Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: just Warren on July 21, 2018, 12:03:35 AM
-
the altercation should never have happened. (https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand-your-ground-law-protects-shooter-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/)
The decedent did assault the CCW but why did the CCW make himself a target when there was no need to do so? Now, one man is dead and another has killed and has to carry that with him for the rest of his life. And it was all pointless.
Don't get into arguments over anything if you're carrying. It's not your job to set right the wrongs of the world.
If someone is illegally parked, it isn't your concern. You are not the Parking Lot Avenger.
Someone cuts in line? Oh well. Someone talking too loud on the phone? Go elsewhere. Someone driving like an entitled moron? Just get away.
Don't start no drama. Once you do, you cannot control how it ends. If it turns into a fight, it is a gunfight because YOU have a gun. And do you really want to be in a gunfight? I don't. No one should!
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I just had to rant.
-
And there are ways of addressing the wrongs of the world, without turning it into a confrontation.
Honestly, the shooter is lucky the woman he engaged wasn't CCW herself: is possible that she could have seen him as a threat, and responded accordingly. The proper way to have handled this situation would have been to snap a pic with your phone, and forward to the police and store in question (I know here, the local popo LOVES getting those: they get to issue a ticket without doing any work).
Unfortunately, too many people like confrontation
-
Surveillance video obtained by The Post shows McGlockton walking up to Michael Drejka, 47, who was arguing with McGlockton’s girlfriend, Britany Jacobs, 24, over a handicapped parking spot at the Circle A Food store on Sunset Point Road in Clearwater on Thursday.
Detectives from the sheriff’s office said Jacobs had parked her 2016 Chrysler 2000 in a handicapped spot without a permit, leading to the argument with Drejka that prompted a witness to alert a clerk inside.
That’s when McGlockton, who is black, exited the store and approached Drejka, shoving him violently to the ground with both hands, surveillance video shows. While still on the ground, Drejka, who is white, then pulled out a gun and shot McGlockton, firing a single round that struck him in the chest, deputies said.
Is that REALLY reasonable fear of one's life? I mean, I can kinda see it from my viewpoint as a gimpy old fart but... Feels kinda "thin."
-
If someone is illegally parked, it isn't your concern. You are not the Parking Lot Avenger.
...
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I just had to rant.
No, you're not preaching to the choir. People who aren't handicapped shouldn't park in handicapped parking spaces. The female said
“He’s getting out like he’s a police officer or something, and he’s approaching me,” she said. “I minded my own business … I didn’t do anything wrong.”
Well, yes, you DID do something wrong, Britany. You violated both federal (the ADA) and state law by parking illegally in a handicapped parking space, thereby depriving a handicapped person of the use of the space reserved for them while your able-bodied child-bringer went into the store. Drejka had every right to tell the female that she shouldn't be parked in that space. I rather imagine that she copped an attitude rather than apologizing and just moving her car, and then her "man" came out and attacked Drejka.
“It’s a wrongful death,” she told the newspaper earlier Friday. “It’s messed up. Markeis is a good man … He was just protecting us, you know? And it hurts so bad.”
Protecting you from what? Harsh words? All Britany had to do was roll up her window and ignore Drejka. Instead, she opened her door and got out of the vehicle. There's no audio, but I have no doubt that she was yelling at Drejka before she got out of the vehicle, and that she got out of the vehicle so she could get even more in his face.
Bottom line: Britany got her "man" killed because she didn't feel like observing the law.
So who broke the law here? First, the female broke the law by parking where she shouldn't have parked. Then her "man" broke the law by assaulting Drejka, thereby escalating what had until then been a verbal dispute into a physical assault. Drejka had a right to defend himself, and he did so.
I have no problem with the way the incident played out.
-
Is that REALLY reasonable fear of one's life? I mean, I can kinda see it from my viewpoint as a gimpy old fart but... Feels kinda "thin."
Maybe not. Or maybe the shooter really was hurt, or already handicapped, and wouldn't have been able to get up quickly. He had, after all, just been attacked for almost no reason. (All of this is pretty speculative, as we've not much to go on.)
The NY Post is to be congratulated on its fine, objective journalism. [tears out hair]
I'm wary of the attitude that carrying a gun means you have to keep your head down, and mind your own business. There's some sense to that, but it can be taken too far. I've been carrying this idea in my head, of writing the anti-mall-ninja story. It's about a middle-aged guy that only carries a snub-nose revolver, w/ no reloads, and avoids any place where a crime might ever, conceivably happen, under any circumstances.
-
Someone violently attacked an innocent person, and was shot for it. Sounds A-OK to me.
And I agree getting into arguments with strangers over petty stuff is stupid. And the "girlfriend" sounds like a..... well you know.
-
Should someone be dead over a parking spot and a minor argument between too people? No, absolutely not.
She was in the vehicle, got *out* to engage the guy. He was at a respectable distance from her AND her vehicle and not any kind of obvious threat to her. Her baby daddy (and the only reason I'm going there is because the article made such a huge deal about the races involved, which had no baring on the story whatsoever) came up with no visible warning and shoved the guy hard from the side/behind.
It is not reasonable to expect that kind of attack for giving someone a piece of your mind. In fact, that makes me think the shoot was even more justified. If that's the kind of reaction this guy had too someone yelling at his baby momma then I would say he is a real threat to life.
-
No one got shot over a parking space. No one got shot over race. No one got shot because of someone not minding their own business.
Someone got shot because they engaged in an unprovoked physical altercation with someone. Stop. End credits.
And yes, someone pushing you to the ground? I don't care what physical shape you're in. That's a threat to someone's life and well being.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
Agreed on keeping a low profile when armed. But if somebody pushes another person to the ground for whatever reason, the downed person has a legitimate claim to be in in fear of his life or severe bodily injury regardless of physical condition. I trust nobody here has ever been kicked to death.
Advisement of the penalties (fine, towing) would probably save a lot of grief. A lot of people seem to think having a handicapped parking area is just a nice gesture.
But "just running in for a minute" X $250 = $15,000 an hour. >:D :facepalm:
-
I'm not inclined to confront strangers - in fact, I try to avoid confrontations - so I would not have confronted someone for parking in a handicapped spot.
However, let's take a look at this -
The certified nursing assistant told the newspaper she parked in the handicap spot because the parking lot was packed. Surveillance video, however, showed several open parking spaces in front of the store prior to the deadly shooting
So she certainly is a liar.
I minded my own business … I didn’t do anything wrong
No, you parked in a space reserved for the handicapped. So you DID do something wrong, and lied again.
McGlockton, who is black, exited the store and approached Drejka, shoving him violently to the ground with both hands, surveillance video shows.
The deceased escalated a verbal disagreement into a violent physical assault - he made a catastrophic error in his victim selection process by initiating physical violence. (One wonders if he had a prior arrest record.)
I shed no tears for the elimination of a violent perp from the gene pool. A pity these people passed on their genes.
AND . . . I'm glad there's video, so there won't be any of this "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" nonsense.
-
...I've been carrying this idea in my head, of writing the anti-mall-ninja story. It's about a middle-aged guy that only carries a snub-nose revolver, w/ no reloads, and avoids any place where a crime might ever, conceivably happen, under any circumstances.
Hey! That's getting a bit personal, don'cha think? ;)
-
Drejka didn't need to say or do a thing. That's the point. Don't aggravate a situation.
Yeah she parked liked an idiot. But so what? What is the possible upside, (versus what could have (and did) happen), to him personally or society as a whole for him to do anything about it?
And yes, once he was attacked he had the right to defend himself. That's not the issue. Nor is anything the woman said. Yeah, she's entitled and clueless and there is a whole culture of these sorts of folks one would do best to avoid, so avoid them.
If you don't start a thing there's a much lower chance of anything starting.
Don't be the guy who starts the thing.
-
We had a local case a year or so ago in which an elderly male was pushed at a gas station, fell, struck his head and died several days later from the head injury. The assailant was convicted and received a substantial sentence. You can never predict how a fall is going to turn out, especially an accelerated fall by someone shoving you.
-
Warren remarked,
Yeah she parked liked an idiot. But so what? What is the possible upside, (versus what could have (and did) happen), to him personally or society as a whole for him to do anything about it?
Well, "society as a whole" regards it as important enough to provide substantial penalties for parking there without authorization.
I agree that he might have done better by ignoring it, or advising her politely that there are penalties for doing it and moving on...
...but, she shouldn't have parked there in the first place, and Boy Friend shouldn't have been physically aggressive about the matter.
As I said, a lot of people think handicapped spaces are set up as a mere courtesy, a nice gesture, no more, and oh, what the hell, I'm only going in for a minute anyhow. Advising them of the penalties might be doing them a favor.
-
he should have called the parking nazis and let the professionals deal with it.
showed no situational awareness either , waited far to long to shoot.
I get it though, Markeis was one of these ghetto types that think the ability to beat someone up gives them the right to beat someone up.
Drejka should have called it in. He's very obviously not a warrior, if you get out of your car to confront a woman W/kids there is a good chance there is a male who will ( right or wrong ) take umbrage.
So, imo - it was a mistake but I'm only taking it as a learning video, gotta remember to keep an eye open when I'm berating women
-
It's unfortunate that someone died over a parking space, but not all *that* unfortunate because the deceased is the one who decided that was the hill to die on. I hope in retrospect he thought it was worth it.
I feel sorry for the shooter, and the kid. Nobody else.
-
Some of you either haven't seen the video, or you have information the rest of us don't.
The video in the NY Post story doesn't indicate the shooter was anything but polite to the woman or the deceased. Maybe he called her a few kind words, but I don't think we know that yet, if we ever will.
If the advice on offer is to never criticize people's actions when out in public, then fine, but should that really have anything to do with whether you carry? If telling a stranger they're doing something wrong is that dangerous, then it should always be avoided, whether armed or not.
