Stand Your Ground Laws Make Targets of African American Men

Florida Stand Your Ground Defense

courtesy WFLA and youtube.com

“Had McGlockton been the one to pull out a gun, there is no way stand your ground would have been extended to him, a man of color. He would have been charged with murdering a white man. The disturbing reality is that stand your ground perpetuates the cycle of African American men taking bullets from self-appointed vigilantes,” – Civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump in Why the days of ‘stand your ground’ self-defense laws may be numbered [via theguardian.com]

comments

  1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    So… the fact that he had just thrown the other guy to the ground and was standing above him wouldn’t be the deciding factor in a ‘stand your ground’ defense? Just the color of his skin?

    1. avatar Jeff in CO says:

      In reality, this (similar to the Zimmerman case) is not a “Stand your Ground” case. McGlockton knocked the defender to the ground. Most likely he was dazed and hurt and clearly had nowhere to retreat. What was he going to do, crawl while McGlockton continued to beat him??? It was an unprovoked attack that initially didn’t involve McGlockton (until he attacked the moment he walked out of the store).

      Mr. Crump needs to go back to law school and take a few basic law classes. How can he even still be part of the bar and be so ignorant on basic law??????????

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        True, there was no option to retreat. The only grounds to file charges would be to assert that he didn’t have a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm, which would be a pretty hard sell since he had just been brutally assaulted. You’d have to convince the jury that a reasonable person would have assumed that the assault was over and the other guy wasn’t a threat anymore. Good luck with that.

      2. avatar fteter says:

        When you don’t have the facts, argue the law. When you don’t have the law, argue public policy issues… like racial discrimination. In this case, the racial discrimination argument is the only arrow in Mr. Crump’s quiver.

        1. avatar Kenneth says:

          The last resort rule. Just pound on the table. Flail around and make lots of noise. Hope the listeners get distracted. Throw lots of feces around and hope some sticks somewhere. IOWs be a monkey. In this incidence, it sounds exactly correct.
          https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/07/04/legal-adage/

      3. avatar barnbwt says:

        “What was he going to do, crawl while McGlockton continued to beat him???”
        There are many that would agree it is the white man’s burden to do exactly this (though they might not say so out loud)

      4. avatar Sian says:

        If McGlockton had been white, this would barely even have been local news.

        If Drejka was black, it wouldn’t even have made page 5 in the Tampa Times.

        The media loves stirring the pot whenever a black man is shot by a white man, regardless of justification.

      5. avatar Jamesfromlakegeneva says:

        Question – when McGlockton exited the convenience store and saw Drejka looming over his girlfriend and in the midst of a verbal confrontation, could it be reasonable for McGlockton to conclude that his girlfriend and other children were being threatened by a stranger and that a reasonable course of action would be to remove the threat by pushing Drejka away?

        Or do stand your ground laws only apply to white men who are armed, start a confrontation, then feel threatened and choose to use deadly force for a situation they caused?

        1. avatar drunkEODguy says:

          Stand your ground laws apply when people put hands on other people and get dead for it. Should have paid attention in kindergarten to basic human rules of interaction. Question, what was stopping McGlockton from getting in his car and leaving? You tell me with confidence that there was an immediate threat of harm to anyone in that car based on the videos?

          Let’s not mention McGlockton’s criminal history, it was unknown to Drejika. It does speak to proclivities towards violent confrontation though.

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          Question — When McGlockton exited the convenience store and saw Drejka simply arguing with his girlfriend over a parking space she should not have been in to begin with, not “looming over her” or “threatening other children” as the video clearly does not show this (and you’d know this had you actually watched the video instead of just making things up), it is not at all reasonable to lay hands on him.

          Or do you have to insinuate that every situation in which a black man is shot by a white man is a justification for your knowingly false and equally absurd assertions of racism when clearly there was none? Oh, and by the by, had you actually ever done any research into “Stand Your Ground” laws are actively applied, you’d know that minorities avail themselves of the evil intent of their fellows more often than their white counterparts. But, you didn’t, so you don’t. No, you’d just rather levy another knowingly empty, weightless, and petty charge of racism. There are two words, and two words only, to describe your “logic:” psychological projection.

          http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/

          Kindly slither back into whatever race-baiting cesspool you came from, please and thank you.

        3. avatar Chip in Florida says:

          “..could it be reasonable for McGlockton to conclude that his girlfriend and other children were being threatened by a stranger ”

          No.

          If they were being threatened why would she be exiting the vehicle? You don’t get OUT of a vehicle and get closer to the person who is threatening you.

        4. avatar DDay says:

          There are people of color who have used stand your ground as a defense and been successful.

          I think it’s likely this guy in Clearwater will be charged and it’s very possible he’ll be convicted. I think zimmerman was 100% justified (zimmerman never claimed stand your ground, he used traditional self defense as a defense) Zimmerman had a broken nose, lacerations to the back of his head and according to neutral eye witnesses, martin was on top of zimmerman pummeling him non stop as zimmerman was yelling for help.

