black boyfriend Markeis McGlockton goes in with their five-year-old son to buy snacks.

White guy Michael Drejka (pronounced DRAY-uh)comes buy, chides Jacobs for parking in handicapped parking spot without appropriate card or tag. As they argue (because the woman said in interviews that she has the right to park wherever she wants), McGlockton comes out with five-year-old son, violently shoves Drejka to the pavement.

Drejka takes out gun, shoots McGlockton in the chest, black man flees back into the store and is pronounced dead at hospital.

Cenk (and too many other morons) insist that there was no cause to shoot. Oh, yes, there was. You put someone in reasonable apprehension of being hurt or killed, they have the right to use deadly force to defend themselves.

Cenk also insists that Drejka might have taken out his gun and told McGlockton to "Freeze!"

Nope. You're not allowed to do that in Florida (I don't know about the law in any other states). You draw, you shoot.

There's no open carry in Florida. It's concealed carry only. And it stays concealed. You can't, for instance, "flash" your gun at someone to warn them off. And no warning shots, either.

Once you draw, it's showtime. There's no turning back.

And already the comparisons to Trayvon Martin are being made. I suppose it's a fair comparison. Both were killed in justifiable acts of self-defense. And the protests are going on, "No justice! No peace!"

I don't suppose it occurred to anyone that Markeis should have kept his stupid hands to himself.

Sorry. Should have proofread more. Drejka is pronounced DRAY-kuh.

Poet, to wife: "There is no rhyme for 'orange.'"

Wife, to poet: "When are you going to fix the door hinge?"

https://twitter.com/JohnEkdahl/status/1021837929482792961

Patrick, this will make your day. Ben Crump, who was the Martin family's lawyer, has been hired by the family of the deceased to represent them. I wonder how badly he'll screw the pooch on this one.

But if ya don't wanna get shot, don't get into altercations. A soft answer turneth away wrath; but grievous words stir up anger. Or in this case, shoving someone hard enough to put them on their ass.

I feel sorry for the kid, tho. Not something he should have had to witness.

Borders for me, but not thee.

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1021863442209275904

I feel sorry for the kid, tho. Not something he should have had to witness.

I R A Darth Aggie at July 25, 2018 7:27 AM

Trust me, the kid had seen worse than this already being raised around a man who resorted to violence in response to a small verbal altercation.

I look at it as an object lesson that might keep the kid alive a lot longer than his dad.

Secrets for me, but not thee.

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/government-security-clearance-list-100195

“I write to express my concern about threats to national security resulting from the increasing number of people with eligibility for access to classified national security information, particularly Top Secret (TS) and Top Secret/Secure Compartmented Information (TS/SCI),” Clapper wrote in a three-page memo, dated Oct. 31 and cited at a Senate hearing Wednesday.

Carnivore diet -

https://nypost.com/2018/07/24/new-diet-claims-you-can-lose-weight-eating-only-steak-and-burgers/

Explosion In Sex Dolls Threatens Japanese Race With "Extinction"

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-24/explosion-sex-dolls-threatens-japanese-race-extinction

"McGlockton comes out with five-year-old son, violently shoves Drejka to the pavement..."

Something I find interesting, that's sort of tangentially related to this:

Someone mentioned the three killings at BART stations in the past week yesterday in a link thread. What's interesting to me about those is that none of them involved guns.

One was a stabbing. One involved a guy who got a cut in a scuffle, the cut got infected, and he died from the infection. And the third was a "one-punch" homicide: guy was punched in the head, fell, hit his head, and died.

Point being, just because someone doesn't have a gun or a knife doesn't mean they can't kill you. Especially when they're 28, and you're 47.

Related:

https://twitter.com/LouisvilleGun/status/1021530653442170880

There's no honor in a picking a fight with a girl and then pulling a gun when it turns out she's got a boyfriend.

That's not a position a gentleman should take.

Don't get lippy with people over their parking. It never goes well. The last time I did that I took a punch to the back as I was running away from some Seal Team 6 dude. There's a lot more honor in running away from a fight you can't win than pulling out a gun, speccially when you started it, Patrick.

"But it's an important infraction, there's a $271 dollar fine!" Some people really need to get out of the subdivision a little more often.

There seems to be a fundamental difference in perspective here.