Personally, I like to avoid interacting with people I don't already know and like, but I fear that this isolationist attitude may be one reason why there are so many horror stories about police interactions out there. We're calling them into situations we ought to handle ourselves. I don't know for certain that applies here, though.
But if somebody pushes another person to the ground for whatever reason, the downed person has a legitimate claim to be in in fear of his life or severe bodily injury regardless of physical condition. I trust nobody here has ever been kicked to death.
There's no internet in heaven.
We had a local case a year or so ago in which an elderly male was pushed at a gas station, fell, struck his head and died several days later from the head injury. The assailant was convicted and received a substantial sentence. You can never predict how a fall is going to turn out, especially an accelerated fall by someone shoving you.
The guy had already been shoved to the ground before he decided to pull out his gun, so the second point doesn't apply. As for him getting kicked, the deceased was already backing away before shots were fired. That doesn't make it a bad shoot, but it might suggest that merely drawing his gun was enough.
But I DO NOT fault the man for shooting. As I mentioned, we don't know what condition he was in after the fall. It took him long enough to get to his feet, and he seemed pretty dazed once he did get up. I'm guessing he shot because he was surprised, and slightly injured, and feared for his life. The other guy was unharmed, towering above him, and obviously violent.
-
I trust nobody here has ever been kicked to death.
I was, but I lived to talk about it.
Wait ... ???
-
I'm conflicted on this one for a number of reasons.
I do not like the shot after the guy was starting to back off. Had it been a split second after the shooter went down, I might have another opinion, but it sure looked to me like the aggressor was starting to back away after the gun came out. That to me would be the time to keep the gun up in a defensive position. However I wasn't there, and I'm not going to make a call based on the camera position of a blurry video.
That said, the aggressor pushed HARD. There didn't appear to be any "Hey, back off!" notice. He just saw a guy who was smaller/weaker than him and attacked. It was a pure bully move, IMO. I would be more inclined to think otherwise had I seen him rushing out the door and running straight for the other guy. That might have indicated he feared for his girlfriend's safety. But he didn't. He walked out in an almost nonchalant manner, and when he got within arms reach, he attacked. Sorry, but that to me is a bully move.
As far as overly avoiding situations, I guess I generally do when I'm packing because it seems prudent to do so in our current society with current views on self-defense and guns. I'm likely to be more of a loudmouth without the gun. That is, likely to be. I generally try my best to mind my own beezwax on everyday annoyances, armed or not, but would be more likely to be a buttinski without a gun on my hip. This does not include butting into situations where it looks like someone is in trouble. I've not run into that kind of situation, but if I did, I hope wearing a gun will not cause me to hesitate to act for fear of legal reprisals (even if the gun never leaves the holster).
Wherein the problem lies. "An Armed Society is a Polite Society". If we were to really live by that, the bully would have never made a shove to the ground his first response. Perhaps the guy who was shoved would not have approached the woman, or would have approached her in a different way. In an armed and polite society, only a moron physically attacks someone the way the guy in the video did if the someone is possibly carrying some variant of Sam Colt's equalizer. I will bet real money the shover never for a second considered that his victim might be armed. He fully thought he had the upper hand.
In many ways, to go on a tangent, this is why we have all the Internet / social media vitriol. A bunch of people who think they can do what they want with no repercussions, because they're safe behind their keyboards. They say things they would never say when their nose is within reach of someone's fist. Just like we have people that will make a physical response their first response, especially against someone who looks weaker, because they don't think they have a need to be polite, because it's not ingrained into them to think, "armed society - be polite".
-
It's unfortunate that someone died over a parking space, but not all *that* unfortunate because the deceased is the one who decided that was the hill to die on.
No - someone died after initiating a violent physical assault. Until then, there was only a verbal exchange, and nobody was harmed.
-
No, I didn't see the video and I can't say what I would have done in the situation until I'm IN that situation. I would HOPE that I shoot as a LAST RESORT but if I feel my life/physical well being is reasonably at risk, bang bang baby. :old:
-
Funny, Ben, I deleted a remark as to how the guy's gun helped to make our society a wee bit more polite.
Well, in the long run, anyhow.
I cut it before I posted on the theory that it was impolitic, considering there was a death involved.
-
I'm conflicted on this one for a number of reasons.
I do not like the shot after the guy was starting to back off. Had it been a split second after the shooter went down, I might have another opinion, but it sure looked to me like the aggressor was starting to back away after the gun came out. That to me would be the time to keep the gun up in a defensive position. However I wasn't there, and I'm not going to make a call based on the camera position of a blurry video.
I thought the same thing the first time I watched the video. When I watched it again, I realized that the first two or three shots that were fired came during the gap when I thought the attacker was backing away. It now appears to me that he was backing away because he had already been hit at least twice. I wish I could slow it down so I could get a more accurate shot count. I'm pretty sure there were at least three shots fired, and possibly four.
The other thing is that there is no audio. Just as we don't know what the shooter said to the woman or what the woman said to the shooter, we also don't know what the assailant said to the shooter before, during, or immediately after violently shoving him ass over teakettle.
-
The guy had argued over that parking spot so many times he’d been told by the shop owner to just leave it be.
Man with young children sees someone shouting at his wife and overreacts. Armed self appointed parking lot monitor shoots in response.
Overall, not exactly a poster video for gun owners. The dead guy clearly overreacted, but that’s easy to do when some weirdo is shouting at mommy in front of your five year old.
How many of you think those kids are going to grow up agreeeing that SYG or gun rights at all are important?
-
The guy had argued over that parking spot so many times he’d been told by the shop owner to just leave it be.
I wonder why they thought the law didn't apply to them and that they could park wherever they want...
-
I wonder why they thought the law didn't apply to them and that they could park wherever they want...
Lots of people do - find me a car that isn’t speeding on an interstate for example. Not sure how the large number of people who break road rules is relevant to this. Parking illegally is certainly not an indicator of being dangerous.
-
Man with young children sees someone shouting at his wife and overreacts. Armed self appointed parking lot monitor shoots in response.
IMHO, "overreacting" would be yelling or even threatening. This was battery. It was a physical attack. We can debate regarding the attacked individual's response, but the dead guy clearly initiated a physical attack, and from what I could make out in the video, he did so in a deliberate manner because he felt he had the advantage to do so. Had the victim been an Arnold Schwarzenegger looking guy, I'm betting that the "Get lost, you punk ass bitch" shove would never have happened.
As I said above, I could be inclined to buy, at least partially, an "overreaction" argument if the guy would have run out of the store as if he were worried about his girlfriend. Instead, he walked out with his hands in his pockets as if he were some random guy leaving the store. To me, his approach showed intent, not heat of the moment overreaction.
-
I watched the video a few times. The shooter is lucky I'm not the prosecuter. That was not justified use of deadly force.
-
The problem with this video is what is wrong with many videos, poor quality, lack of audio and a small snippet in time (although this one has all of the actions).
From the video all I can see is a guy confronting another person in a HC parking space from 4-5 feet away. The person inside starts to open the door and the person outside gets approached from the side (piss poor situational awareness for a gun carrier) and is forcibly shoved to the ground. The shover then stood over him, hands on hips most likely saying something but we have no idea what with no verbalization. It look like the shooter went for his gun almost immediately on rolling into a sitting position. Once the gun came out the shover backed up a bit and once again we do not know what was said. Shot was fired in appx 4 seconds, shover grabbed chest and stumbled away.
Here is the Sheriff's press conference about the shooting with a video and the reasoning behind the use of the "Stand Your Ground Law". 30 min long, video of shooting starts at 6:56 and he talks about the law through about 17:00.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyiMpmZGZEk
bob
-
It look like the shooter went for his gun almost immediately on rolling into a sitting position. Once the gun came out the shover backed up a bit and once again we do not know what was said. Shot was fired in appx 4 seconds, shover grabbed chest and stumbled away.
Watch it again. It looked to me like the gun jumped (recoiled) at least three, maybe four, times. I think the shot at which the assailant grabbed his chest was the third shot.
-
Watch it again. It looked to me like the gun jumped (recoiled) at least three, maybe four, times. I think the shot at which the assailant grabbed his chest was the third shot.
Looks like only one shot:
"According to witnesses, McGlockton exited the store and walked over to Drejka who was still arguing with Jacobs in the parking lot. Witnesses say McGlockton forcibly pushed Drejka causing Drejka to fall to the ground. Witnesses told detectives that Drejka was on the ground when he took out a handgun and fired one single round at McGlockton striking him in the chest," police said in a statement.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/gunman-parking-space-shooting-charged-stand-ground-law/story?id=56715356
-
"We don't get to substitute our judgement for Drejka's judgement."
To me, it falls within the SYG "bookends" as laid out by the Sheriff, regardless of what happened up to the physical attack.
Drejka may be charged/indicted just to close the matter one way or the other permanently, but if I were on the grand jury, (or at the hearing) I'd vote no bill based on what we know so far and the Sheriff's explanation of Florida's SYG law and its history in the legislature.
Disclaimer: I watched the press conference to 17:48 minutes, was not interested in watching the Q&A session.
A violent reaction such as that to a "parking lot sheriff" was the thing that was not justified and put Drejka believably in fear of further violence.
For myself, I'd have kept my mouth shut, despite my low opinion about handicapped parking violators.
As I said, a sign advising people of the stiff penalties for violation probably would have eliminated the problem in the first place.
I would suggest to most retailers that it would be advisable to add "penalty" signs to the handicapped signs in their lots just to avoid any incidents regarding violations and the attendant interruptions to your business.
Terry
Addendum:
Looks to me, without seeing the layout of the storefront with respect to the surrounding streets, that they could have parked closer to the store, where there were two or three empty spots right by the entrance, at least in the video portions I saw. It kind of makes me wonder if they were trying to set up a confrontation. Or at least one could raise that question. Not that that matters to the outcome, but.
