Amend Florida's 'stand your ground' law, says lawyer for Markeis McGlockton's family

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Lawyer Benjamin Crump said Thursday that "it's still ludicrous" that a person can be an aggressor in a confrontation and then claim self-defense.

by Erik Ortiz / Jul.26.2018 / 4:48 PM ET / Updated Jul.26.2018 / 5:57 PM ET

McGlockton attorney speaks out against 'stand your ground'
Jul.26.201802:28

A prominent civil rights attorney on Thursday demanded Florida lawmakers amend the state's "stand your ground" law to prevent the person shown to be the aggressor in a confrontation from claiming immunity.

Lawyer Benjamin Crump joined the family of Markeis McGlockton, the 28-year-old father of three fatally shot by another man in a Clearwater parking lot, and argued there is enough evidence for state prosecutors to bring charges against the shooter.

"It's still ludicrous how you can claim you have fear for your life, yet you approach and start the confrontation with the individuals," Crump said at a news conference outside the Pinellas County Justice Center.

He also called for state legislators to take up stricter gun responsibility laws. Florida has some of the most lax gun laws in the nation, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a California-based organization started by former congresswoman Gabby Giffords.
​

The problem is not with the stand your ground law, it's the fact that in order for it to work properly they're relying on what is essentially an "honor" system that is being abused by individuals who have failured to complay with the requirements for the lethal use of force they've employed.

Too many of the individuals involved in committing these offenses initated the confrontation I'm sure bolden by the fact that they were carrying. Additionally, several bad rulings set precedence that from all appearances is next to impossible to undo.

As I've indicataed before, they teach you what to do and say in the training classes required for obtaining a concealed carry permit (state "I was in fear for my life") but they also teach you under what set of circumstances you can legally draw your weapon without it being considered brandishing and what level of threat allows you to respond with deadly force. And picking a fight just so that you can pull your weapon and shoot someone is not a valid legal basis but more importantly, that's not self-defense. In many cases It's the cowardly act of any individual who is unable to distinguish between an actual threat and an injury to their ego.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Crump was never the sharpest knife in the drawer. I have no idea how he passed the bar.

Under what circumstances an aggressor can claim self defense is first year criminal law stuff.

 

[Marion Morrison]

This wouldn't be happening if Pam Bondi filed charges.

Personally, I don't think that was a righteous shooting.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Under what circumstances an aggressor can claim self defense is first year criminal law stuff.

And you think most CCW holders attended law school?

 

[BULLDOG]

Under what circumstances an aggressor can claim self defense is first year criminal law stuff.

And you think most CCW holders attended law school?

If they did, it still wouldn't stop them from reciting the right words to apply the stand your ground law.

 

[Pete7469]

If this is the same parking lot shooting incident I'd call it a clean shoot.

The shooter confronted someone for illegally parking.

He was assaulted.

He defended himself from further aggression.

Would I have confronted a man for parking in a HC spot w/o a tag?

Fuck no. You won't even see me confront or interfere in a serious crime unless I know that failing to act will result in serious injury or death to someone I know to be an innocent victim. Otherwise my role as a citizen is to observe and report the incident to authorities. The liability involved is far too great of a risk to be a "hero".

It is the responsibility of every citizen to keep their hands to themselves. If you don't want to get shot, do not push, slap, shove or even "get in the face of" another citizen who is merely irritating you.



.

 

[WillowTree]

This wouldn't be happening if Pam Bondi filed charges.

Personally, I don't think that was a righteous shooting.

Why? Wasn’t it the person who was the shooter pushed violently to the ground? That is the act that accelerated the violence up until that moment it was just talking! What dosen’t Crump address that? Because his client ( the dead one) was the violent aggressor! What the dead guy should have done is called the police!

 

[beagle9]

Amendments are ok if properly agreed upon, and this by lawmakers whom would review a law that may have been proven weak as in the Mcglockton case down in Florida.

Like Marion said, I also disagreed with the shoot, because the shooter's life didn't appear to be in danger once pulled his weapon regardless of his little anger problem he had in which proved lethal in the end for the poor guy defending his family from the idiot. The video was key in that case, and it exposed the weakness exploited in the law that day.

Not sure what an amendment would look like or read like in order to isolate idiots who slip through the cracks like that, so that will be interesting to see.

Hmmm, how about this maybe --- No amendment to the law, but full prosecution for the shooter whenever see something go wrong like this, because in everything we have or can find idiots that exploit the situations we thought were unexploitable, and the way we protect the laws along with our good people, is that we recognize the problem that occurred specifically in a certain case, and we prosecute in order to preserve our laws and good people whom use our laws properly when they are used ???????????????????

 

[beagle9]

Letting the shooter off the hook without even a full investigation or possible charges of manslaughter being brought, is what challenges our laws that are used inappropriately to justify such a thing.

Is this little parking lot stalker worth it in the end ??

 

[Marion Morrison]

Letting the shooter off the hook without even a full investigation or possible charges of manslaughter being brought, is what challenges our laws that are used inappropriately to justify such a thing.

Is this little parking lot stalker worth it in the end ??

There's him, and then there's millions of other people that aren't him.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If they did, it still wouldn't stop them from reciting the right words to apply the stand your ground law.