The libertarian, old school liberal, now conservative definition is that the fight is started by the guy who throws the first punch/shove.

Snowflake socialist, SJW perective is that I have a right to call the law/ throw a punch when you say something mean to me. Those harsh words start the fight.

The law of this country, still in most jurisdictions goes with the first definition. You start the fight when you assault someone or batter them. The response after that, in most cases is self defense.

I would never start an argument with someone over a handicapped parking space. Just stupid. But, We all have bad days where little things just grate on us, and we lash out verbally.

I was at a truck stop in Nebraska buying gas for my truck. Pulling a trailer. Not easy to back up or turn around and go to another pump. The people in front of me left their car at the punp, went in, and ate at Subway before coming back out and finally moving the car. I said, and did nothing. Not worth lowering myself to their level.

However, The moment, in any situation where someone hits, shoves or looms over me in a threatening manner or rushes at me making verbal threats, I am pulling the gun, if I am scared enough to do that, chances are good, I am pulling the trigger. As a woman senior citizen in most places I am prepared to face the legal consequences, and the video tape of the incident in question if there is any.

What Cathy Young said + What the lady in the picture said = The gay dating scene.

https://twitter.com/CathyYoung63/status/1021982267890122758

Aryoo gunna cry? You gunna weep?

smurfy:

There's no honor in a picking a fight with a girl and then pulling a gun when it turns out she's got a boyfriend.

There's no honor in escalating a verbal altercation to the physical, either. And as McGlockton found out, such tactics can prove fatal.

So many keep saying that a man got murdered over a parking space or a man got murdered over a shove.

It wasn't over a parking space. It wasn't even over a shove. It was over someone placing someone else in reasonable apprehension of serious bodily harm. And that's enough.

Now some are boo-hoo-hooing all over the media that Markeis Glockton might have felt threatened and asking rhetorically, "Where was his right to stand his ground?"

Maybe he did feel threatened. Now the question is, was his apprehension reasonable? Did Drejka give any indication whatsoever that he was a danger to anyone's life or safety?

He was making no threats. And we know this because his girlfriend Britany Jacobs has been all over the news. If Drejka had done anything to place a reasonable person in apprehension of their lives or safety, she would have said so.

Isab, I'm following this story, and there were no charges pressed.

Isab:

However, The moment, in any situation where someone hits, shoves or looms over me in a threatening manner or rushes at me making verbal threats, I am pulling the gun, if I am scared enough to do that, chances are good, I am pulling the trigger.

I would only point out that if you're in Florida and this happens to you, you better pull that trigger.

Florida laws will put you away for a very long time if you only pull a gun on someone. You draw it. You use it. Or else.

Isab:

I would never start an argument with someone over a handicapped parking space. Just stupid. But, We all have bad days where little things just grate on us, and we lash out verbally.

I understand what you mean. I would only add that there's a possibility that some people might have handicapped relatives who have been sorely inconvenienced, even endangered, by inconsiderate assholes like Britany Jacobs.

One of my closest friends and lifting partner is a guy named Lou, who happens to be blind. Depending on the day he's having, he has 1-4% vision in one of his eyes and that's it.

I never used to notice these things that people do that are inconsiderate of people with his disability, but now I do. The gym is especially irritating for us.

Once he was exiting the family locker room (because the men's locker room is too cluttered for someone like him who uses his walking stick) and he froze when he heard the sounds of small, running feet heading toward him. He cannot dodge rapidly approaching sounds. All he can do is plant himself and hope no one gets hurt. A small child very nearly ran right into him. He told the child he shouldn't run in the YMCA, because there are elderly people who could be knocked over, or he could run into someone big like him and get knocked down.

The child's mother shortly followed and start screaming bloody murder that Lou was abusing her little angel.

On another occasion, he was moving through the walkway in the gym to get to a machine he wanted to use, and a woman happened to be on the floor doing pushups. He tapped her in the head with his cane. After she moved out of the way, and he finished with the machine, he started to move down the same walkway. And he encountered the same woman, doing pushups, again accidentally tapping her in the head with his white walking stick.

So, she goes to the front desk and complains that Lou is hitting people with his cane. No mention of the fact that she was doing floor exercises in the walkway, when the YMCA has allocated plenty of space for doing floor exercises.