          This guy in clearwater was pushed to the ground and the pusher didn’t do any other things and did not move towards the shooter at all after the push. To me, he had no justification to shoot. If the pusher continued towards him, then it may be justified. Other people who shop at that store have said the shooter has been aggressive towards others for years over parking and the day he shot, he was playing parking enforcement agent. He should have minded his own business and called the cops if he didn’t like the woman parking in the Handicapped spot.

          I wouldn’t be surprised if he were convicted of manslaughter and in FL, when you use a gun, that can get you 30 yrs in prison. He was very quick to shoot.

      6. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I suspect if we saw a photo of Mr Crump, we would know how he got into law school, how he graduated from law school, and how he is still a member of the bar with near-zero knowledge of basic law. Anybody wants to yell “racist” might want to finally address the obomination which is Affirmative Action, and which is responsible for such assumptions.

  2. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

    ““Had McGlockton been the one to pull out a gun, there is no way stand your ground would have been extended to him, a man of color….”

    Horse fucking shit.

    Had he been the one thrown down, it would make self-defense or SYG a much easier sell, since the attacker was was now standing right next to the woman getting yelled at.

    (He was verbally attacking my girlfriend. He just violently threw me to to the ground. He’s still standing next to my girlfriend… *BOOM*)…

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      “Had McGlockton been the one to pull out a gun, there is no way stand your ground would have been extended to him, a man of color . .”

      Or to turn it around, had McGlocton been the one to pull out a gun, his obvious anger at having his girlfriend’s behavior questioned by an middle-aged white man should have been ample justification for any violence on hs part. This is basically the Trayvon argument. Zimmerman made him mad which justified his physical attack on Zimmerman. And, since Zimmerman had made Trayvon mad, Zimmerman’s defense of himself with a handgun was unfair.

  3. avatar Shire-man says:

    Maj Toure went through a whole barrage of data to his followers a few weeks ago showing how this is the exact opposite of reality and by the numbers minorities benefit greatly from SYG.

    But, of course, data can never match the power of feelz.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      But when the author is racist, he’s got to spew racist lies, facts don’t matter.

  4. avatar No one of consequence says:

    Because McGlockton was still the one who initiated use of force by shoving another man to the ground, yes, he likely would have been charged with murder if he then shot the man he had just shoved onto the ground. Or if he just shot the man like he shoved him, with no warning…? Nope. Still murder.

    This isn’t about race. This is about a bully and a thug suffering the consequences of choosing a really bad way to express his disapproval of someone else’s words.

    Was the other guy in the right shouting at the girlfriend? No, he was being an asshole. But that’s not a crime in and of itself; and he’s not the one who initiated physical force.

    1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      Merely being a loudmouthed jerk is NOT a reasonable grounds for fear of anyone’s safety. In the video, the aspiring parking cop maintains a distance from the woman, so hardly presents any clear threat to anything other than her ego.

    2. avatar Derringer Dave says:

      You said, “Was the other guy in the right shouting at the girlfriend? No, he was being an asshole.”
      No, being an asshole is parking in a handicapped spot when you’re not handicapped!
      Criticizing someone for parking in a handicapped parking spot is not being an asshole.
      Anyone who steals a handicapped parking spot deserves to be not only criticized for it, but also ticketed, arrested, and have their car towed at their expense. They also deserve to be yelled at (if in fact there was yelling, but since there’s no audio, we don’t know for sure if Drejka yelled But if Drejka did yell, he was justified, because anyone stealing a handicapped parking spot deserves to be yelled at).

      So McGlockton did two things to prove he was an asshole and a thug. First, he parked in a handicapped parking spot when he’s not handicapped and had no handicapped permit. Second, he violently shoved Drejka to the ground. If Drejka had hit his head and died, it would have been murder.
      Drejka was right to defend himself. It was a justified shooting, it was self-defense, and McGlockton got what he deserved. Race had nothing to do with it.

      This is NOTHING like the Trayvon Martin case, where Zimmerman stalked a child, chased the child after police told him not to chase him, and Trayvon Martin was (rightly) in fear for his life.
      In the Trayvon Martin case, the violent thug was George Zimmerman, an armed grown man who stalked an unarmed child (after being ordered not to by police), then attacked the unarmed child, started a fight (or the child rightly feared for his life at being stalked by an armed man and defended himself), and then when the fight began to go badly for Zimmerman, he murdered the child that he’d been stalking against police orders. If Zimmerman had been black and Trayvon had been white, Zimmerman would be doing a life sentence for murder. This was the OPPOSITE of the McGlockton case, where McGlockton was the attacker and Drejka was the victim of an assault.

      1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

        The police dispatcher never ordered Mr. Zimmerman not to continue following the suspect; the dispatcher merely said that they did not need for him to.

        https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

        Support for the claim that Mr. Zimmerman attacked Mr. Martin? That he started the fight?

      2. avatar Sho Rembo says:

        Trayvon was a child? Really??

      3. avatar Jean-Claude says:

        You are absolutely, indisputably, 100% wrong on what happened between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.

        Zimmerman wasn’t following Martin. He was, if you LISTEN TO THE 911 CALL, headed to a neutral location at which he would meet with the responding deputy. He told the dispatcher he was afraid to give out his address in case Martin was listening(again, it’s on the 911 call). He was confronted by a hiding Martin, sucker-punched, and violently assaulted.