Agreed which is why in my opinion there should at least be a preliminary investigation into the facts of the matter before deciding that the shooter can invoke the "stand your ground" statute as an affirmative defense. This guy in the Clearwater case is reported to have harassed others about that parking spot on a regular basis. It would be really interesting to know if there is any documentation of how far back his behavior goes, if he's disabled and needed the parking space, and when he acquired hiis concealed carry license.

People lie, particularly when the possibility exists that they could go to jail for things they have done but many of the judges are just as much to blame for allowing these people to keep getting away with killing others in situations in which lethal use of force is not warranted.

While McGlockton was wrong by putting his hands on Drejka, in my opinion, this shooting was unwarranted because there was no imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm at the time Drejka fired his weapon. McGlockton was not advancing on Drejka and appeared to indicate his withdrawal from the altercation by holding up his hands and backing away when he saw the weapon in Drejka's hand, however it appears that he didn't fire immediately.

 

[dannyboys]

What were the odds that Crump would do any better than he did in the 'T-Boner' case?

 

[dannyboys]

If they did, it still wouldn't stop them from reciting the right words to apply the stand your ground law.

Agreed which is why in my opinion there should at least be a preliminary investigation into the facts of the matter before deciding that the shooter can invoke the "stand your ground" statute as an affirmative defense. This guy in the Clearwater case is reported to have harassed others about that parking spot on a regular basis. It would be really interesting to know if there is any documentation of how far back his behavior goes, if he's disabled and needed the parking space, and when he acquired hiis concealed carry license.

People lie, particularly when the possibility exists that they could go to jail for things they have done but many of the judges are just as much to blame for allowing these people to keep getting away with killing others in situations in which lethal use of force is not warranted.

While McGlockton was wrong by putting his hands on Drejka, in my opinion, this shooting was unwarranted because there was no imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm at the time Drejka fired his weapon. McGlockton was not advancing on Drejka and appeared to indicate his withdrawal from the altercation by holding up his hands and backing away when he saw the weapon in Drejka's hand, however it appears that he didn't fire immediately.

Darwin's Law # 387:
Don't walk up to a stranger and shove them to the ground. And then don't say to the victim" "I'm going to kill you mother fucker!".
Follow that law and you are going to stay alive.

 

[miketx]

Under what circumstances an aggressor can claim self defense is first year criminal law stuff.

And you think most CCW holders attended law school?

That has nothing to do with anything. Just more liberal drooling. You don't wanna get shot? Don't attack someone.

 

[rightwinger]

Crump was never the sharpest knife in the drawer. I have no idea how he passed the bar.

Under what circumstances an aggressor can claim self defense is first year criminal law stuff.

Stand your ground means might makes right

Once a fight starts, you can use your gun to resolve it

 

[miketx]

Crump was never the sharpest knife in the drawer. I have no idea how he passed the bar.

Under what circumstances an aggressor can claim self defense is first year criminal law stuff.

Stand your ground means might makes right

Once a fight starts, you can use your gun to resolve it

No troll, it means you don't have to run when a criminal attacks you. That is all it means.

 

[beagle9]

If they did, it still wouldn't stop them from reciting the right words to apply the stand your ground law.

Agreed which is why in my opinion there should at least be a preliminary investigation into the facts of the matter before deciding that the shooter can invoke the "stand your ground" statute as an affirmative defense. This guy in the Clearwater case is reported to have harassed others about that parking spot on a regular basis. It would be really interesting to know if there is any documentation of how far back his behavior goes, if he's disabled and needed the parking space, and when he acquired hiis concealed carry license.

People lie, particularly when the possibility exists that they could go to jail for things they have done but many of the judges are just as much to blame for allowing these people to keep getting away with killing others in situations in which lethal use of force is not warranted.

While McGlockton was wrong by putting his hands on Drejka, in my opinion, this shooting was unwarranted because there was no imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm at the time Drejka fired his weapon. McGlockton was not advancing on Drejka and appeared to indicate his withdrawal from the altercation by holding up his hands and backing away when he saw the weapon in Drejka's hand, however it appears that he didn't fire immediately.

Darwin's Law # 387:
Don't walk up to a stranger and shove them to the ground. And then don't say to the victim" "I'm going to kill you mother fucker!".
Follow that law and you are going to stay alive.

Threats after the fact or once the gun resolved the threat issue, tells me that the shot needed not be taken in the moment it was taken. His enragement from the push down got the best of his ability to control his emotions in the situation. Could be linked to his personal attributes or character in life that made him take the shot. If so it needs to be investigated further based upon the store operator's assessment of his patterns there, and any other witnesses present during the event.

 

[WillowTree]

Letting the shooter off the hook without even a full investigation or possible charges of manslaughter being brought, is what challenges our laws that are used inappropriately to justify such a thing.

Is this little parking lot stalker worth it in the end ??

His life is as valuable as anyone’s!

 

[leftwinger]

Again, The dead pusher was measuring up a massive kick to down fat mans head. hitching up pants, leering down, advancing. The Gun came out just before. Pusher then began to drift, they (she was out of car heading for back) had planned to hit him front and back. Prove me wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

Crump was never the sharpest knife in the drawer. I have no idea how he passed the bar.

Under what circumstances an aggressor can claim self defense is first year criminal law stuff.

Stand your ground means might makes right

Once a fight starts, you can use your gun to resolve it

No troll, it means you don't have to run when a criminal attacks you. That is all it means.

And what if you are the one who initiated the confrontation?

You can start a fight, then pull your gun and fire, claiming you feared for your life and stood your ground