Maybe we shouldn't be chiding people over parking spaces. And maybe we shouldn't be inconsiderate, selfish, entitled assholes, either! Handicapped parking spaces are not just a matter of convenience. Depending on the disability, it can be a matter of lives and safety.

Don't be dissuaded by the subhead of this article — "the most controversial brand in the wellness industry." I don't care about that either. But it's a pretty good read.

But what does "run lines" mean?

"The minute the phrase “having it all” lost favor among women, wellness came in to pick up the pieces."

On the Drejka-McGlockton shooting, it looks like Drejka was in the wrong. I sympathize with Drejka since he was the assaulted party here.

However, McGlockton was backing up, pulling up his pants as he did so. When I first saw the video, I was struck by the fact that McGlockton did not present an immediate threat at that point. When you introduce a deadly weapon into a situation, it's on you to be able to assess the situation and react accordingly.

Not being an expert on the details of Florida's CCW laws, I cannot refute Patrick's contention that Drejka could not simply have drawn his weapon and held it at the ready. Nonetheless, the shooting itself was not in response to an immediate threat posed to Drejka or anyone else by McGlockton.

That said, McGlockton should not have shoved Drejka to the ground. That was assault and battery.

McGlockton's girlfriend is definitely a piece of work, trying to justify parking in a handicapped spot by claiming it as her "right." Some handicapped people need the extra space or the shorter walk to the store. The video showed plenty of non-handicapped spaces open for her to use. That, however, is immaterial in the matter of the shooting.

The media's obsession with demonizing "Stand Your Ground" statutes has distorted the coverage of this incident. This was not a "Stand Your Ground" case.

I agree with what Isab said about who starts a fight. McGlockton started that fight. He was not, as Jacobs alleged, protecting his woman. He was asserting his dominance. Protecting his woman would have had him imposing his bulk between Jacobs and Drejka.

Drejka's best defense is that with size and youth on his side, McGlockton presented an immediate threat to him, even at that distance.

"The libertarian, old school liberal, now conservative definition"
OK, but what about the dive bar definition? Don't run your mouth, unless you are a hot chick. I really thought most guys pick up an understanding of this in high school if not before.

I don't think there is anything too modern and snowflakey about the notion that you can't - for lack of a more formal term - talk shit to a bad-ass mother fucker's girl.

This is bog standard road rage. It all starts with someone who thinks they can criticize other people's driving and then finds out this particular mofo doesn't take shit. I'm not going to back the driver who pulled out a gun when he found himself backed into a corner. Especially if I find out his dumb ass started it by passing an impala rolling on 20's.

"as a woman senior citizen..."
Well, as a guy who - quite regrettably - spent his 20's and 30's drunk, angry, and oddly pissed about people's horrible parking I have quite literally been in Michael Drejka's exact situation, twice. And what I can tell you is that unlike a senior citizen pushed to the ground, I should never have been considered a victim. And I would never have been justified in shooting my way out of the trouble I started. Even if I naively thought my snark would have been met with verbal contrition instead of a broad set of shoulders squaring off.
Jeesus - whatever made me, or Drejka think we could sway - as Patrick says - inconsiderate, selfish assholes?

Here's the video (set to the appropriate spot) where Britany Jacobs says she has the right to park wherever she wants.

“OK, but what about the dive bar definition?”

I might have a different opinion if this had taken place in a dive bar. Concealed carry is not allowed in most states where they serve liquor for a very good reason.

Amazingly in Wyoming we have very few road rage incidents. Might it be that an armed society is a polite society?

“Not being an expert on the details of Florida's CCW laws, I cannot refute Patrick's contention that Drejka could not simply have drawn his weapon and held it at the ready. Nonetheless, the shooting itself was not in response to an immediate threat posed to Drejka or anyone else by McGlockton.”

You really can’t tell this from the video. If my head has been bounced off the pavement I am not in any possition to judge if I am still being threatened or not.
We dont see the sitation from the same angle as the shooter.
The guy was in the right to draw the weapon.
Once I or anyone else does that, and I tighten my finger on the trigger because I am stressed out, the gun might go boom, all on it’s own.
If a police officer had done this, it would have been a good shoot. I’m not willing to hold an untrained civilian to a higher standard. Are you?