        The witness for the prosecution, Rachael Jenteal, admitted she was goading Martin into confronting Zimmerman—telling him he was a punk and Zimmerman was a child molester, or something like that.

        George Zimmerman had his life RUINED because the media chose to run with, and lie about, a simple self-defense shooting.

        Those of us who carry firearms should be terrified something like that happens to us. And it could. Slow news cycle—-you(white guy) gets confronted by a black person(preferably a teenager, but even a thug can fit the media’s needs). Family of deceased is set upon by attorneys and profiteers—-a PR firm is hired—a picture of the dead thug at 11 is quickly made the face of the “victim”–when YOU are actually the victim.

        If you’re lucky, you live in a place with a good DA/State’s Attorney, and you don’t get charged. Even then, you can look forward to living your life looking over your shoulder. If it goes to trial, you’d better hope at a minimum, you have carry insurance. Even then, you’re going to deplete that and be out of pocket for your legal defense.

        Oh, and you can’t go to work—so you’d better have a way to get income during the trial.

        And if you’re found not guilty, you still will likely not find employment. Think anyone wants to hire
        George Zimmerman?

        1. avatar DDay says:

          You’re recounting of what happened between zimmerman and martin is correct. zimmerman lost martin and had no idea where he went and was going back to his car when martin jumped him. zimmerman is a short (I think 5’7″ over weight guy, 200-210 lbs) martin was 5’10” and 155 and MUCH more athletic than zimmerman. If martin ran, as his family claimed, there is NO WAY zimmerman could ever catch him.

          The neutral eye witnesses said zimmerman was the one on the bottom getting him head smashed into the sidewalk and he was yelling help.

          Zimmerman’s injuries were a broken nose and cuts and bruises to the back of his head. martin’s injuries were a gun shot and injuries to his knuckles. Very clear who the aggressor was.

      4. avatar Greg Jarmon says:

        Unfortunately, you have your facts wrong on the Martin/Zimmerman incident.

        1. You repeatedly say child, but Martin was taller than Zimmerman by almost 6 inches and from Zimmerman’s perspective, he was a grown man.
        2. Martin did not live in the neighborhood and Zimmerman reported a suspicious person to dispatch. He then followed from a distance intentionally attempting to avoid a confrontation. At one point, Martin walked around his truck. If he was looking for a confrontation, he could have lowered his window or gotten out of his car and said something. He didnt.
        3. Martin ran behind a row of buildings and hid in the bushes for 4 minutes. Zimmerman did not run, he simply walked behind the buildings thru to the other side. When he didn’t see Martin, he started to return to his truck to wait for the arriving LEO. Martin waited and ambushed a smaller man.
        4. Zimmerman had no offensive wounds indicating he struck Martin. Martin had no defensive wounds. This indicated Martin was the physical aggressor.
        5. The dispatcher did not tell Zimmerman to stop following Martin. He said he didn’t have to, giving Zimmerman a chance to stop if he was concerned for his safety. But then the dispatcher continued to ask questions about Martin’s location.

        Regardless of how much an ass Zimmerman has turned out to be, his defensive gun use was lawful.

        In the McGlockton case, the Sheriff is making this a political issue. SYG does not apply here. McGlockton knocked the shooter to the ground and removed any ability to retreat. SYG also does not grant immunity for lawful shootings. That’s a separate statute. However, McGlockton was shot after taking three steps back and starting to turn away. Because he ceased his assault and was walking away, that creates the PC to make an arrest. The imminent threat no longer existed. This should go before a jury.

        Lastly, the standard is not whether a person was afraid for their life. A person can be legitimately afraid of an unreasonable fear. The standard is a reasonable belief that their life or the life of another was at imminent risk of death or great bodily harm. In other words, would a reasonable person in the same position make the same decision. In this case, would you shoot someone walking away from you after he pushes you down but did nothing else? Having been in a defensive shooting myself, I think he had the time to quickly evaluate the situation before he pulled the trigger. I think he’d have a good case for self defense (disoriented or confused, mistook McGlocktons movement as trying to get aroundhim, etc). But the fact is PC existed to make the arrest.

        1. avatar NateInPA says:

          Wow, someone that actually gets it…go figure.

      5. avatar Mister Fleas says:

        “This is NOTHING like the Trayvon Martin case, where Zimmerman stalked a child, chased the child after police told him not to chase him, and Trayvon Martin was (rightly) in fear for his life.
        In the Trayvon Martin case, the violent thug was George Zimmerman, an armed grown man who stalked an unarmed child (after being ordered not to by police), then attacked the unarmed child, started a fight (or the child rightly feared for his life at being stalked by an armed man and defended himself), and then when the fight began to go badly for Zimmerman, he murdered the child that he’d been stalking against police orders.”

        Impressive how you got everything wrong. You know we were talking about it on this site when this was all going down in the media and the courts, right? We hashed it out, and OH MAN, you got everything wrong!

      6. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I think just about everything you screwed up has been mentioned except for your “black-white” comparisons, since neither Zimmerman nor Martin was white. I would like to mention again your gullibility in falling for an 8 year old school picture in referring to Martin as a child, he was 19 and 6’2″, out of school, with a “grill” and thug clothing. Not a sweet looking 5th grader.

