He was telling her she was illegally parked. Are we all just to ignore people breaking the law, simply because they are black and that's what they do?

Markass (proper spelling) started the physical altercation. Yell all you like, but violence begets violence. Maybe it was an overreaction, but it sure looks like he's getting ready to beat on the guy to me.

Get beat or defend yourself? I know which way I'd go.

It takes two to tango. Either one could have prevented it. The tick of the clock before he shoots is telling to me. Does anyone honestly think the confrontation would have continued after the gun was presented? Looks more like pride, butt-hurt, and payback pulled the trigger more than genuine fear of imminent continuation of a beating.

Broadly speaking, when private citizens take it upon themselves to attempt to enforce the law, it tends not to go well. Especially in situations in which there is no threat of danger and the crime being committed is non-violent and victimless.

Drejka deliberately set out to create a confrontational situation. McGlockton acted like an idiot and allowed himself to get riled up by this little dickweed.


Oh, absolutely. As soon as he threw the first punch, he was a dead man. That's kinda my point; he coulda not gotten killed by just walking away from the douchebag.


Both parties are at fault here. One of them died because he couldn't keep a lid on his temper.

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

OK, let me clear up the legalities...

The media is quick to scream "stand your ground", particularly about Florida... but it really doesn't apply here. SYG can only apply only when you have the opportunity to retreat. That choice is removed from the equation when you are violently shoved to the ground and have the bad guy standing over you. Could he have scampered backwards on his hands and butt to create distance? No. He could not retreat with the bad guy advancing on him, and certainly not while he was trying to draw.

EVERY SINGLE STATE makes it very clear in statutes that when faced with imminent "grave danger", "bodily harm", etc... that you can respond with deadly force until the threat is gone, and then you must cease deadly force. There are states that DO have some sort of duty to retreat, but those are all predicated on "safely" retreating. And you can only safety retreat when there's no more imminent threat. Even with SYG, you can't use deadly force if the imminent threat is gone. The media won't explain this because then everybody would realize that SYG states don't give citizens any more rights to shoot somebody as states without the law. And nobody would tune in to watch the fabricated circus and then the networks companies couldn't sell advertising space during commercials so people could see all the benefits of taking Claritin or switching to Purina. All that being said, in the end, getting charged with a crime all comes down to the local prosecutors office, and they are taking orders from at least the Mayor... and for stuff that makes national headlines, the Governor.

I think most experts in this kind of confrontation would say that McGlockton continued forward to close distance after the initial shove and was preparing to continue the assault. Drejka began to draw while McGlockton was clearly advancing... and he only stopped advancing when he saw Drejka reaching. At this point, he took 3.5'ish small steps backwards... and was shot simultaneously as he started to turn away. While he was stepping backwards, McGlockton still tried at least once to raise his hands as if he intended to fight.

So... could a prosecutor convince a jury that 3.5 steps is enough distance to remove a threat? Experts would say "no way", and that's why no charges. The threat of imminent bodily harm was still there, the bad guy still had the means and communicated the intent to continue the fight, and therefore deadly force was still justified according to the law. BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SYG... even in states with a "duty to retreat" law, there still wouldn't be any charges, because no expert would claim that 3.5 steps created enough space for a safe retreat.

It's all circus designed to get you to CLICK HERE OMG YOU WON'T BELIVE IT!!!

Personally, Joe has it right:
Death by lack of good judgement. He was in the wrong, and while Drejka was clearly being a douchebag about it, McGlockton's kids would still have a father if he'd just ignored the prick, gotten in his car, and driven away.

When someone interjects and takes a discussion of parking to the level of felony assault, that's way over the top. After the assault the victim was vulnerable and obviously felt threatened.

Why I love politics in Chicago:


Willie Wilson’s money giveaways raise new legal questions with mayoral bid
POSTED 6:43 PM, JULY 23, 2018, BY MEGHAN DWYER AND TAHMAN BRADLEY, UPDATED AT 06:51PM, JULY 23, 2018



CHICAGO — Chicago mayoral candidate Willie Wilson says he wasn't trying to buy anyone's vote when he handed out $300,000 to churchgoers on Chicago’s South Side Sunday.

The millionaire businessman said Sunday's appearance at the New Covenant Missionary Baptist Church was nothing more than "one of the biggest property tax relief assistance" events of the year and the kind of thing he's done before.

“My wife and I have been blessed by God to be able to get a few of the material things out of life and so it’s up to us to now continually to share back with all of you all and others,” Wilson told church members during the event.