-
As I said, a sign advising people of the stiff penalties for violation probably would have eliminated the problem in the first place.
I would suggest to most retailers that it would be advisable to add "penalty" signs to the handicapped signs in their lots just to avoid any incidents regarding violations.
The law in my state requires all such signs to include notice that violators will be fined, and to show the dollar amount of the fine. It doesn't matter. Most people who choose to ignore the signs are more than happy to roll the dice and figure they'll be gone before a cop will show up and (maybe) write the ticket.
IMHO, the state should allow tow truck operators to cruise the parking lots and "boot" violators. If you want the boot removed, pay the driver $250. Otherwise, your car gets towed and you also pay impound fees.
-
Looks like only one shot:
It still looks like three to me.
Yes, I know witnesses said it was a single round. Witnesses are not infallible.
-
" It doesn't matter. "
Sure it will. Don't be naïve. It will discourage some of the people some of the time....
And therefore some of the incidents some of the time....
Abraham Lincoln must have been a statistician. <big grin>
On the number of shots, I wondered what he was groping around on the ground for before he got up. My first impression (as a reloader, myself) was that he was picking up brass --at least twice. So ???
But given the violence of that attack, he could have been just picking up stuff that got knocked out his pockets or hands or something.
Edited for typo
-
Definitely three shots.
-
" It doesn't matter. "
Sure it will. Don't be naïve. It will discourage some of the people some of the time....
Look who's calling whom naive!
It's been the law here for more than thirty years. It doesn't discourage anybody.
-
I understand that at Apple, Steve Jobs was notorious for parking in handicapped spaces to save time. His lawyers paid the fines as a cost of doing business.
-
Oh, piffle, Hawkmoon.
But the penalty signs haven't been up, at least not here. That was my point, not that there is in fact a penalty. As I said before, I think a lot of people believe the signs are a matter of mere courtesy, and don't realize they're actually law.
Anyhow, piffle.
-
Oh, piffle.
But the penalty signs haven't been up, at least not here. That was my point, not that there is in fact a penalty. As I said before, I think a lot of people believe the signs are a mater of mere courtesy, and not law.
Anyhow, piffle.
You just like saying "piffle" :)
-
The guy had argued over that parking spot so many times he’d been told by the shop owner to just leave it be.
Man with young children sees someone shouting at his wife and overreacts. Armed self appointed parking lot monitor shoots in response.
Overall, not exactly a poster video for gun owners. The dead guy clearly overreacted, but that’s easy to do when some weirdo is shouting at mommy in front of your five year old.
How many of you think those kids are going to grow up agreeeing that SYG or gun rights at all are important?
I'm sorry Trayvon Martin turned out be a thug that got his just deserts, and Zimmerman hasn't been caught doing anything illegal since then. Well, no, I'm actually rather pleased that the guy who got killed turned out to be the one who started the fight.
The sheriff said the kid was inside during the shouting match. Was there another child in the car? Either way, it's obviously McGlockton that chose to escalate the matter from shouting to violence.
The sheriff also said he's barred from making an arrest, and will refer the case to the state attorney. We'll see what happens there.
-
...
The guy was shoved, HARD, and landed HARD. The shock of being attacked like that alone makes me inclined to give him leeway on his response.
We are average people who carry guns for SD. We are not operators, badasses or expert gun fighters. Our sidearm is for one thing and one thing alone, too save our bacon when we are physically threatened and the physical threat needs to be one that is significant enough to produce, at the least, a nasty adrenaline surge. Florida's SYG seems to acknowledge that, even if some of you are not.
Should we train to handle the shock of being attacked? Yes. Should we train to have better situational awareness? Yes.
But expecting us to be experts or for that training to be perfect is unrealistic and defeats the point of CCW in the first place. Our sidearm is so we can live out our lives with a extra layer of safety, not a reason to not live our lives as we see fit in effort to avoid any and all potential conflict. (Which includes being an obnoxious parking lot monitor if one is so inclined)
No one, CCW or not, should go out looking for a fight. No one, CCW or not, should act like an ahole and, NO ONE, CCW or not, should escalate an argument into a physical confrontation.
However, there is no law against the first too. There are laws about the last one.
In this situation, the only one who broke the LAW was McGlockton.
-
Say what you want about the shooter's lack of situational awareness. IMHO he was ambushed. Note that the female stayed in the car until her baby daddy came out of the store and was halfway to the shooter. THEN the woman opened the car door and got out, distracting the shooter while baby daddy strolled up all casual and nonchalant, with his hands in his pockets, and then unleashed a sneak attack.
A cynical person might even think they had rehearsed that tactic.
-
I understand that at Apple, Steve Jobs was notorious for parking in handicapped spaces to save time. His lawyers paid the fines as a cost of doing business.
Good luck saving time that way in TX; a lot of cops here will have dispatch or the property owner get the tow truck rolling before they start writing the ticket. (And if the property owner refuses to cooperate, they can get ticketed for failing to provide the required handicap spaces.) If there's someone in the car, they'll be given one chance to move it and just get the ticket. For most, any answer other than "oh, sorry, here's my parking tag that I forgot to hang up" or "oops, I'll move it right now" will get you removed and the car impounded...on top of the now-$500-minimum fine. (Third and subsequent offenses minimum $800 fine and 20-50 hours of community service.)
-
I wonder why they thought the law didn't apply to them and that they could park wherever they want...
This can actually be interesting. In most areas, parking in a handicap is just a fine - no points involved.
As a result, some people consider handicapped parking fines more of a intermittent parking fee, than something "wrong".
Like how in some states you can always satisfy a secured loan by turning the security item over, as long as you haven't deliberately damaged/destroyed it. It was seen during the housing bubble burst - "strategic defaults" for underwater homes. People would find a home nearby that was substantially cheaper because of the burst, buy it and get the loan and all that, then move out and turn their old house, now worth substantially less than the loan, over to the bank to get rid of all that debt.
-
Does anyone know what he used to shoot McGlockton...?
Lots of people do - find me a car that isn’t speeding on an interstate for example. Not sure how the large number of people who break road rules is relevant to this. Parking illegally is certainly not an indicator of being dangerous.
What? What does speeding have to do with this?
-
IMHO, "overreacting" would be yelling or even threatening. This was battery. It was a physical attack. We can debate regarding the attacked individual's response, but the dead guy clearly initiated a physical attack, and from what I could make out in the video, he did so in a deliberate manner because he felt he had the advantage to do so. Had the victim been an Arnold Schwarzenegger looking guy, I'm betting that the "Get lost, you punk ass bitch" shove would never have happened.
As I said above, I could be inclined to buy, at least partially, an "overreaction" argument if the guy would have run out of the store as if he were worried about his girlfriend. Instead, he walked out with his hands in his pockets as if he were some random guy leaving the store. To me, his approach showed intent, not heat of the moment overreaction.
The shove was definitely a crime, I agree. Overreaction doesn’t mean he was legal.
My point is that having this sort of confrontation would’ve been at least foreseeable to the shooter. Now he’s killed a man in front of his children in part because he was fixated on enforcing the parking rules. The OP was right - it wasn’t worth it (even if legally justified - which as you can see from the comments here isn’t in the bag. Not everyone in a position to make a call on charges is going to see that video the same way.)
-
The shove was definitely a crime, I agree. Overreaction doesn’t mean he was legal.
My point is that having this sort of confrontation would’ve been at least foreseeable to the shooter. Now he’s killed a man in front of his children in part because he was fixated on enforcing the parking rules. The OP was right - it wasn’t worth it (even if legally justified - which as you can see from the comments here isn’t in the bag. Not everyone in a position to make a call on charges is going to see that video the same way.)
No, he killed a man who physically attacked him. All the stuff about the parking spot and the words with the mother prior to that are just window dressing. The emotional baggage of the children inside the store is not relevant at all though I am sure a lawyer will try to use it.
-
If I were to make an issue of it, I would be more inclined to take a picture and report the parking violation. If asked, I would say why and walk away. The reason is not to avoid an argument, it is to avoid the the costs and headache of the legal battle. You can be 100% right and still be out $100,000 or more is legal costs. Prison would suck worse I guess. I thought I heard Zimmerman's legal bills were $300,000 to $400,000.
-
The guy was standing a respectful distance from the car at the beginning of the video. He wasn't right up on her window, but a few feet away. We are only getting one side of this and there is no audio so we have no idea if he was just saying "please move your car" or if he was cussing her out. Also, as noted previously, she may have taken an attitude and started yelling back. I am very inclined to believe the last happened as that seems to be a cultural response these days.
The only thing that bothered me about the shoot was that the guy hadn't followed up his shove and gotten closer there was a few seconds time between then and the shots. We have no audio so we don't know if threats were made. I can't tell how many shots were fired. In the end, I am reluctant to get hypercritical about self defense shootings. IMO, he was justified after the physical attack and I don't think minor critiques should automatically make the guy a murderer without more information that proves otherwise.
He wasn't arrested, but he may still be charged. They may try to go after him like Zimmerman, but with the video, the nature of the events is a little more clear. The emotional story line of the article may still be used against him.
-
The guy had argued over that parking spot so many times he’d been told by the shop owner to just leave it be.
interesting, you have a cite?
-
interesting, you have a cite?
Somebody posted a video of the Sheriff's statement on this. He confirmed that, and said things got loud. He didn't say anything about children being in the car, or seeing the action, like De Selby keeps harping on. Funny how he keeps talking about Drejka shooting a man in front of his kids, but doesn't complain about Dad starting said fight.
-
My point is that having this sort of confrontation would’ve been at least foreseeable to the shooter.
What evidence do you have that the shooter is (or was) psychic?
-
The only thing that bothered me about the shoot was that the guy hadn't followed up his shove and gotten closer there was a few seconds time between then and the shots.