Yeah see, trying to change her mind by calling her out, you might as well just stay home and argue about abortion on the internet. Like Amy says you won’t change people’s minds by confronting and cornering them. But maybe you can by putting their picture on the internet?

As a former punk ass who talked a lot of shit, to people’s faces, I would consider a shove to the ground from a more dominant male to be an act of mercy.

The video makes this so much worse. Big guy backing away, plenty of distance, open ground behind you. It really looks like you’re defending a guy who got served and pulled out a gun to take back the power rather than going home and licking his wounded ego.

I’ve always been neutral on SYG but if this is the true intent -to protect the ego of a guy who lost a very minor physical scuffle then I think I can do without anymore vacations to South Georgia. I know...I’ll be missed right

Might be true about Wyoming isab. Though I just drove the entire length of it on 80 and sat in 0 traffic even though they are repacking the interstate and diverting east bound traffic into the west bound lanes every few miles.

Low conflict could just be a function of low density.

Repaving ug autocorrect

“As a former punk ass who talked a lot of shit, to people’s faces, I would consider a shove to the ground from a more dominant male to be an act of mercy.”

The law dsagrees with you. The laws on self defense are pretty darn clear, and the benefit of the doubt always goes to the person who was physically attacked.

More people die from fists, and feet, and shoves than rifles.

If concealed carry laws do nothing more than make people think twice before they escalate a verbal confict into a physical one, the occasional death of a moron thug like McGlockton is worth it.

"I look at it as an object lesson that might keep the kid alive a lot longer than his dad."

I bet not. I bet the kid is being told incessantly that he and his lot are perfect angels that whites want to kill at the first opportunity.

Agree on your point about the law. How I feel about the law is irrelevant. But I disagree on the moron in this scenario. You just simply do not start an altercation with a chick idling in the handicap spot at a liquor store without taking the boyfriend into account. That is moronic. I’ve been that moron. You are backing that moron. But he was right! Right on the parking spot and so far, right on the shooting. Yet a life is gone and your moronic thug will never know the grace that child may have brought him. I wonder how much satisfaction being right will bring him

Be careful confronting people on their bad behavior. Should you find yourself on the ground, consider that direct confrontation may not be for you.

“Be careful confronting people on their bad behavior. Should you find yourself on the ground, consider that direct confrontation may not be for you.

smurfy at July 25, 2018 8:04 PM”

I dont confront people, verbally or physically. Never have. It isnt a girl thing to do.

“I wonder how much satisfaction being right will bring him.”

None at all. I doubt if George Zimmerman has any either. But at least he is alive, and it could have easily gone the other way.

It sounds to me Smurfy that you are pretty damn lucky to be alive having deliberately put yiurself in several situations where your mouth and your inebriation might have gotten you killed.
I understand how you relate to the thug, but it is really coloring your view of the facts of this case.

This case reminds me a bit of the attack on Rand Paul. He said some things that upset his neighbor. His bat shit crazy neighbor thought that it was open season on Republicans.

Just one quick question, if it had been a police officer that was talking to the girlfriend in the car, do you think McGlockton would have shoved him to the ground? If not, why not?
And if you think the police should have some sort of elevated rights or protections over a common citizen against being assaulted, say why.

A lot of problems could be avoided by even the most moronic of our citzens, if they gave their fellow citizens the same respect, and distance they give to law enforcement.

Isab, your questions about if Drejka had been a police officer is a point I hadn't considered. You're right. Had an officer done this, it would have been considered a good shoot.

To everyone except Black Lives Matter activists, that is. Only yesterday, I started following someone on Twitter named Donut Operator, who recently posted a video of white cops in Athens, GA, making an arrest of a black male accused of domestic violence. The accused's ten-year-old son reacted hysterically, and his adult family members refused to restrain him, leaving that to the police officers.

The cops did an excellent job. But somehow, snippets of the video taken out of context (with distorted audio so the cops' words assuring the child were not heard) has been making the rounds, accusing the officers of police brutality.

The default position seems to be that any encounter between black people and the police is police brutality. And no amount of persuasion, even when confronted with evidence of the full video, will change their minds.

Smurfy, I have to agree with Isab. Your own experiences have colored your perception of this incident.

One point I wish to add is that Drejka seems to be doing the right thing. He is simply holed up in his home and refuses to talk to anyone about this. When the reporters came to his home, he refused to answer the door, instead, letting homemade signs in his window, "NO COMMENT" and "NO TRESSPASSING [sic]" speak for him.