      7. avatar PosseMan says:

        Wow, that was an impressive 180° turn on a dime. Your first two paragraphs were 100% spot on. Your rant about Zimmerman and Martin, 100% completely and utterly wrong. I think I have whiplash from that.

  5. avatar New Continental Army says:

    Maybe don’t go around using violence to get your way and you won’t get shot.

    1. avatar Kenneth says:

      Words and clubs. That’s all we have. There is no plan “C”. That’s why discussion, negotiation, and diplomacy are so important. Because when words fail(usually because one side refuses to listen), weapons are all that’s left.

      1. avatar Adam says:

        Wow, Stefan Molyneux is still around? That guy got completely destroyed by the libertarian movement back in 2008. Guess he got picked up by the chuckleheads of the alt right after that.

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          “alt right”? what are you CNN 2008? Next you’re going to blather about “neocon”, “white supremacy” or “militia” BS?

        2. avatar Kenneth says:

          Because he’s not a libertarian. He’s a philosopher.
          Libertarian’s have moved away from liberty and thought, towards destroying anyone they consider a political opponent. Same as Rebloodlicans, Democrips, antifa, bamn, etc. IOWs, fuck words, go for the club. What else CAN happen when people sink so far they can no longer read, or even speak intelligibly? What else can one call it when editors for the biggest ‘news’? paper in the US draw a chart like this in crayon and call it ‘data’????
          https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/547579107182383104/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E547579107182383104&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fnews%2F2018-08-02%2Fnyt-hires-editor-who-absolutely-hates-dumbass-fuking-white-people

        3. avatar Dog of War says:

          Well looks like we found a blue pilled MSM shill right here. Forget any context of what Molyneux speaks of and go straight to accusing him of being alt-right. Never mind any context of what he speaks of or the fact he quotes established scientific research that suggests what he speaks of is true. Just hit him with the same old accusations of racism that the media throws out literally everyone that has an unpopular opinion.

          Hell, I don’t even like the guy that much myself. Specially given that he is somewhat of a determinism. But he as been known to do pretty decent news analysis.

        4. avatar Kenneth says:

          But he is entertaining.
          I have a problem with his diehard atheism myself, among other things. But that changes nothing about his correctness on this particular issue.

        5. avatar Excedrine says:

          Except that it was actually the libertarian movement that got destroyed by Stefan at every turn since 2008. He has repeatedly dumped the chuckleheads of the alt-right after that, too.

          Stop lying and making shit up, please and thank you.

        6. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Damn, but I wish there was some way I could spend less money with NYT.

  6. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    I recently posed the “question” to John Lott and have yet to hear back (maybe someone here knows), but….
    Perhaps it was 2 years ago, with the Zimmerman case being the back drop (yes, I know SYG was never invoked there), I read an article that claimed (with statistics) that black shooters were claiming SYG, (involving black “victims”), at a disproportionately higher rate than whites that invoked it. Since then I haven’t been able to find that article or anything more about it. I asked Lott if he would investigate those findings. Essentially, it stated that defense attorneys had realized, regardless of the gun was legally owned, or not, and if the shooter was prohibited or not, that they still had the right to claim SYG and were utilizing it every time they could. It would effectively destroy this narrative that SYG is a permission slip for whites to execute blacks because they feel “scared”.

    1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      Perhaps this Tampa Bay Times article:

      “Are black defendants less likely to walk free than people of other races in “stand your ground” cases?

      The Times analysis found no obvious bias in how black defendants have been treated:

      • Whites who invoked the law were charged at the same rate as blacks.

      • Whites who went to trial were convicted at the same rate as blacks.

      • In mixed-race cases involving fatalities, the outcomes were similar. Four of the five blacks who killed a white went free; five of the six whites who killed a black went free.

      • Overall, black defendants went free 66 percent of the time in fatal cases compared to 61 percent for white defendants — a difference explained, in part, by the fact blacks were more likely to kill another black.”

      http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/race-plays-complex-role-in-floridas-stand-your-ground-law/1233152

  7. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    “What liberal media won’t tell you — blacks benefit most from Stand Your Ground laws”

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/31/what-liberal-media-wont-tell-blacks-benefit-most-from-stand-your-ground-laws.html

    I say keep your dam hands off of other people. Low information black people are being guided into giving up their self defense rights. And traitors like Benjamin Crump are leading the way.

    1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      “Low information black people are being guided into giving up their self defense rights…”

      This. The PR on these laws is remarkable. Imposing a “duty to retreat” second-guessed after the fact is now some other thing.

      If you think the system is racist, why give it more discretion?

      Discretion to prosecute someone *already found* to be defending themselves.

      Discretion to charge and prosecute them because they didn’t defend themselves against a life-threatening attack the right way? (Says you.)

      Discretion because the law never gets hijacked by entrenched power. (No worries because law enforcement has never been hijacked toward racist ends in this country. Esp laws that don’t mention “race.” And certainly not gun “safety” laws used to create disarmed victims. By race.)

      “Civil rights attourney”-guy, there, seems a tad uninformed of civil rights history in the US, or in general.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Uninformed, uneducated. Promoted to the next grade, repeatedly graduated on a completely different scale than other students, due to special qualifiers he possesses, hm?