But the assailant DID follow up the shove by walking over and standing right over the shooter. The assailant then started to back up a bit, which may have been because he saw the victim was reaching for a gun. We don't know what the assailant said between the shove and when he apparently began to back up. When he fist stepped closer he may well have been telling the shooter he was going to stomp him.
I'm still calling it three shots. The video is grainy, but you can see the slide move three times. The third shot, you can also see gunsmoke.
-
Quote from Hawkmoon, Reply #42, Today at 3:37:10 PM :
...
A cynical person might even think they had rehearsed that tactic.
Quote from me, Reply #31. Today at 11:43:55 AM :
...
Addendum:
Looks to me, without seeing the layout of the storefront with respect to the surrounding streets, that they could have parked closer to the store, where there were two or three empty spots right by the entrance, at least in the video portions I saw. It kind of makes me wonder if they were trying to set up a confrontation. Or at least one could raise that question. Not that that matters to the outcome, but.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions, Hawkmoon.
Terry
-
https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/No-arrest-in-fatal-shooting-during-argument-over-handicap-parking-space_170174041 (https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/No-arrest-in-fatal-shooting-during-argument-over-handicap-parking-space_170174041)
At the convenience store Friday, customers filed in and out, buying cigarettes, lottery tickets and sodas, many of them familiar with details of the shooting. Mustafa Hashen, a clerk and witness, said both men were regulars.
It wasn’t the first time he saw Drejka in a fight with another customer. A couple of months back, Rick Kelly stopped by the store, parking his tanker truck in the same handicap spot.
The details to Thursday’s incident are similar: Drejka walking around the truck checking for decals, then confronting Kelly, 31, about why he parked there. The fight escalated, and Drejka threatened to shoot him, Kelly said.
"It’s a repeat. It happened to me the first time. The second time it’s happening, someone’s life got taken," Kelly said. "He provoked that."
Records show Drejka does not have a criminal history in Florida, although the Sheriff’s Office had prior contact with him in 2012 when a driver accused him of pulling a gun during a road rage incident. Drejka denied he showed the gun, and the accuser declined to press charges. McGlockton’s history included a drug conviction in 2010 and an arrest for aggravated battery a decade ago, records show, but the charge was dropped.
The more I watch the video the more it looks to me like he shot as the assailant was backing away. It’s obviously not okay to shoot in retaliation for a criminal assault.
Running around starting arguments over a parking spot is dumb in the first place. I wonder if the history of threatening to shoot people will weigh on the decision to prosecute or not.
-
I'm not sure its a bad shoot at all.
We only see what the camera sees, and not from the standpoint of the shooter.
From the shooter's point of view, it most certainly could have appeared that the deceased was blading his body away and drawing a firearm- the right hand of the deceased was most likely hidden from view of the shooter, and was at the waist level.
-
I'm not sure its a bad shoot at all.
We only see what the camera sees, and not from the standpoint of the shooter.
From the shooter's point of view, it most certainly could have appeared that the deceased was blading his body away and drawing a firearm- the right hand of the deceased was most likely hidden from view of the shooter, and was at the waist level.
I don't know about all that, but he hadn't backed away very far. The shooter was on the ground, and his actions after the shooting suggest that he had trouble getting to his feet. So he may have felt trapped by the situation more than the rest of us might.
-
i had nearly the same thing happen to me about 10 yrs ago, a much larger/younger guy knocked me down, I cleared leather and advised him that a rapid departure
is in his own self interest.
overall, I think the shooter made a mistake and has some culpability but the lions share is the guy knocking him down.
Once you attack someone - some chitchat might get into the fan.
this is a good analysis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TBXz2_o0KM&t=570s
-
What drives me crazy is that every time one of these comes up, the talking heads on TV all claim that "stand your ground" allows anyone to legally use deadly force for no reason as long as they claim they were scared. They ignore the elements of "reasonableness" that are involved, and people that know better never seem to call them on it.
-
this is a good analysis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TBXz2_o0KM&t=570s
IMHO it's far from a good analysis.
Around the 3:00 mark, the speaker says the shooter created a "conflict." Sorry, but I don't think politely pointing out to someone that he/she is parked in a reserved space and doesn't have the required permit is necessarily initiating a conflict. No, we don't know that his initial words were polite, but we also don't know that they were not.
At around 3:10 he says "Just because you're carrying a firearm does not give you a right to be a jerk, it does not give you a right to get after people and tell them what they should be doing." In reality, everyone has a right to be a jerk, and everyone has a right to tell someone that they're breaking the law. Whether or not you may elect to do so is a personal decision, but we all DO have that right. And it's not dependent on carrying a gun.
4:32 -- "I gotta be honest with you, stand your ground has nothing to do with this event, at any capacity." The sheriff of the jurisdiction seems to disagree, since that was the law he cited in announcing that his office would not pursue charges unless directed to do so by the prosecutor.
5:28 - "Pointing a gun at him, pointing a firearm is not deadly force -- it's force, but it's not deadly force." Florida statutes don't seem to have a definition of "force" vs. "deadly force." In most states, pointing a firearm at someone IS deemed to be use of deadly force. It appears that court precedent in Florida may have established that pointing without firing is "force" rather than "deadly force."
6:04 - "Now notice there's about two seconds here and the problem we're going to see is, is between the draw and pointing it at the guy, and then he took two seconds and the guy was backing away from him and you could see him quartered away from him when the shot went off." The elapsed time on the video does not show a two second delay between drawing and firing. And I still say the video clearly (as clearly as is possible with a grainy image) shows at least three shots, not one.
It goes on. But thanks for posting the link, because I have now identified a trainer from whom I absolutely would not take a course.
-
Sure looks like 3 shots to me which removes the time delay prior to the first shot problem ... this is an election year ... I expect him to be charged ... after all Zimmerman was clearly innocent from day one yet he was charged for political reasons .... The Democrats won't let this event go to waste ...
[popcorn]
-
all excellent points - which is why i come here to APS for the real expertise.
one thing i have noticed from my own personal experience is i am a lot less likely to publicly correct someone, stand my ground etc when i carry.
I am a meek fraidy cat when i carry.
my inner nyc jerk arises when im unarmed
-
I suppose one could gently and smilingly offer "Say, you know, there's a $xxx.xx fine for not having a handicapped sticker here. Just trying to save you some grief, buddy."
Basically, I'm a wimp too. Worst I've done is park the store's electric cart right close to the driver's side door and skulk away like the armed coward I am.
I've had a permit for over 15 years and looking back, it's kind of amazing how polite I've become, especially when driving. And especially since I'm from New York where a graded part of the Driver's Test is hollering invective out the car window and using various Italian gestures.
Terry, 230RN
-
Pay attention to the guy that exits the store after the one who does the shoving, it seemed to me he was headed that way to help de-escalate (?) or referee when the gun came out. He suddenly stops and side steps. You can't see the gun come out but his actions tell me he could. The shot was within 2-3 seconds of that. I think the shooter will spend a bundle on a lawyer but will not be charged.
bob
-
IMHO it's far from a good analysis.
Around the 3:00 mark, the speaker says the shooter created a "conflict." Sorry, but I don't think politely pointing out to someone that he/she is parked in a reserved space and doesn't have the required permit is necessarily initiating a conflict. No, we don't know that his initial words were polite, but we also don't know that they were not.
That seems to be a common thing now. Where they attack the person who wasn't breaking the law instead of the one that was. "How else he going to get his money?"
-
The president has a rally in Tampa next week ... Bet the shooter is indicted before then ... [popcorn]
-
IMHO it's far from a good analysis.
Around the 3:00 mark, the speaker says the shooter created a "conflict." Sorry, but I don't think politely pointing out to someone that he/she is parked in a reserved space and doesn't have the required permit is necessarily initiating a conflict. No, we don't know that his initial words were polite, but we also don't know that they were not.
At around 3:10 he says "Just because you're carrying a firearm does not give you a right to be a jerk, it does not give you a right to get after people and tell them what they should be doing." In reality, everyone has a right to be a jerk, and everyone has a right to tell someone that they're breaking the law. Whether or not you may elect to do so is a personal decision, but we all DO have that right. And it's not dependent on carrying a gun.
4:32 -- "I gotta be honest with you, stand your ground has nothing to do with this event, at any capacity." The sheriff of the jurisdiction seems to disagree, since that was the law he cited in announcing that his office would not pursue charges unless directed to do so by the prosecutor.
5:28 - "Pointing a gun at him, pointing a firearm is not deadly force -- it's force, but it's not deadly force." Florida statutes don't seem to have a definition of "force" vs. "deadly force." In most states, pointing a firearm at someone IS deemed to be use of deadly force. It appears that court precedent in Florida may have established that pointing without firing is "force" rather than "deadly force."
6:04 - "Now notice there's about two seconds here and the problem we're going to see is, is between the draw and pointing it at the guy, and then he took two seconds and the guy was backing away from him and you could see him quartered away from him when the shot went off." The elapsed time on the video does not show a two second delay between drawing and firing. And I still say the video clearly (as clearly as is possible with a grainy image) shows at least three shots, not one.
It goes on. But thanks for posting the link, because I have now identified a trainer from whom I absolutely would not take a course.
I was just watching that this morning and when I reopened this thread. On the pointing of a gun, I have been told that (at least in Texas) you can't draw and threaten someone with a gun without justification. Also, the video that Active Self Defense uses starts a little earlier and we see that there are at least 3 parking spots closer to the door when the guy went over to check for tags.
"Stand Your Ground" doesn't really apply in the traditional sense, but it does apply in the sense that part of Florida law gives the guy some immunity from prosecution as he was defending himself.