Sorry folks, but you don't get a free pass to kill someone just because he shoves you to the ground when you're yelling at his girlfriend about her illegal parking. That's not what "Stand Your Ground" means.

A lot of problems could be avoided by even the most moronic of our citzens, if they gave their fellow citizens the same respect, and distance they give to law enforcement. ~ Isab at July 25, 2018 9:11 PM

On the other hand, given the things being said about and to ICE officers these days....

I disagree Conan, from what I can see the guy is blindsided and throw to the ground violently and without warning,

he didnt look around to determine the threat and then draw and shoot, he drew and then looked and then reacted without thought in the span of a few seconds

Which is why self defense laws are written the way they are

I've yet to hear reports that the white guy even raised his voice, and as you can see from the video he make no attampt to approach or intimidate the woman physically

the guy and his kid could have gotten in the car and told him to fuck off as they drove away

I disagree Conan, from what I can see the guy is blindsided and throw to the ground violently and without warning, ... the guy and his kid could have gotten in the car and told him to fuck off as they drove away ~ lujlp at July 26, 2018 11:36 AM

I've never argued that McGlockton was not in the wrong. He committed assault and battery at a minimum. And I also don't buy the "protecting his woman" argument advanced by Jacobs. McGlockton, by shoving Drejka, was not acting protectively, but aggressively.

I have pretty slow reaction time and, watching the video, I would have had enough time to take stock of the situation before firing. So, based on that, I'd say he didn't need to fire.

Of course, it really depends on what a reasonable person on a jury would consider an immediate threat. And being knocked to the ground by a much larger and younger man could very well fit that bill. If the larger and younger man were looming over or approaching the smaller and older man, we have an immediate threat.

McGlockton was not looming or approaching. He did advance a step toward Drejka after shoving him, but was backing away by the time Drejka started reaching for his gun and was clearly backed up by the time Drejka pointed the gun at him.

Upon further review of the video (from CNN's site), Drejka did not appear to be yelling. Jacobs did appear, however, to be getting out of her car as McGlockton approached. And having both of them out of their cars could have left Drejka with too much activity to track in a short period of time, so he fired immediately at the bigger threat.

Based on what I saw on the video, I still don't think Drejka needed to kill McGlockton - a conclusion that does not let McGlockton off the hook for assault and battery.

In the end, the escalation of the incident to physical violence was on McGlockton, not Drejka, and that may be enough to acquit.

Regardless of what anyone thinks, another factor to be taken into consideration is Drejka's state of mind when he fell.

As lujlp pointed out, he was completely blindsided and his fall was a graceless sprawl. Did he hit his head on the pavement at all? I'm not familiar with all aspects of SD laws in Florida, but when the Sheriff was being interviewed, he placed a great deal of emphasis on the amount of time elapsed between the shove and the shoot. It makes me wonder, does the law provide a certain window that makes a person less liable for their actions when ambushed like that?

I know that an adrenaline rush diminishes a person's motor skills.

Reports claim that he was shot in the chest, which Britany Jacobs disputes. She claims to have applied direct pressure to the wound, which was on the side. However, that may have been a fabrication made by Jacobs to lend credibility to her claim that McGlockton was turning away.

I will wait until I see the autopsy. I don't trust Jacobs. She's an ethical swamp. First, she insists she has the right to park wherever she wants, including handicapped parking spaces. And she also insist that McGlockton didn't do anything wrong (Dindu Nuffin), as if it's perfectly acceptable to violently shove someone who is chiding your girlfriend for parking illegally.

So, lying about where McGlockton was shot wouldn't surprise me. Although if she were smart, she should have lied about the things Drejka said to her. Had he been making credible threats of immediate harm, McGlockton's blindside becomes legally justified.

Stand Your Ground, which everyone is up in arms about, doesn't apply here (except in the aspect that says that no arrest can be made in cases of legitimate self-defense), just as it didn't with Trayvon Martin.

Drejka, having been knocked to the ground and now facing two people who are both on their feet, could not be realistically expected to regain his feet and flee the situation. Stand Your Ground obviously only applies when fleeing is an option.