An aide to Wilson said the businessman gave away $300,000 to 2,000 people through the Dr. Willie Wilson Foundation, a 501(c)(3). Such organizations are tax-exempt, must not be organized for the benefit of private interests and are restricted in how much political activities they can conduct. Wilson says he organized the giveaway to assist homeowners who are struggling to pay their property tax bills.

Scott Winslow, a spokesperson for Wilson’s campaign, says the majority of the money came in the form of pre-printed checks intended to be distributed to specific people for property tax relief. Each check had someone’s name pre-printed on it, and people had to show identification. Some of the checks were unclaimed Sunday because specific individuals did not show up to the event. Everyone who was receiving a check had filled out an application form previously.

While the checks were the bulk of the money, Winslow said, Wilson also handed out cash. That money came directly from Wilson’s wallet, he said, and not the Dr. Willie Wilson Foundation. Winslow said he did not know exactly how much cash was distributed.

“He gives $100 bills to homeless people every day,” Winslow said. “He’s been doing this for nearly 30 years. He can be many things at the same time. Many people in public life have many responsibilities and he’s not giving up his philanthropic responsibilities because he’s running for mayor.”

The Illinois State Board of Elections says if the money came from Wilson’s foundation, the hand out probably doesn’t violate election laws.

“If the money came from his foundation and not his campaign committee, as has been reported, then it probably would not violate the Campaign Finance Act,” said Public Information Officer Matt Dietrich.

“I say 'probably' because we have received no formal complaint alleging any wrongdoing and we don’t issue opinions in advance of issues that may come before us if a complaint is filed with our compliance division,” Dietrich said.

Dietrich said the State Board of Election doesn’t want to speculate, though, and no complaint has yet been filed.

The Chicago Board of Elections says there doesn’t appear to have been a violation because “there was no quid pro quo” Sunday. Wilson did not ask for votes.

Jim Allen, the spokesperson for the Chicago Board of Elections, said because the election cycle has yet to formally start, technically there are no candidates for mayor. Candidates can’t even file petitions until Aug. 28.

When asked whether this kind of cash hand out would violate the rules had it happened after that date, Allen refused to comment. “We are monitoring the situation, but we have not received complaints that concern a violation of the law,” he said. If they do get a complaint, it will be turned over to the State’s Attorney’s Office.

Wilson’s campaign spokesperson insists Sunday’s appearance was not campaign related. But Chicago politicos on both sides of the aisle have raised concerns.

“What the hell? Is Bruce Rauner using Willie Wilson and Corey Brooks to buy votes???” tweeted State Rep. Emanuel Chris Welch, a Democrat.

New Covenant, where the event took place, is actually led by pastor Rev. Stephen J. Thurston and not Corey Brooks as Welch's tweet indicates.

“Check this out if you wonder why Illinois politicians are often a national joke,” Republican state Rep. David McSweeney said on Twitter. “How can Willie Wilson, a candidate for Mayor of Chicago, literally hand out CASH at a public event? This is so wrong!”

Wilson is known across Chicagoland for his generous charitable work. A man of deep faith, he supports various churches.

Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner, himself seeking reelection, joined Wilson at New Covenant Missionary Baptist Church at the event.

“We’re honored to help you pay your property taxes. Happy to do it,” Rauner told the crowd. But on Monday the governor raised concerns about the cash that was handed out at the event. He said he didn’t know about it beforehand.

“As far as I know none of my money got handed out yesterday. We’re checking right now to see if it did and if it did I will demand my money back,” he said.

Rauner has historically donated money to Wilson’s foundation. He says they are friends, and Rauner supports the work Wilson does to help people pay their property taxes.

“In the last month or two I gave another $100k at his request to help people pay their property taxes,” Rauner said.

“Property taxes are out of control in the state of Illinois. They are much too high. And some of the worst property taxes in America are in the African American community.”

But the governor says he thought his money would be given to people who were pre-vetted – only people who needed help with their property tax bills. He said he did not want his money to be handed out randomly.

“I think the idea of handing out cash if you’re a candidate for office is outrageous. It should not happen,” he said. “I learned after the fact and I was pretty upset it was going on.”

Reached by phone, F. Scott Winslow, Wilson for Mayor campaign spokesman, told WGN News Sunday’s event was “absolutely not” a campaign event. Winslow says since Wilson launched his second bid for Chicago mayor, he’s probably given away $500,000.