Re-watching it this morning when I saw the Active Self Defense video, I did notice the guy took a few more steps toward him after shoving him. He does take a step back after seeing the guy drawing a gun, but he didn't exactly retreat. He is still right there. I think I see what y'all are seeing in thinking there were three shots. The footage is pretty grainy to say for sure. The part I don't like about Active Self Defense is he applies emotion and intent to the shooter confronting the driver that he cannot know and assumes the guy is just some parking nazi being a jerk.
1. Yes, he was justified in shooting based on the guy attacking him.
2. Yes, he probably could have avoided it by not hanging around to argue with the woman driver. That is just for 3rd party advice and doesn't remove the shooter's justification.
3. He might have gotten through this by just displaying the firearm without shooting, but without audio to know what is being said, that would just be a guess. I think this idea is eroded by the fact that the guy blindsided him with a shove to the ground without saying a word.
4. When it comes to advice for others, Yes, he was in the right and legally justified, but he is probably going to pay for it with legal costs even if it doesn't go to court. If a civil lawsuit were to be allowed to proceed, he could easily get hurt that way also. Just something to keep in mind for the rest of us.
-
Maybe this guy who had a history of threatening to shoot people over that parking spot wasn’t so clean - what if the guy who did the shoving g heard the shooter threaten to shoot his wife? Seems realistic from what the store owner and other victims of the shooters threats had heard
-
Maybe this guy who had a history of threatening to shoot people over that parking spot wasn’t so clean - what if the guy who did the shoving g heard the shooter threaten to shoot his wife? Seems realistic from what the store owner and other victims of the shooters threats had heard
Do you have a cite for the history? I didn't see that in the links. The only only other people I see were in the store. I will grant that one or two more cars had pulled up so someone may have heard a piece of the conversation, but they didn't hear all of it and that still doesn't justify the physical attack.
-
Do you have a cite for the history? I didn't see that in the links. The only only other people I see were in the store. I will grant that one or two more cars had pulled up so someone may have heard a piece of the conversation, but they didn't hear all of it and that still doesn't justify the physical attack.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/No-arrest-in-fatal-shooting-during-argument-over-handicap-parking-space_170174041 (https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/No-arrest-in-fatal-shooting-during-argument-over-handicap-parking-space_170174041)
Would a physical attack be justified if the shooter had said “I’ll shoot you” or “I’ve got a gun”? Given he both brandished and threatened to shoot someone in the past both are realistic
-
I was just watching that this morning and when I reopened this thread. On the pointing of a gun, I was thinking I have been told that (at least in Texas) you can't draw and threaten someone with a gun without justification especially when not on your own property.
With the caveat that I'm not an "expert", but have taken defensive pistol courses, I think the "Don't draw your gun unless you're going to use it" thing has all too often been, "over-interpreted". I would assume the law in Texas (and likely other states) is there to prevent negligent use of a gun. The problem comes in letter of the law vs spirit of the law.
I think the basic message of, "Don't draw your gun every time you feel threatened, or think you're going to be threatened" is generally good advice. At least to the point of keeping people from being Homer Simpson with the gun bottle opener. However, there are a LOT of situations that can be deescalated if a gun comes into view (as a next to last resort). Certainly, a gun you're ready to use versus "Hey I've got a bloody gun!"
https://youtu.be/A3JMYEKvm8Q
-
Arguing with strangers over handicapped parking is moronic, but not illegal or immoral. Let us all take note.
Shooting people who violently attack an innocent person is 100% legal and moral. Good shoot, by a stupid person who hopefully learned a lesson.
I think the real lesson was learned by the thug who though it was acceptable to attack someone else.
-
With the caveat that I'm not an "expert", but have taken defensive pistol courses, I think the "Don't draw your gun unless you're going to use it" thing has all too often been, "over-interpreted". I would assume the law in Texas (and likely other states) is there to prevent negligent use of a gun. The problem comes in letter of the law vs spirit of the law.
I think the basic message of, "Don't draw your gun every time you feel threatened, or think you're going to be threatened" is generally good advice. At least to the point of keeping people from being Homer Simpson with the gun bottle opener. However, there are a LOT of situations that can be deescalated if a gun comes into view (as a next to last resort). Certainly, a gun you're ready to use versus "Hey I've got a bloody gun!"
https://youtu.be/A3JMYEKvm8Q
I do think there is a difference between drawing and holding it at your side versus pointing it at someone. When it is discussed, most people just simplify it to not drawing at all. Without video, someone can lie and claim you pointed the gun and it can be hard to disprove.
-
Maybe this guy who had a history of threatening to shoot people over that parking spot wasn’t so clean - what if the guy who did the shoving g heard the shooter threaten to shoot his wife? Seems realistic from what the store owner and other victims of the shooters threats had heard
I would think that if that was the case the guy wouldn't of stopped after shoving him down, I know I wouldn't of have.
-
https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/No-arrest-in-fatal-shooting-during-argument-over-handicap-parking-space_170174041 (https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/No-arrest-in-fatal-shooting-during-argument-over-handicap-parking-space_170174041)
Would a physical attack be justified if the shooter had said “I’ll shoot you” or “I’ve got a gun”? Given he both brandished and threatened to shoot someone in the past both are realistic
I guess I would ask then who he would have threatened and when? Was it the woman or the deceased? He appeared to have not even seen the man approach before he was attacked. Can you show the deceased heard a threat as he walked up? Without audio, that is speculation and doesn't overcome the reasonable doubt in my mind.
As freakazoid just said, the whole thing wasn't smart, but he was legally justified. He could have made different choices, but then the deceased could have made different choices also.
-
Records show Drejka does not have a criminal history in Florida, although the Sheriff’s Office had prior contact with him in 2012 when a driver accused him of pulling a gun during a road rage incident. Drejka denied he showed the gun, and the accuser declined to press charges. McGlockton’s history included a drug conviction in 2010 and an arrest for aggravated battery a decade ago, records show, but the charge was dropped.
From DeSelby's recent link. The shooter had a previous incident where he was a accused of showing a gun. It doesn't say he was the aggressor either. I think it is a stretch to claim that bears on this incident without more info. It does say the deceased was arrested for aggravated battery which is pretty much what he did this time.
It is something to keep in mind, but I think it still not enough to negate my view that it is legal self defense.
-
Again, with concession that the dead guy made first physical contact, after watching the video several more times, I have to confirm my thoughts that the shooter was an idiot beforehand.
Thinking about it, handicapped spot aside, if I saw some guy walking all around my vehicle checking things out, I'd be inclined to put my hand on my own gun and be ready to defend myself against a potential threat. Also, I agree with the analysis that his leaning forward posture and finger wagging indicated that he was at the very least being less than polite, and possibly aggressive. I'm thinking most of us here would be at the very least in condition yellow at that point, and ready to transition to orange.
Maybe someone is a harmless crank, but maybe they're a carjacker. How would I know? Which is why you shouldn't be circling my parked car while I'm in it. Again, with no audio we don't know for sure, but the video would certainly put me in a defensive posture if I were sitting in the car.
-
Maybe this guy who had a history of threatening to shoot people over that parking spot wasn’t so clean - what if the guy who did the shoving g heard the shooter threaten to shoot his wife? Seems realistic from what the store owner and other victims of the shooters threats had heard
I seriously doubt that any history of prior events would be allowed at trial.
-
I seriously doubt that any history of prior events would be allowed at trial.
I wonder if the dead guy had any prior police encounters . . .
-
I wonder if the dead guy had any prior police encounters . . .
McGlockton’s history included a drug conviction in 2010 and an arrest for aggravated battery a decade ago, records show, but the charge was dropped.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/No-arrest-in-fatal-shooting-during-argument-over-handicap-parking-space_170174041
bob
-
To me, despite what a monumental jerk he was, I don't think what happened or what was said before the shove is relevant unless there's some Florida equivalent to a "fighting words" law which are relevant and put in evidence.
Not a "good" shoot, but not an illegal shoot, either. According to the information at present and what we are told about Florida law.
I too, think he shot more than once and it looks like perhaps he was picking up ejected brass. In any case, number of shots taken are irrelevant to the self-defense aspect unless there was damage or injury elsewhere from the extra shots.
Terry
-
To me, despite what a monumental jerk he was, I don't think what happened or what was said before the shove is relevant unless there's some Florida equivalent to a "fighting words" law which are relevant and put in evidence.
Not a "good" shoot, but not an illegal shoot, either. According to the information at present and what we are told about Florida law.
I too, think he shot more than once and it looks like perhaps he was picking up ejected brass. In any case, number of shots taken are irrelevant to the self-defense aspect unless there was damage or injury elsewhere from the extra shots.
Terry
Agreed. Also, the guy who got shot wasn't there to hear most of the argument. All he may have heard was the short bit as he was walking up. Unless someone has a recording, I don't think we will know if that was relevant.
-
To me, despite what a monumental jerk he was, I don't think what happened or what was said before the shove is relevant unless there's some Florida equivalent to a "fighting words" law which are relevant and put in evidence.
But the shooter never said a word to the assailant, and he made no attempt to touch the car or open the door, so the assailant couldn't (if he had lived) have legitimately claimed that he was "defending" his baby factory.
-
Perhaps it's just like the Zimmerman/Martin incident: "When aholes Collide" (would make a great TV movie)
-
Perhaps it's just like the Zimmerman/Martin incident: "When aholes Collide" (would make a great TV movie)
That's the best analysis I've yet seen on this incident.
-
Perhaps it's just like the Zimmerman/Martin incident: "When aholes Collide" (would make a great TV movie)
It does pay to make sure you are 1) armed and 2) on the right side of the law no matter what sort of person you are.
-
But the shooter never said a word to the assailant, and he made no attempt to touch the car or open the door, so the assailant couldn't (if he had lived) have legitimately claimed that he was "defending" his baby factory.
Let’s get this straight:
Any comments about the shooters mind are speculative and second guessing, there’s no audio, etc, he’s a victim.
That same video yields tremendous insight into the malicious state of mind of the dead guy?