A friend of mine, a lawyer, points out that Florida is an odd beast when it comes to self-defense laws. Most states are what he calls "affirmative self-defense." If you act in self-defense, the state must affirm you acted in self-defense, whether this is done in court or whether the evidence-gathering crew finds sufficient proof that you acted in self-defense.

Florida (and one other state, my friend didn't say which one) is what he calls "presumptive self-defense." In other words, if you claim to act in self-defense, the burden of proof is not on you to affirm you acted in self-defense, but on the state to prove you didn't. If you assert self-defense, you are presumed to have done so, unless the state can prove otherwise.

Thanks for posting what ended up being a lively topic Patrick. I have enjoyed the differing opinions. Word about the blm/police violence videos. It is so hard to find rational discussion in the comments with everyone pre-set on their sides. Never a , “yeah that wasn’t really actually complying, like, at all.”

You're welcome, Smurfy. Every once in a while, I find a topic that gets a lot of interesting discussion.

I don't know what went on in Drejka's mind. He sounds like he's basically an asshole looking to antagonize people.

But as I said earlier, I never used to concern myself with whether a place was compliant with federal and state laws that require accommodations for the handicapped. Then I recently made friends with someone who's blind. And as I noted, he tends to get a lot of shit from inconsiderate assholes that he doesn't deserve.

Now, I tend to notice these things. And yes, they piss me off.

In Drejka's place, I might have said something to Britany Jacobs, then moved on, not concerning myself with whether she moved her car or not. Or I might not have, and said something to the owner.

And if somebody blindsided me and violently shoved me to the pavement, and I'm carrying, yes, I will probably shoot him. I doubt it will matter much in court whether McGlockton was backing up, because you're allowed to respond with deadly force if someone is threatening to cause you serious bodily harm. McGlockton has already done that. A violent shove to the pavement on an unsuspecting target is dangerous. Drejka was actually lucky he wasn't seriously hurt.

I wonder how anyone else on this page would respond. You're standing there, doing nothing illegal, and all of a sudden, a very big person knocks you to the pavement, without any apparent restraint. You're on the ground, probably very mindful of the fact that you could have been very seriously hurt -- you might have hit your head, had some teeth broken, etc. -- and then you actually see the culprit looming over you, who has now been joined by someone else.

Are you really going to assess the situation and say, "Okay, he's backing up; it looks like he's not going to attack me further"?

I doubt it. For one thing, Drejka was on the ground, and taking a couple of steps backward doesn't mean that McGlockton couldn't have renewed his attack while Drejka was struggling to get to his feet.

Even if I accepted the idea that McGlockton was backing up, which I don't, the fact remains that he had just committed a violent and dangerous act against me, and was still in a position to do more.

Which is a point a lot of people keep missing in this discussion. Some people say that McGlockton wasn't going to do anything to inflict serious bodily harm: he had already attempted to do so.

Even if others don't agree that McGlockton backed up, the sheriff agrees he backed up. Per Vox: "The sheriff explained that while McGlockton’s back-off after the shove gave him 'pause,' ultimately Drejka said he was worried that he would be struck again."

Was he afraid, really? Or was he angry and unable to physically confront the larger and younger McGlockton? Drejka has shown his gun and threatened to shoot someone before in parking space disputes.

Drejka's stated worry over McGlockton attacking him again may be enough to constitute self-defense under Florida's presumptive self-defense laws. In other states, however, that defense most likely would not hold up.

For example, under North Carolina's more-restrictive self-defense laws, a retreat, even a short one, is an important factor. According to one North Carolina attorney, "if the person has retreated...the use of deadly force may no longer be justified because the threat is no longer considered imminent. [...] You cannot respond with deadly force when you have been punched with a fist, for example. Exchanging blow for blow has typically been a justifiable use of force in self defense, but using deadly force to respond to non-deadly force has not."

Drejka's the wronged party in this instance, but he's no saint.

That several people can watch the video and reach different conclusions proves this is not a cut-and-dried case - and that self-defense, the use of deadly force, and gun control are not black and white issues, but subjects of a lively debate with good arguments to be made on both sides.

“Was he afraid, really? Or was he angry and unable to physically confront the larger and younger McGlockton? Drejka has shown his gun and threatened to shoot someone before in parking space disputes.”