Winslow insists the campaign is not violating any campaign finance laws since the campaign was not involved. He said he didn’t think any of the governor’s money was distributed in cash Sunday, but there was no way to know how much of the governor’s money was part of the hand out.

Once people contribute to Wilson’s foundation “all the money gets mixed together,” he said.

He also said there is a Chinese wall between the foundation and Wilson’s campaign. He said they bent over backwards Sunday to avoid any appearance of vote influencing, even removing political signs from nearby yards.

But election lawyer Burt Odelson says that might not be enough, particularly in a city like Chicago with such an infamous history of election tampering and vote buying.

“It doesn’t even come close to passing the smell test. To be really honest with you,” Odelson said. “It is not okay. Especially here in Chicago it’s not okay.”

Odelson, who also represents mayoral candidate Paul Vallas, says he gives Wilson credit for helping the poor. He even calls him a “good man.”

“But you can’t do that during an election time after you’re a candidate,” he said. “Because it violates or looks like it violates the statute, the criminal statute.”

The criminal statute in the election code says you can’t give money to people to influence them to vote. It’s a class four felony.

Both Wilson and Rauner say they never asked anyone to vote on Sunday. Wilson is now calling on other candidates for mayor to reach into their pockets to help the poor.

“Why isn’t Rahm giving money to the poor people of Illinois?” Winslow asked.


https://wgntv.com/2018/07/23/willie-...h-mayoral-bid/

Liberty is the natural state of man.

https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net...6d&oe=5BD61182


https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net...23&oe=5BD081A5

https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net...f5&oe=5BD43581



https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net...5e&oe=5BDF5FE0

https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net...c3&oe=5C1331CF


there's a thread for this sorta talk -- either cowboy police thread or rgb thread.

I actually hadn't seen the Michael Drejka / Markeis McGlockton shooting video or even heard about it in the news at all until now, been busy with work apparently. I just watched the video and I have to say that was a gross over reaction by both parties. I actually have no problem with Michael confronting Markeis' wife about where she parked. The video I watched included and interview with her and she said, "I have the right to park where ever I want." That level of entitlement infuriated me. Then I watched Markeis run out of the store and shove Michael to the ground with pretty excessive force which was completely unwarranted given the fact that he was standing stationary a few feet away from the wife in the car while arguing. There was no threat to her or need for force.

However, I expected the confrontation to escalate differently already knowing it ended in a shooting. I was expecting to see Markeis follow through on Michael on the ground but that didn't happen at all. He shoved him once and then just stood there while Michael had plenty of time to awkwardly draw his gun, point it at Markeis, think about whether he was going to pull the trigger, and then actually shoot him once in the chest. I can't see how any reasonable person would perceive a single hard push to the ground with no movement for a follow-up assault as life threatening and grounds for lethal force. He was clearly already heated and got indignant after being pushed to the ground. That was fucking ridiculous and I think a successful self-defense plea here would be a travesty.

We should just outlaw guns here in the US, then we wont have these problems:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...k-in-past-year


https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net...05&oe=5C0E80D7

Who. Cares. About. A. Parking. Spot.

It did not impact him in any way, shape, or form, and he decided to start shit with a woman about it. I hope that guy's personal life is ruined in the way he ruined that family's life.

Those who carry legally do not put themselves in situations where they can be shoved to the ground for being a dick. We try our best not to escalate the situation or just walk away if possible.
​​​​​​

oh no he yelled at someone for parking in a handicapped spot!

Yes, he certainly deserved to be assaulted for talking.


That being said, I would not have pulled my weapon in that case. Attempt to de-escalate and withdraw from the situation.

I also wouldn't have been foolish enough to try to shame the shameless or teach values to the valueless in a convenience store parking lot. Especially in a ratty, rough neighborhood. His decision making skills were already in question.

I'll give him that he was blindsided and possibly very surprised and in fear. Situational awareness is a primary concern in bad neighborhoods. He failed on that count as well.

this. no one wants to be trayvoned.

That's a verb now, huh? Makes sense.

end woman suffering now.

https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net...60&oe=5C0F380B

I'm saying why even bother with something so trivial? Another "entitled" white person thinking it's their job to enforce the law. Me thinks Mr. Trigger Finger would not have even started the confrontation if it had been the woman inside the store and not the man.

Sure it pisses me off to see people do that, but I just grumble to myself about them being an asshole and move on with my day.

Maybe it happens to him more often than not? what does him yelling at some dumb lady have to do with anything? he was attacked and won.