  8. avatar ollie says:

    The girlfriend is at fault because she shouldn’t have parked illegally in a handicapped-only space.
    Followed by the shootee, who shouldn’t have assaulted the do-gooder for chastising his jerk girlfriend.
    They both got what they deserved.
    The shooter’s only crime might be practicing pest control without a license.

    1. avatar Mindboggled says:

      What kind of moronic comment is that? Try reading the news, or at the very least get out of your basement. The shooter was known to harass people at this location for all sorts of things. He very well could have threatened the woman’s life, no one knows that for sure. If the black man was the shooter everyone would be screaming for the death penalty.

      1. avatar Casey says:

        What kind of moronic comment is that? Try reading the news, or at the very least get out of your basement. The shooter was known to harass people at this location for all sorts of things. He very well could have threatened the woman’s life, no one knows that for sure, but it was definitely the man who happened to be black who initiated the physical attack that turned this into a DGU instead of just an argument with a crazy guy over a minor parking infraction.

      2. avatar Kenneth says:

        Interesting, though, don’t you think? That there are ‘people’ out there that believe that slightly illegal parking should be punished by death? Do you get the feeling that certain ‘people’ could care less about situations or facts, but just want to see some public executions?
        I put the single quotes around people here to signify that ones like that aren’t really very human, but more like beasts. They certainly aren’t civilized.

        1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

          It’s the shooting response to physical assault that people are excusing, not shooting in response to the parking violation.

        2. avatar Kenneth says:

          Some are, but others, like ollie, are implying that the parking violation was at fault for the death.

        3. avatar CWT says:

          If that were the case they would be saying the woman should have been shot seeing as she was the driver.

        4. avatar Kenneth says:

          So you don’t think that the words: “The girlfriend is at fault “, imply that he believes the girlfriend is at fault for the incident?

        5. avatar Kenneth says:

          Plus, handicapped parking is B.S. anyway. I tried twice to post the link to Penn and Tellers episode that proves it, but the new TTAG won’t allow bitchute, and it’s been censored off of youtube. So go to bitchute and search for “PENN & TELLER: BULLSHIT S05E07 Handicapped Parking”.
          If this won’t post I’ll misspell everything to sneak it through.

        6. avatar ollie says:

          Had the girlfriend parked legally, there would have been no incident. She was the root cause of all the trouble.
          Had her boyfriend merely told the dogooder to fuckoff instead of assaulting him, he would not have been shot.
          This is a case of Darwin Rules over Stupidity.

          One of the reasons our big blue cities are completely trashed out and lawless is that certain segments of society live by deliberately disobeying all of whitee’s rules.

        7. avatar Kenneth says:

          ollie: “Had the girlfriend parked legally, there would have been no incident.”
          I object! Stating facts not in evidence.
          There is no way anyone can know what would have happened, had she chosen to park elsewhere. Perhaps the perp was just looking to go back to jail to be with his buddies. Perhaps he was in a bad mood. Perhaps he just felt like a fight. What we DO know for a certainty though, is a parking spot is not grounds for assault.

        8. avatar Kenneth says:

          I just tried it and bitchute’s search box doesn’t function. Instead, google search: “PENN & TELLER: BULLSHIT S05E07 Handicapped Parking”, and it will be the first under video. It was on my google search anyway. Just click on it from there to play it.

        9. avatar Sho Rembo says:

          Ollie, “Had the girlfriend parked legally, there would have been no incident.”

          If the self-knighted handicapped parking law man hadn’t started yelling at her, there would have been no incident.

          See how that works?

        10. avatar LarryinTX says:

          There would still have been the incident of illegal parking. The only way there could have been “NO” incident was if she did not park illegally. That resulted in the incident of her being yelled at. If that had resulted in the incident of the yeller being yelled at in turn, lotsa people could have had fun yelling and all, and we would never have heard about any of it. But someone decided to emphasize his argument with his fists, and that person died for it. As well should happen *every time*. Keep your damn hands to yourself. See how that works?

      3. avatar DaveL says:

        He very well could have threatened the woman’s life, no one knows that for sure.

        That’s a funny way of writing “has not even been alleged.”

      4. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        “If the black man was the shooter everyone would be screaming for the death penalty.” is a stupid thing to say, not only because it is obviously hyperbole is also just plain wrong. Would you (Mindboggled) be screaming for the death penalty? You are part of the set “everyone”. One hardly ever hears non-African Americans advocating for the death penalty in possible DGUs.

    2. avatar Fuddster says:

      There were plenty of spaces around. Her boyfriend was going to be out as quickly as it would have taken her to move the car to the next spot over. And blaming a different party is a typical left wing tactic. This was either man A or man Bs fault. The woman who was in the wrong for parking in a handicap space was not at fault for a man dying that day.

      1. avatar Bob says:

        At fault? No. But her decision certainly was the first domino in the line.

        1. avatar Fuddster says:

          The second domino was when the shooter didn’t just say, “excuse me this is a handicap spot, please park in the next one.” Third domino was the boyfriend pushing the man down. And the domino that matters was the guy shooting McGlockton as he backed away.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Since just making shit up seems to be popular now, it is patently obvious from the video that the thug was simply repositioning himself for maximum impact from a face kick, which would likely have been fatal to the defender. Whee!