We get into a lot of trouble legally when we try and determine exactly what someone was thinking and when they were thinking it at a time like this.

It is why the hate crime statutes are a nasty unconstitutional mess.

The remedy for this shooting is not the criminal court system. It is the civil court system. And if McGockton’s survivors can’t get blood out of a turnip, well they are in exactly the same position that Drejka would have been in, had he been killed or seriously injured in the initial assault.

McGockton backed up a step, I agree

But he did so while Drejka was on the ground after being hit from behind so its not like Drejka saw that

McGockton shoved thru Drejka to stand past where Drejka originally was so when McGockton 'backed up' he was still standing BEYOND where Drejka originally was standing

Given McGockton was closer than where Drejka started from how was Drejka to know that McGockton had retreated a single step?

https://youtu.be/4HieeP6lwvg?t=22

Just watched it again, this time an unedited clip (I think)

Turns out I as wrong in my assessment. Based on the first clip I saw which was edited I assumed McGockton had backed up by the time Drejka had pulled the weapon,

But in fact McGockton advanced on Drejka after shoving him, something Drejka would have seen, McGockton pauses and only starts to back off after D points the gun

McGockton shoves Drejka at 0:25, continues to advance
Drejka draws at 0:29, McGockton takes one step back
Drejka fires at 0:30

So Drejka gets shoved, McGockton advances until he sees the gun and steps back a fraction of a second before Drejka fired

It might have happened fast enough that Drejka recognized he was retreating but the muscle twitch signal had already been sent to the finger, especially with the flight or fight response triggered

Or Drejka could have been so high on adrenaline he didnt recognize McGockton was stepping back

Point is the tape clearly show McGockton was continuing to be aggressive right up until he saw the gun

Perhaps, luj. That was certainly a clearer video than the grainy other ones that I've seen.

At the :23 second mark, Jacobs gets out of her car with McGlockton approaching it from the store. At :25, McGlockton blindsides Drejka and shoves him to the ground. By :29 in the video, McGlockton is not advancing on Drejka and Drejka has pulled his weapon. The bystander shifted direction at the midway point of :29, so one can assume he saw a gun at that point. By :30, McGlockton has taken two steps back. At :31, Drejka's hand bounces and McGlockton recoils with Drejka's shot, turns, and runs into the store.

That seems like enough time for a rational evaluation of the situation, but we don't know Drejka's mental state then - a state McGlockton may very well have put him in with the assault and battery at :25.

I'm still not convinced McGlockton was an immediate threat to Drejka. I am, however, convinced he committed assault and battery on him and that attack contributed to the subsequent actions of all the parties involved.

The debate about self-defense seems to hinge on whether, in those 2 seconds, Drejka had enough time to evaluate the situation or whether he was still reeling from the pavement bounce at the :25 mark. And, as Isab points out, we get into a murky legal area when we try to read someone's mind after the fact.

I'll stick with my argument that Drejka did not need to shoot him at that point, but I also recognize that I'm evaluating a situation from the calm comfort of my sofa and not in the heat of it. I'd like to hear Drejka's side of it and not just the tears of that modern-day Daisy Buchanan, Britney Jacobs. Let's not forget that she could have stopped the fight at several points.

I observed the video again and again, paying particular attention to the moments after the push.

Not surprisingly, someone commenting on this thread is full of shit or needs to get their eyes checked.

After the shove, McGlockton advanced four more steps, hitching up his pants as he did so. Objectively, in light of the action he had just committed, a reasonable person would assume he planned on continuing his assault.

He backed away the instant he saw Drejka reaching inside his jacket. That was the "Holy shit! A gun!" shuffle. Not that I would ever put myself in McGlockton's position, but it wasn't too hard to deduce what Drejka was reaching for or why McGlockton was backpedalling. He would have been better served running.

Sorry, kiddos. Drejka acted in accordance with the law. You do have the right to shoot someone who has just violently assaulted you and is moving in for more. Drejka assumed that his assailant was moving in for more, and I agree.

I also note in the aftermath of the video, when Britany Jacobs goes into the store (leaving her kids in the car), she doesn't seem to have quite the hysteria that one would expect if she truly believed that Drejka was dangerous. She seems almost casual as she opens the door.

So, while she melodramatically claims that she could have been killed or her kids could have been killed, she didn't seem to think that was going to happen.