The shooter had a documented history of threatening people with a firearm over that same parking space.
Also, what makes the woman here a “baby factory”? How did you get anything out of that video on the nature of the decedent’s family life?
-
Let’s get this straight:
Any comments about the shooters mind are speculative and second guessing, there’s no audio, etc, he’s a victim.
Correct.
That same video yields tremendous insight into the malicious state of mind of the dead guy?
Yes, because he assaulted the shooter in a sneak attack, without making even a momentary attempt to figure out what was going on. He just attacked. Also, although not in the video, he had a prior criminal histury.
The shooter had a documented history of threatening people with a firearm over that same parking space.
I thought you didn't want to discuss anything not shown in the video.
Also, what makes the woman here a “baby factory”? How did you get anything out of that video on the nature of the decedent’s family life?
Not from the video, from the article linked in the opening post. She's 24 years old, she has three kids (ages 5, 3, and 4 months) with the deceased assailant, and they're not married.
-
Let’s get this straight:
Any comments about the shooters mind are speculative and second guessing, there’s no audio, etc, he’s a victim.
That same video yields tremendous insight into the malicious state of mind of the dead guy?
The shooter had a documented history of threatening people with a firearm over that same parking space.
Also, what makes the woman here a “baby factory”? How did you get anything out of that video on the nature of the decedent’s family life?
That's.... not quite true either.... There's an allegation, by one person, that has come forward *after* this shooting to state he said "I"ll shoot you" during a dispute over the handicapped space. From what I've been able to find, there's not even a police report, much less an arrest, regarding this alleged threat. Additionally, there's this report: "Records show Drejka does not have a criminal history in Florida, although the Sheriff’s Office had prior contact with him in 2012 when a driver accused him of pulling a gun during a road rage incident. Drejka denied he showed the gun, and the accuser declined to press charges." I'm sorry, but if someone actually threatened me with a gun, you bet your ass I'm pressing charges.
-
Also, what makes the woman here a “baby factory”? How did you get anything out of that video on the nature of the decedent’s family life?
'Baby factory' is an unfair slander- there are plenty of people in their early 20s that have several kids... its literally the best time for a woman to have kids. However 'entitled twunt' does fit.
-
T J Sotomayor on this: https://youtu.be/-C1gNObpcWw
-
T J Sotomayor on this: https://youtu.be/-C1gNObpcWw
Whew! "I'm Tommy Sotomayor. Eff you and good night."
In general, I think Tommy sort of has it right, but I disagree with him in believing that Drejka was trying to set up a black man for a shooting. I don't know Mr. Drejka, but I do know people who get personally upset when those who don't have permits park in handicapped parking spaces. I'm one of them. Personally, I'ma craven coward, so I don't get in people's faces -- I call a cop. The problem is, 90 percent of the time either dispatch "can't spare" an officer, or the officer doesn't arrive until after the scofflaw has fled the scene of the crime.
There's nothing racial about it. It's about being annoyed with people who don't think rules and laws apply to them. My response is to call a cop -- we pay them to deal with those things and that kind of person. Mr. Drejka's response is to speak up for himself. There's no way to know, but the store owner was cited as telling some "journalist" that Drejka often hassled people about parking illegally in the handicapped space. Are we supposed to believe that ALL the people he hassled were blacks? I don't think so.
On top of this, it's in Florida, and these are young people. You can't see from the security cam video because by the time the woman gets out of the car the driver's window is rolled down, but I'll bet when she parked there the window was rolled up, the a/c was blasting, and I'll bet the window is tinted with limousine film so dark that not even Superman could see who was behind the wheel. I don't think Drejka picked on her because she's black. I think he picked on her because she parked illegally in a handicapped parking space, and that happens to be Drejka's trigger issue.
Case closed. No racial motive behind it.
Now let's flip the coin: How would McGlockton have behaved if he had come out of the store and some BIG black dude was standing there chewing out the GF for being parked illegally in a handicapped space? Is it not at least possible that McGlockton's action was racaily motivated, that he overreacted because "that white MF'er" was arguing with his woman?
-
Tommy's stuff is usually pretty good but is, after all, seen through the filter of a black man. I agree with a LOT he says and disagree with some of his views but, I'm a white guy in case ya didn't know. ;)
-
But the shooter never said a word to the assailant, and he made no attempt to touch the car or open the door, so the assailant couldn't (if he had lived) have legitimately claimed that he was "defending" his baby factory.
Me:
I don't think what happened or what was said before the shove is relevant unless there's some Florida equivalent to a "fighting words" law which are relevant and put in evidence.
It is a possibility that whatever was being said was being transmitted to the pusher by "Miss Pusher's" phone. We don't know at present, from the video, but it's possible that fighting words could have used by any of the parties. Witnesses in the store might know. Stuff like that is what investigators investigate, and it takes time for interviewed information to be obtained, digested, and formalized by investigators.
I only brought up fighting words as a qualification to my other remarks. Note the "unless."
-
Me:
It is a possibility that whatever was being said was being transmitted to the pusher by "Miss Pusher's" phone. We don't know at present, from the video, but it's possible that fighting words could have used by any of the parties. Witnesses in the store might know. Stuff like that is what investigators investigate, and it takes time for interviewed information to be obtained, digested, and formalized by investigators.
I only brought up fighting words as a qualification to my other remarks. Note the "unless."
Those words certainly could be relevant. For example, if the shooter said something like “lady I will shoot you if you don’t move this car” before being shoved, thats the sort of fact that would land him in seriously hot water
-
Those words certainly could be relevant. For example, if the shooter said something like “lady I will shoot you if you don’t move this car” before being shoved, thats the sort of fact that would land him in seriously hot water
Fantasize much?
-
Those words certainly could be relevant. For example, if the shooter said something like “lady I will shoot you if you don’t move this car” before being shoved, thats the sort of fact that would land him in seriously hot water
That's true. However, if that had happened the girlfriend would have shouted it far and wide, and the media would have gleefully run with it.
-
Those words certainly could be relevant. For example, if the shooter said something like “lady I will shoot you if you don’t move this car” before being shoved, thats the sort of fact that would land him in seriously hot water
Only if it could be proven that the assailant heard the [hypothetical] words.
-
Only if it could be proven that the assailant heard the [hypothetical] words.
And he isn't talking. ;)
bob
-
Witnesses say when he shoved Drejka, McGlockton had his hands in the air, attempting to surrender, while loudly shouting, "I can't breathe!" He had just been in the story buying Skittles, you see.
-
Witnesses say when he shoved Drejka, McGlockton had his hands in the air, attempting to surrender, while loudly shouting, "I can't breathe!" He had just been in the story buying Skittles, you see.
Snark levels are exceeding limits! I canna hold her for much longer like this!
-
Those words certainly could be relevant. For example, if the shooter said something like “lady I will shoot you if you don’t move this car” before being shoved, thats the sort of fact that would land him in seriously hot water
(https://dobrador.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/17884394_10154176852652271_1809240513045015038_n.jpg)
-
The real question is: did Drejka use a large-caliber firearm?
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=57914.0
-
Witnesses say when he shoved Drejka, McGlockton had his hands in the air, attempting to surrender, while loudly shouting, "I can't breathe!" He had just been in the story buying Skittles, you see.
Snicker, Snicker.
Obviously, Drejka found it necessary to shoot before McGlockton had time to obtain and put on his bulletproof vest, thereby proving premeditation.
-
If only he had been named McTaserton, he might still be here today.
-
Noice!
-
I have heard some criticism of the guy in the last few days and see people saying he should be charged with murder and given no slack. I don't think this guy did everything right and I think this video would be a good training tool in what to do and NOT do for concealed carry. I just have a hard time saying this guy committed murder based on being a second or two late in firing or failing to recognize that an attacker may not be following up on their initially attack. For everyone who says we throw too many people in prison, they often want to see people like this locked up immediately. I think some of the people criticizing him must have experience being confronted by people like him.
For me, the main issue is a much younger, bigger guy walked up and shoved him hard to the ground. He didn't just bump him back or get in his face, he knocked him to the ground hard. Unless there was some prior threat that justified that action (I didn't see that mentioned in the article), it doesn't matter if he was arguing with the guy's girlfriend. The guy attacked him and got shot. With what we know, that is the summary of events. Unless something new comes out, I can't see how I would consider it differently.
-
Those words certainly could be relevant. For example, if the shooter said something like “lady I will shoot you if you don’t move this car” before being shoved, thats the sort of fact that would land him in seriously hot water
What was said prior to the physical assault could be relevant if we knew what it was. For now, all we know if what the woman claimed. And I think some are assuming things based on watching the man confront the woman. He could also have been telling her that sugary drinks are bad for her health and she should stick with water. With any case, more evidence would affect our view of the actions, but I doubt we will get that. If the police had more to go on, I think he would be arrested by now.
One final thought: sometimes self defense is ugly. We should be careful to judge actions correctly lest we erode our own rights.
-
Perhaps it's just like the Zimmerman/Martin incident: "When aholes Collide" (would make a great TV movie)
Somebody beat you to it.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6719962/?ref_=nv_sr_1
From the looks of the trailer, it's looking to beatify Martin
-
Somebody beat you to it.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6719962/?ref_=nv_sr_1
From the looks of the trailer, it's looking to beatify Martin
I meant the title would be good for a TV movie, not necessarily St Trayvon.
-
I'm glad the shooter's fate depends on a small group of people who carefully examine the facts, and the law; and not on internet blowhards.
-
I'm glad the shooter's fate depends on a small group of people who carefully examine the facts, and the law; and not on internet blowhards.
Well, we can hope so....