    3. avatar GunGal says:

      I had to have hip replacement a couple of years ago and have a Handicap notice I hang on rear view mirror.
      When I got back to my car someone had left a note under window shield wiper that said “Really?”
      I had 8 weeks of rehabilitation and have a normal gate now but if on my feet a lot, pains set in.
      I usually tough it out so don’t become dependent on painkillers. That day I had been up and down stairs more than usual.
      You can see a cane or wheelchair or crushes but you can’t see if a person is in pain. Didn’t take it personally, just put in trash can outside Walgreens
      Passive aggressive people are a fact of life, ignore them!

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Personally have never been challenged, hip replace in ’06 followed by heart valve in ’08, can walk normally most times, occasionally fall on my face for no reason. Little feeling in legs and damaged equilibrium. Walking half a mile is not a good plan. Just spent $65K for a home elevator so I would not have to move. I have little respect for handicapped tags as I am convinced they are abused more often than they are used. Hip replace is a real PITA, good luck to you.

  9. avatar Chris Thompson says:

    Less of the demographic that commits the most crime is always a good thing.

    1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      Exactly what demographic is that?
      At least have the integrity to say what you mean.

  10. avatar JOHN B THAYER says:

    https://m.facebook.com/markeis.mcglockton.7
    Hint: Our friend McGlocky’s favorite color was orange.

  11. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Bullshit
    Just another bigoted b.s. artist.

  12. avatar Fuddster says:

    I don’t think race changed this at all. But if you walked out of a store to find a man yelling at your woman all up on the car I bet a decent amount of people would have physically encouraged the man to leave. Throwing him down was excessive but after the gun was pulled, he was clearly backing up.

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      In the same sense that “a decent amount of people” have criminal records, and for the same reason.

      However, I agree that we was backing up, the attack had stopped, and the shooter had time to see that the attack had stopped. I don’t believe this shooting was justified.

      1. avatar Kenneth says:

        Perhaps not legally, but there is always more to it than that. That’s what juries are for.
        If I sat on his jury, I think I might find him not guilty. It would depend upon the exact facts, OFC. But I would allow for the fact that perhaps the girlfriend had a handicap but forgot to hang the placard or whatever. So then he gets attacked by a career criminal, pulls his firearm, and shoots the perp(he is one, no doubt. He committed assault.) while the perp is disengaging.
        The keys are: the perps exact criminal record(Which I don’t have access to. Only that he proudly poses for photos in jail) and allowance for the fact that the one just assaulted is justifiably angry at his assaulter.

  13. avatar fit2Btyed says:

    STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS make targets of THUGS, plain and simple. More race baiting.

  14. avatar tdiinva says:

    Minorities are more likely to be victims of crime. Therefore, they are more likely to invoke SYG. The data supports this

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Minorities? Like Asians, for instance? German-Americans? Scandinavians? BS flag is up. Suspect criminals and members of their families, plus neighbors, are most likely to be victims.

  15. avatar former water walker says:

    I HAVE been attacked by black men several times. I had no weapons other than my large(at the time) muscles,courage and wits. Now I have lethal weapons in my old age. Are certain races prone to violence? You be the judge but if someone was yelling at my wife(not baby mama) I wouldn’t violently assault him. Hell MY wife could probably kick his azz😏

  16. avatar Wiregrass says:

    Sounds like Mr. Crump is trying to get invited on to the Don Lemon show. But for all I know he’s probably a regular on that program. I haven’t even glanced at CNN for years.

    1. avatar Kenneth says:

      I haven’t even had a TV since 2014.

  17. avatar jwm says:

    The left realizes they have lost the argument for gun control. They see constitutional carry on the horizon.

    What they are trying to do is fix it so that you can carry your gun 24/7, they know they can’t stop this, but that if you pull or use your gun the system will grind you and your family down.

    Trump needs to keep loading the fed level justice system with good judges. The states have proven, repeatedly, that they cannot handle the responsibility of states rights.

    By the time constitutional carry goes nationwide there will need to be a fed system in place to protect the civil and human rights of American citizens exercising their rights.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      Just like they realize they’ve lost the voter ID fight. It’s why they’re busy giving out legal IDs to illegals. That way they will be ready to continue their voter fraud operations once the final nail is in the coffin for voting without ID.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        When passing out ID to illegals, how do you know how many they already have? Are we going to have illegals not only voting, but voting multiple times? Damn! It just struck me! What if they’re *RUSSIANS*?

  18. avatar TheDottedLine says:

    Crump makes up a hypothetical scenario then calls it reality. That is a weak argument, Mr. Lawyer.

    1. avatar Jeh says:

      “Crump”………so hes an angry dancing clown from the ghetto?

  19. avatar Transvalue says:

    Again the Lawyer uses and twists words to state an absolute truth:

    “Had McGlockton been the one to pull out a gun, there is no way stand your ground would have been extended to him, a man of color. He would have been charged with murdering a white man. ”

    Exactly correct McGlockton had just violently beat a man to the ground, if he had pulled a gun and shot the beaten man, that is the textbook definition of Murder.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Actually still incorrect, if he pulled out a gun, or several, SYG would not have helped him since it does not apply to brandishing. If he shot the man he just assaulted it would not help him because he was not assaulted. If he had started yelling at the doofus and the doofus pulled a gun, he could draw and fire and be protected by SYG because he was defending himself against violent attack. It’s not that tough unless you’re trying to get around the law against killing people.