Not surprisingly, someone commenting on this thread is full of shit or needs to get their eyes checked. ~ Patrick at July 27, 2018 12:11 PM

Four more steps? Two at most. And he stopped to hitch his pants up, he didn't do it while advancing.

By the way, "acted in accordance with the law" is not the same as "did the right thing." Drejka probably did act within the law, but he still didn't need to shoot McGlockton.

Nonetheless, as I stated before, the mental state into which McGlockton put Drejka by attacking him may have precluded Drejka from being clear-headed enough to not shoot him.

As I also stated earlier, the fault for the escalation to physical violence in this encounter lies with McGlockton. That he ended up being shot is a direct result of his attack on Drejka.

I'd still like to hear Drejka's side of it. We probably never will since Britney "Daisy Buchanan" Jacobs is all over the airwaves with her version of it and Drejka still has to worry about the State's Attorney charging him, so he needs to keep his mouth shut for now. By the time SA decides not to charge him, the media will no longer be interested in this story and the "racism" narrative will be another patch in BLM's quilt of lies.

He took four more steps from the moment of impact. The bystander is in the way, so you can't see his feet, but his shifting weight should clue you in. The fourth step was a small step, a half-step, if you prefer and it occurred as he was hitching up his pants which he also did as he was exiting the store. (Evidently, McGlockton's jail time has gotten him used to not wearing belts, I see five arrests in his background. One for the sale of counterfeit drugs (That's a thing? Who do you run to to report that? "Officer, I tried to buy some cocaine off him and it was fake!"), one for petit theft, driving unregistered vehicle and driving while license suspended, one for possession of cocaine, one for possession of controlled substance - cocaine, possession of cocaine, sale or delivery of cocaine, possession of marijuana, and one for aggravated domestic battery, resisting arrest with violence, disorderly conduct.

Britney Jacobs stepped out of the car as McGlockton was about halfway down the walk, probably because she saw him coming and wanted to either assist or watch her boyfriend deliver a beatdown.

I know I can't assume what her motives were, but she must have seen him coming.

And the video at the webpage I linked shows some of the aftermath of the shooting. Drejka stays seated on the ground for quite some time. Britany Jacobs doesn't seem overly concerned about his presence as she goes down the walkway and opens the door to the store, leaving her kids in the car with the man who just shot her boyfriend still sitting on the ground.

If you view the webpage I linked above from the Tampa Bay Times (which used to be the St. Petersburg Times until they also acquired the Tampa Tribune), you can see the video of the incident, including Britany Jacobs flight to the store as Drejka is still sitting there. Britany Jacobs is a very strange woman. I can't imagine her leaving her kids in the car with the man who just shot her boyfriend.

The bystander is in the way, so you can't see his feet, but his shifting weight should clue you in.

I was looking at his forward progress, not his shifting feet. He shifted his feet as he hitched his pants, but made no forward progress, so I didn't count it as advancing on Drejka.

If you view the webpage I linked above from the Tampa Bay Times (which used to be the St. Petersburg Times until they also acquired the Tampa Tribune), you can see the video of the incident....

I actually based my earlier comments on the digitally clear one luj linked. But your link had a longer video and showed Drejka's arrival and Jacobs' run into the store after McGlockton was shot, which his did not.

Britney Jacobs stepped out of the car as McGlockton was about halfway down the walk, probably because she saw him coming and wanted to either assist or watch her boyfriend deliver a beatdown.

That was my impression.

Drejka stays seated on the ground for quite some time.

They taught us in concealed carry class that, once the threat is gone, stand down. Don't be holding a gun when the police roll up. Put it down. I think he put the gun on the hood of the car where he could reach it if Jacobs came out, but where it was not in his hand so the police did not mistake him for a hostile gunman.

One thing I note is that Drejka is properly trained in the use of his firearm. He held it correctly, and was able to retrieve it without ever taking his eyes off the threat. Although that might actually work against him, since he should have seen that McGlockton was retreating.

But I don't believe McGlockton was done with him until he saw Drejka reaching into his pocket with what was probably from McGlockton's point of view an unmistakable purpose.

If you watch the video I linked, where Drejka's sitting on the ground, he appears to be setting something on the ground next to him, at arm's length.

I was able to find no arrest record for Britany Jacobs.