Remember this guy in FL?

Gene L

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-stand-your-ground-shooter-found-guilty-of-manslaughter/ar-AAGbMhm?li=AAaehx7

mitdr774

Having not seen the video that the jury saw, and having read the multiple news articles pertaining to this incident and past incidents involving this man, I feel the jury got this one correct.  I do not have all evidence like the jury had though.  I can only go based on what I have read about this incident.

earlyagain

I remember this well.

I was and remain unsure of the right or wrong of this incident. I have a personal prejudice against people inclined towards physical force expecting their opponent of smaller size to respond bare handed. Rather than let said prejudice sway me, I became reluctant to commit a judgement. I absolutely trust the judgement of the jury. For me, case closed.

Accipiter

this is a good argument for not sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong.

rbsivley

Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you should always use it.

Gene L

Accipiter said:

this is a good argument for not sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong.

A better argument for not using a gun unless you're facing a possible threat of deadly force or great bodily harm.  Officious gun toter who apparently thought he had the right to shoot another for parking in a handicapped zone.

Diver43

I followed this case as close as possible without being involved.  Both sides embelished what happened to make themselves sound right.  Crump attempting to make it a racial issue was just wrong.  Did he think he was going to get stomped if he didnt shoot? I think so, would he have?  maybe.

JasonMPD

It's an even better argument for not inserting yourself in matters of trivial importance when you are a concealed  weapon carrier.  You have a MUCH higher moral obligation to remain neutral and be an observer ONLY.

JasonMPD

Diver43 said:

I followed this case as close as possible without being involved.  Both sides embelished what happened to make themselves sound right.  Crump attempting to make it a racial issue was just wrong.  Did he think he was going to get stomped if he didnt shoot? I think so, would he have?  maybe.

The case could be made that Crump believed that because the decedent's immediate action was to violence without any discourse preceding it that the decedent's follow up actions, if any, would be the same or intensified--especially given Crump's definite position of disadvantage.

I think a display of the firearm at the ready was more appropriate and shots made if the decedent refused to disengage and re-approached. Maybe.

Spk

It's been awhile so let me get all the player right.

Markeis McGlockton is the deceased, Michael Drejka is the shooter and Benjamin Crump is a second attorney for the family.

My opinion hasn't changed about this case. You don't shoot someone who is backing up at the sight of your firearm, particularly if said person is himself unarmed (beside being a big guy)

Drejka initiated the confrontation. He said it himself -- because he has a pet peeve about people parking in a handicap spot when they're not handicap. The confrontation just went downhill from there.

He went from parking lot monitor (not his job and no lives being threatened) to convicted felon because he had to have his way over a parking space. It's really sad all around.

If you carry concealed, you have an obligation to be more responsible than your average citizen. You literally carry the power of life and death.