-
Interesting take from both pro-gun politicians and the NRA:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/30/republican-lawmaker-nra-lobbyist-challenge-florida-sheriff-on-stand-your-ground-stance-in-shooting.html
-
Interesting take from both pro-gun politicians and the NRA:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/30/republican-lawmaker-nra-lobbyist-challenge-florida-sheriff-on-stand-your-ground-stance-in-shooting.html
Hoo, boy.
But not so, say experts -- including lawmakers who wrote "Stand Your Ground," criminal lawyers and a National Rifle Association lobbyist -- who were interviewed by POLITICO about Gualtieri's controversial remarks.
“Nothing in either the 2005 ["Stand Your Ground"] law or the 2017 law [about immunity from prosecution] prohibits a Sheriff from making an arrest in a case where a person claims self-defense if there is probable cause that the use of force was unlawful,” Tallahassee NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer told Politico. Hammer helped pass "Stand Your Ground" through the GOP-led Florida Legislature.
“Nothing in the law says a person can sue the Sheriff for making an arrest when there is probable cause,” she said in an email, according to POLITICO.
And what constitutes "probable cause"? Drejka had just been physically assaulted by a younger, larger individual, who after the initial assault advanced toward Drejka until he saw the gun. He had stopped his advance, but we don't know if he had stopped his mouth. He was certainly still a threat -- he had NOT turned his back and given clear indications that he was departing the scene (unlike the assialant in the other sample case in a parallel thread). I don't see any probable cause here, and apparently the sheriff and his staff don't, either.
State Sen. Dennis Baxley, a Republican who sponsored "Stand Your Ground" in 2005 told Politico he also disputed Gualtieri’s assertion that, in passing the law, lawmakers created a standard that was largely subjective.
“'Stand your ground' uses a reasonable-person standard. It’s not that you were just afraid,” Baxley said. “It’s an objective standard.”[/quote]
The reasonable man test is absolutely NOT an objective standard. It asks each juror to put him or herself in the position of the shooter and to make a decision as to whether or not they would have acted the same way under the same circumstances. It is precisely "that you were just afraid." The reasonable man standard asks each juror to decide if he or she would have been afraid in the same situation. Only a total moron would call that an objective standard. But, he is a legislator, so excuse me for having made a redundant statement.
-
Well duh,
Obviously "Stand your ground" shouldn't be in play.
The guy was not standing having been roughly shoved to the pavement by the victim.
There is no "lay on the pavement" statute.
Shooter is guilty.
-
Hoo, boy.
It's just the one article so there might be missing context. My guess from just that article would be that 1) As alluded to in the article, the politicians may be doing an election year dance. 2) I'm wondering if the NRA stance is being taken out of context. I can totally see the NRA (rightly) wanting to make it clear that "stand your ground" doesn't mean "shoot because someone looked at you the wrong way". They may actually see this as a (to me, barely) justified shoot, but are just clarifying that in general, "stand your ground" is not a carte blanche thing.
-
2) I'm wondering if the NRA stance is being taken out of context. I can totally see the NRA (rightly) wanting to make it clear that "stand your ground" doesn't mean "shoot because someone looked at you the wrong way". They may actually see this as a (to me, barely) justified shoot, but are just clarifying that in general, "stand your ground" is not a carte blanche thing.
It looks to me like the NRA is afraid to actually support the law they wanted so badly to see enacted, because every time a stand-your-ground case comes up, the NRA tries to back away from it. I think they're afraid any publicity will result in repeal of the law. IMHO the NRA should not have made any statement at all. If Ms. Hammer wanted to make a statement, she should have done so as a private citizen and left the NRA out of it.
-
It's hard [for a reporter or news outlet] to leave the NRA out of it since Marion Hammer is a Past President and has long been active in firearms legislation in Florida.
My quick scan of it indicates they were challenging the basis of the Sheriff's statement as a legal point that he could not arrest the shooter. Maybe so, maybe not. Except for completely biased individuals (black versus white, gun advocate versus anti-gunner) the evidemce presently at hand indicates a good shoot, at least to me. Stupid, also because of the evidence presently at hand, but legal.
230RN
Edited to add "[for a reporter or news outlet]"
-
Yes, I know who Marion Hammer is.
I've never achieved her status or name recognition on a national level, but for a number of years I (or at least my name) was fairly well-known within my profession in my home state. As a result, whenever I felt compelled to write letters to editors (which was somewhat frequently), I was always careful to state up front that I was writing as an individual, and not on behalf of any of the professional organizations to which I belonged or in which I held office.
In this instance, was Ms. Hammer speaking as Marion Hammer, individual, or was she speaking for the NRA? If she was speaking for the NRA, I sincerely wish she hadn't done so. There are times when the best comment is no comment.
-
Contrast this with the NRA's tepid support for Philando Castile.
-
The law is poorly drafted and has clearly given rise to the suggestion that it shifted the standard from objective (ie, was the shooters fear for his life reasonable, whether it was genuine or not?) to subjective (the question being - did the shooter actually fear for his life, whether or not it made sense to be in fear?).
There are gun owners here on this board who aren’t okay with this shooting. Ordinarily and in most jurisdicistions there would be an investigation and a process for sorting out the facts to decide on a charge (Texas is a good example - a grand jury decides.)
SYG fixed what wasn’t broken. It did so with unpredictable results. It purports not to change the substantive law of self defence but through additional procedures and red tape has made investigating claims of self defence so different as to result in a de facto change to the standards for when it can be evoked.
-
There are gun owners here on this board who aren’t okay with this shooting. Ordinarily and in most jurisdicistions there would be an investigation and a process for sorting out the facts to decide on a charge (Texas is a good example - a grand jury decides.)
The sheriff said he would refer the case to the state's attorney. Doesn't that mean the SA will investigate?
-
It's just the one article so there might be missing context. My guess from just that article would be that 1) As alluded to in the article, the politicians may be doing an election year dance. 2) I'm wondering if the NRA stance is being taken out of context. I can totally see the NRA (rightly) wanting to make it clear that "stand your ground" doesn't mean "shoot because someone looked at you the wrong way". They may actually see this as a (to me, barely) justified shoot, but are just clarifying that in general, "stand your ground" is not a carte blanche thing.
The context was that the sheriff was misstating the legal standards behind "stand your ground", saying that the standard for self defense was "subjective", rather than the "reasonable man" standard that is actually written into the law. Basically, he was misrepresenting it in the same way that gun grabbers and people like De Selby have been. The NRA and the legislators that actually drafted it are pushing back against that misrepresentation, and AFAICT aren't actually taking a stance on this specific case.
-
The law is poorly drafted and has clearly given rise to the suggestion that it shifted the standard from objective (ie, was the shooters fear for his life reasonable, whether it was genuine or not?) to subjective (the question being - did the shooter actually fear for his life, whether or not it made sense to be in fear?).
Whether or not a "reasonable man" standard is objective is, itself, a subjective question. I submit that it is not an objective standard. An objective standard essentially is a standard that must be decided the same way for any case, regardless of who is reviewing the evidence and rendering the decision. With a "reasonable man" standard, one jury might view the evidence and deadlock 11:1 in favor of acquittal, a second jury might view the same evidence and deadlock 10:2 in favor of conviction, and a third jury might view the same evidence and hand down a unanimous verdict -- for acquittal or for conviction.
I respectfully submit that this is a subjective standard, not an objective standard.
A speed limit is an objective standard. Speed limit is 65 MPH. Was he going faster than 65? Convict. Was he going 65 or slower? Acquit.
Bank robbery is illegal. Did he point a gun at the teller, ask for money, and walk out with a bag full of greenbacks? If yes, guilty. If no, not guilty.
Those are objective standards.
"What would a hypothetical reasonable man have done if he had been in my client's shoes when the incident took place?" How can that be objective? Each juror has to make his or her own [subjective] decision as to what a hypothetical reasonable man would have felt or done in the circumstances as described -- and which almost certainly conjures up a different picture in the mind of each person hearing the sordid tale recounted.
-
The sheriff said he would refer the case to the state's attorney. Doesn't that mean the SA will investigate?
Actually no, it doesnt
-
Whether or not a "reasonable man" standard is objective is, itself, a subjective question. I submit that it is not an objective standard. An objective standard essentially is a standard that must be decided the same way for any case, regardless of who is reviewing the evidence and rendering the decision. With a "reasonable man" standard, one jury might view the evidence and deadlock 11:1 in favor of acquittal, a second jury might view the same evidence and deadlock 10:2 in favor of conviction, and a third jury might view the same evidence and hand down a unanimous verdict -- for acquittal or for conviction.
I respectfully submit that this is a subjective standard, not an objective standard.
A speed limit is an objective standard. Speed limit is 65 MPH. Was he going faster than 65? Convict. Was he going 65 or slower? Acquit.
Bank robbery is illegal. Did he point a gun at the teller, ask for money, and walk out with a bag full of greenbacks? If yes, guilty. If no, not guilty.
Those are objective standards.
"What would a hypothetical reasonable man have done if he had been in my client's shoes when the incident took place?" How can that be objective? Each juror has to make his or her own [subjective] decision as to what a hypothetical reasonable man would have felt or done in the circumstances as described -- and which almost certainly conjures up a different picture in the mind of each person hearing the sordid tale recounted.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the criminal law works.
Juries differ about all kinds of things. You’re confusing having to prove only facts and circumstances (which is called strict liability) to prove a crime, with having to prove something about an offenders state of mind (which might be a subjective or objective standard.)
Self defence is properly objective - John Hinckley might’ve had a case that he truly believed he was defending lives from Ronald Reagan otherwise. He may honestly have believed that. But I don’t think any of us want the law to validate Subjective beliefs where most would find them unreasonable, no matter how sincerely held
-
The context was that the sheriff was misstating the legal standards behind "stand your ground", saying that the standard for self defense was "subjective", rather than the "reasonable man" standard that is actually written into the law. Basically, he was misrepresenting it in the same way that gun grabbers and people like De Selby have been. The NRA and the legislators that actually drafted it are pushing back against that misrepresentation, and AFAICT aren't actually taking a stance on this specific case.