  20. avatar BierceAmbrose says:

    Oddly, I have yet to see mention of race in any of the SYG laws.

  21. avatar Dog of War says:

    Man this quote is a perfect example of the racism of the left via the racism of low expectations. Clown’s like always see the color of the persons involved and throw away any context of what happened. They presuppose that the person performing the DGU has racist intent, that the shooter didn’t have violent intend because of their race, and that the entirety of the legal system has racist intent because they operate under established legal stands on use of force. And that the entire government is racist because they used preexisting legal precedent to codify the regulations on use of force to begin with.

  22. avatar Sian says:

    Feels over facts.

    It’s a fact that African-Americans benefit disproportionately from SYG laws, as without them they face more vigorous prosecution for legitimate self-defense shootings than other races due to institutional bias.

    SYG protects black people from overzealous prosecutors.

  23. avatar RA-15 says:

    Like former water walker , I was attacked by 6 black men about 30 years ago. They jumped me as I was walking home from a local biker bar in Lyons N.Y. I was not armed at the time. They stomped , kicked , and fractured my skull and face with a golf club. I spent 3 months in hospital & almost died. They all walked , no jail. I suffer to this day with cluster headaches. Imo . if someone throws you to the ground , threatens bodily harm , in this case this guy got exactly what he deserved. If a person acts like an animal , you treat them as such!

  24. avatar JIMMY says:

    I don”t think that because your black the stand your ground law targets them, Iam CCW carry, An Iam Black to think that is wrong

  25. avatar Ryan says:

    I find that if you don’t start a fight, steal someone’s property, or break into someone’s home you won’t have to worry about being shot no matter what color you are.
    All this “attorney” wants is for one group of people to be free to terrorize another without fear of the victims defending themselves.

  26. avatar adverse5 says:

    I don’t go by color.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I can expand on that! If I am walking down the street, with a white guy up ahead and a black guy behind, and the white guy turns and attacks me, I am not going to spin around and shoot the black guy. DUH. And I do not believe that when the cops arrive they are going to shoot or arrest the black guy, either.

  27. avatar Gralnok says:

    As much as I don’t like the white guy, he had the right and the law is on his side. He was being attacked, he could not adequately defend himself, he was in fear for his life, he was legally justified in shooting the other guy. From what I heard, the white dude was a jerk, a loudmouth, and picked arguments with plenty of people. However, his personality isn’t on trial. It’s whether or not he was justified in shooting the other man. He was.

  28. avatar Jeh says:

    Moral of the mcglockton story is dont chimpout and, in the immortal words of the georgia satellites, “keep your hands to yourself”.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “Georgia satellites”? Say what?

  29. avatar Bigus Dickus says:

    Am I the only one who finds it ironic McGlockton got popped by a Glock?

  30. avatar Jamesfromlakegeneva says:

    I am curious about when deadly force can be used to stop an attack. Below is a video of a woman who repeatedly attacks two US servicewomen who are in uniform at a restaurant. One of the women being attacked claims to be pregnant.

    Based on the concept of “stand your ground”, would either of the servicewomen be justified in using deadly force to stop this attack?

    https://youtu.be/ubfW97fcOV4

    1. avatar Dip Shit says:

      Do on of the attackees fear for her life?

      1. avatar Gregory Jarmon says:

        It doesn’t matter if they feared for their life, it matters if they had a reasonable belief that their life or the life of another was at imminent risk of death or great bodily harm.

        A person can be legitimately afraid of an unreasonable fear.

        1. avatar Jamesfromlakegeneva says:

          Based on the video of the out of control belligerent woman repeatedly chasing after and hitting the servicewomen in uniform, if either one of the servicewoman had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm to themselves or to the unborn baby that the one was carrying, either servicewoman could have pulled out a firearm and put this woman down.

          Fortunaltey this did not happen as I do not see how a reasonable person could conclude that either servicewoman was in jeopardy of great bodily harm or death.

          Same for the case of Drejka – I cannot see how reasonable person could conclude how he was in jeopardy of great bodily harm or death as his attacker had withdrawn and he was ready defend himself from further attack.

          Bottom line – a jury should decide if Drejka’s fear was justified and if he acted reasonably in the taking of another life in order to protect himself from great bodily harm or death.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Like the Zimmerman case, this has been let go by local police and prosecutors as justifiable/not prosecutable, possibly as with Zimmerman some aspiring demagogue or politician will demand to spend that money for nothing but embarrassment. Otherwise it’s over.

          If I were one of those servicewomen and armed, I would have shot the bitch, probably right after I shot what I assume is her enabling husband. But servicepeople are not allowed to carry in uniform, last I heard, so that’s not a player. They should definitely bring charges and sue, however, especially with the video available. If that cost the bitch $10-20,000, she might not do it again.

  31. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Play stupid games and win stupid prizes.

  32. avatar NateInPA says:

    What’s scary is that a majority of you probably carry on a daily basis…

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      You think that’s bad, let this get all up in your panties. I carried about 30 years before it was legal, and I will carry for the rest of my life, whether it’s legal or not. I bet you’re amazed you’re still alive, huh? I don’t GAS what laws are passed, 2A makes them all void. The only way you can possibly protect yourself is the same way I do, arm yourself and train. Or you could cry to your mommy and hide in the corner, which is more likely.

  33. avatar Kap says:

    a car is illegally parked in a Handicapped zone, shooter walks up to car has word with driver, a huge man came out of a business sees his driver being accosted shifts into not cool mode takes a run at the much smaller person hits and shoves small man too ground, small man lands a good 5 feet from original point of contact on cement, Big man advance forward to finish job. Small man Caps big man! not a STG, it is a pure self defense case involving disparity of size and reasonable force!
    big mans family just want money and are establishing false racial facts to support future litigation

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I suspect they are going to be disappointed at potential payout from near-homeless guy.

  34. avatar will says:

    Im pro gun and CCF but this never should have happened. Ok he broke the law and used a handicapped parking spot, that’s not a big deal. Call a cop and see if he catches him and writes him a ticket. But you are carrying a gun and should avoid any contact that might insight or inflame a conflict. If someone yells a you, “road rage”, you ignore them and get out of harms way as quickly as you can. You do anything you can to avoid, and all that you can do to defuse the situation. If you respond to rage then you lose. Things like this hurt our 2nd they do not help us.

  35. avatar Hugo says:

    Perhaps young black men should learn that violence is not the first response to every problem.

  36. avatar Bruce Clark says:

    This P/C crap has to end. So now am I to assume that the only way you can legally defend yourself is if you’re an African-American? What a bunch of liberal BS. This type of garbage makes me realize we no longer live in America.

  37. avatar Mikial says:

    The incident has nothing to do with Stand your ground., nor does it have anything to do with race. Plenty of black citizens have used Stand your ground as a defense in self defense incidents.

    What happened here was that the armed citizen was the victim of a simple assault, and once he pulled his gun out the attacker backed off. It should have ended with the citizen calling the police since he had the attacker held at gunpoint. Instead, he pulled the trigger when his life was not in danger.

    Object lesson, know when to shoot and when to dial 911. The guy with the gun was sticking his nose in when he confronted the lady in the car who was parked in a handicapped parking space. He should have just called the cops to deal with it.

  38. avatar Douglas G Williams says:

    Has anyone given thought to the fact that had the dead man’s girlfriend not parked in a handicapped parking spot the shooting would never have occurred?

  39. avatar David says:

    I see lots of unnecessary words here. The only response needed is a simple “fuck off”.

  40. avatar Michael says:

    Enough with with the ever loving Monday morning quarterbacking. I’m an old man and I didn’t get here easy. Put you hands on me…if you’re lucky, I’ll shoot you. If you’re not lucky, I’ll happily give you an anatomy lesson. And yes, it will be show and tell. Foxtrot-Kilo-Alpha. 30

  41. avatar Tired of the Bullshit racist crap says:

    Parking in the handicap spot had nothing to do with it. The guy should have not said anything to them, he is not the Parking Authority. The black guy should not have put his hands on him. the fact is he is an elderly person who has every right to protect himself. Elderly people are more susceptible to injury. There are strict laws about attacking the elderly for that reason. The part I don’t like is when it is a white shooting a black, everybody right away goes to RACE. If the black guy shot the white guy it would probably be mid page news. If they were both black, probably back page. There are more black on black murders and crime that get two or three days in the lime light, than everyone forgets all about them. Then there’s the gun, if guns kill people than forks make people fat, pencils misspell words, and cars drive drunk. By the way, I’m not white.

  42. avatar Mike. says:

    First off, forget the Zimmerman case it has nothing to do with this one.

    I am old 82, and white, my Wife is 74, and not white (Way better looking than I also) we mostly go everywhere together, day and night, never out after 10 pm, unless coming home from babysitting (two munchkins 6 & 7) I am always armed. In spending 5 years as a Bouncer in Liverpool UK. 1960-1965. I have fought a lot.

    The pushback shove that was shown in this Cell Phone footage, was a calculated move, to impart maximum velocity, to a man standing, unbraced. IE flatfooted so to speak.

    Hence the bounce as he landed. If that was me, I would have thought boots were going to come next. That’s how I would have proceeded, in case this attacker had friends.
    I would know I was on my own. (As he was) Glock 19 deployed. Double tap to C-of-M.

    And reference all the “Mind your own business” crowd? I have a buddy younger than I, very handy capped reference walking, employs a cane to do so, if he spoke about the parking in that spot, him being pushed like the person was, might have put him in the hospital, at the least.

    Even at my age, two hands on my chest would have most likely ended with that big young man suffering a badly broken wrist, and a great desire not to go hands-on from then on. That manoeuvre normally ends with you on your knees. Free to strike still.

    I have broken bones in hands and arms in the past, fight over. Carried an ebony ruler, only available when time allowed to deploy same.

    The only way to asses blame in this shooting, is to know what the shooter perceived, how impaired his mind was, from the push and ground strike. No way to know.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email