So the investigating Sherriffs misunderstood the law, in the state where he is a Sherriff, yet you don’t think it’s a confusing or poorly written law??
-
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the criminal law works.
Juries differ about all kinds of things. You’re confusing having to prove only facts and circumstances (which is called strict liability) to prove a crime, with having to prove something about an offenders state of mind (which might be a subjective or objective standard.)
Self defence is properly objective - John Hinckley might’ve had a case that he truly believed he was defending lives from Ronald Reagan otherwise. He may honestly have believed that. But I don’t think any of us want the law to validate Subjective beliefs where most would find them unreasonable, no matter how sincerely held
I'm not confusing anything.
Even with an objective standard of what the offense is (robbing a bank with a gun), the prosecution still has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is the miscreant who committed the offense. There's no question that the bank was robbed -- the teller made a statement, and the incident was recorded on video. The offense occurred -- the question is whether or not the accused was the perpetrator. There is no need to get inside the mind of the accused and make a [subjective] determination as to whether or not he (or she) held a belief at that moment that might (or might not) have been held by some hypothetical "reasonable man" under like circumstances.
Nobody (other than you) said anything about validating unreasonable subjective beliefs. That's a red herring. The purpose of the reasonable man test is to weed out sincerely (maybe) held beliefs that most people would find unreasonable. That doesn't make the determination objective rather than subjective.
The reasonable man test is not about "proving" anything regarding the defendant's state of mind. He (or she), by virtue of being there, has admitted to having committed the act, and has made a statement about his (or her) state of mind. "I feared for my life, so I shot the sumbitch." The reasonable man test does not attempt to prove or disprove the defendant's state of mind. It examines whether or not twelve other people agree that what the defendant thought/believed at that moment was reasonable under the circumstances. Since the determination is one of opinion on the part of each juror, it is not and cannot be an objective standard.
-
So the investigating Sherriffs misunderstood the law, in the state where he is a Sherriff, yet you don’t think it’s a confusing or poorly written law??
Laws being poorly written is not unusual, but politicians not understanding the plain black and white law isn't all that uncommon either.
There is lots of BS circulated about SYG laws in general. Some of that is due to other things included in the same bills in different states.
-
Actually no, it doesnt
Was the Sheriff wrong to send the case to the state, or are you saying the AG won't touch it?
-
So the investigating Sherriffs misunderstood the law, in the state where he is a Sherriff, yet you don’t think it’s a confusing or poorly written law??
Sheriffs are elected; the only credential you need to do the job is to get the plurality of votes. In other words, just like most politicians, plenty of sheriffs are incompetent morons who only know how to convince other people to vote for them.
-
Update:
The State Attorney filed Manslaughter charges this morning. (http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/manslaughter-charge-filed-in-clearwater-stand-your-ground-case)
It seems that this case is likely to come down to how reasonable it was to fear for your safety after being pushed to the ground. The State Attorney says that they feel they can prove he shouldn't have been in fear (paraphrase from the TV news). We'll see.
FL has already proven that being a confrontational ahole doesn't give the other person the right to physically attack you. Part of me really hopes that this isn't another high profile case that the State got pushed into by a media circus when they don't have the evidence to convict. A conviction would at least put to rest rumblings in the legislature of looking at SYG again. Legislatures rarely make laws better when they fiddle with them.
-
Update:
The State Attorney filed Manslaughter charges this morning. (http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/manslaughter-charge-filed-in-clearwater-stand-your-ground-case)
It seems that this case is likely to come down to how reasonable it was to fear for your safety after being pushed to the ground. The State Attorney says that they feel they can prove he shouldn't have been in fear (paraphrase from the TV news). We'll see.
FL has already proven that being a confrontational *expletive deleted*hole doesn't give the other person the right to physically attack you. Part of me really hopes that this isn't another high profile case that the State got pushed into by a media circus when they don't have the evidence to convict. A conviction would at least put to rest rumblings in the legislature of looking at SYG again. Legislatures rarely make laws better when they fiddle with them.
And that sort of underscores why concealed carriers are taught to avoid confrontation. Even if you are right and get acquitted, the cost and stress of the process can still wreck you.
-
And that sort of underscores why concealed carriers are taught to avoid confrontation. Even if you are right and get acquitted, the cost and stress of the process can still wreck you.
Yup. If this guy had any money and/or anything of value (house, car, etc.) it'll likely go to lawyers fees by the time the state gets done dragging it all out. Or else he has no money and the state (taxpayers) will be paying for both the prosecution and defense. Unless some gun rights group takes on the case. Though I don''t know if this is where I would draw my line in the sand if I were one of those groups.
-
Here's an interesting opinion on the incident, from the perspective of a black male:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1bst-lJr0Q
-
He’s charged with manslaughter. Seems like the right call from the video. Had Zimmerman been charged with that instead of depraved heart murder he might’ve had a very different outcome - but then again he killed the only other direct witness. Drejka has witnesses and video to deal with in his defense.
Road rage and concealed carry do not mix.
-
He’s charged with manslaughter. Seems like the right call from the video. Had Zimmerman been charged with that instead of depraved heart murder he might’ve had a very different outcome - but then again he killed the only other direct witness. Drejka has witnesses and video to deal with in his defense.
Road rage and concealed carry do not mix.
He should get off. I watched the video. The only person who committed a crime was the attacker.
-
One of the participants in the discussion over at The Firing Line found McGlockton's rap sheet. Interesting ... but I'm sure he was just beginning to turn his life around when it was unfairly cut short by the murderous parking lot vigilante ...
(https://i.imgur.com/1Wrd3Qq.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/rq6cJC3.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/yAWd897.png)
He was 28 when he was killed. His first felony conviction was in 2007. That's eleven years ago, so he started with felonies at the tender age of 17. It looks like a lot of judges gave him a lot of breaks, and he didn't learn from them. More proof that our criminal justice system is broken.
-
You generally can’t shoot people for having a rap sheet
-
You generally can’t shoot people for having a rap sheet
No, but you can generally shoot people for physically assaulting you and putting you in fear of death or serious bodily injury.
The rap sheet is of interest because various people have cited unconfirmed sources as claiming that Drejka previously threatened to shoot someone over parking illegally in the handicapped space. However, apparently there were no formal complaints filed, no police investigations, no arrests, no convictions. McGlockton, on the other hand, does not appear to have been exactly a model citizen.
-
You generally can’t shoot people for having a rap sheet
Some might consider that one of the defects of our current judicial system ..... >:D
-
No, but you can generally shoot people for physically assaulting you and putting you in fear of death or serious bodily injury.
The rap sheet is of interest because various people have cited unconfirmed sources as claiming that Drejka previously threatened to shoot someone over parking illegally in the handicapped space. However, apparently there were no formal complaints filed, no police investigations, no arrests, no convictions. McGlockton, on the other hand, does not appear to have been exactly a model citizen.
You generally have to actually be in fear and shouldn’t have provoked a confrontation if you want to assert self defense.
Starting fights over a parking spot and then shooting someone who shoved you is a good way to end up charged. Drejkas rap sheet is now much worse than the person he shot.
-
Some might consider that one of the defects of our current judicial system ..... >:D
Would you issue a concealed carry permit to someone who thinks shooting people for being generally useless is a good thing?
-
You generally can’t shoot people for having a rap sheet
How would the shooter know about the rap sheet?
-
How would the shooter know about the rap sheet?
Exactly. That’s a small part of why it isn’t and shouldn’t be relevant.
-
You generally have to actually be in fear and shouldn’t have provoked a confrontation if you want to assert self defense.
Starting fights over a parking spot and then shooting someone who shoved you is a good way to end up charged. Drejkas rap sheet is now much worse than the person he shot.
Hands up! Don't shoot!
-
I saw a video with Mas Ayoob talking about this very thing. The rap sheet means nothing.
-
You generally have to actually be in fear and shouldn’t have provoked a confrontation if you want to assert self defense.
Starting fights over a parking spot and then shooting someone who shoved you is a good way to end up charged. Drejkas rap sheet is now much worse than the person he shot.
Time out.
Drejka was engaged in a dispute with a woman, who was safely inside her car. McGlockton "inserted" himself into the situation by way of an unprovoked, physical assault. McGlockton blindsided Drejka with a violent attack when Drejka didn't even see him coming, so it's entirely unfair to claim that Drejka was in a confrontation with McGlockton.
There is a principle known as "escalation," and I'd say if there was any escalating done, it was McGlockton who did the escalating. In the space of a second or two he escalated what had been a verbal confrontation (in which he was NOT involved) into an assault and battery.
-
I tend to think Drejka is in a bit of trouble. I believe that HE was scared for his life when he pulled the trigger. The case is, as I said, going to come down to whether he can convince a Jury that that fear was reasonable given the circumstances he was in. And he may very well have a hard time doing that.
It's worth remembering as De Selby talks himself in circles about another Florida SD shooting, that Drejka didn't start a fight with McGlockton. Drejka started an altercation (there was no physical component, and as far as we know now not even threats of a physical nature) with McGlockton's female companion. McGlockton started the fight, and he did it with no warning, by escalating a situation he wasn't involved in to a physical assault.
Yes, Drejka made some poor choices, and he did so while carrying a weapon. He may very well go to jail for manslaughter. He may very well be guilty of manslaughter. (those two do not necessarily go together) However, McGlockton is the one that "started a fight over a parking spot", and that's not nothing. Drejka isn't actually the aggressor here.
ETA: Hawk and I cross posted, but yup.
-
Would you issue a concealed carry permit to someone who thinks shooting people for being generally useless is a good thing?
Sorry ... multiple felony (beginning at age 17) and numerous misdemeanor convictions over a span of multiple years is a tad bit worse than "useless." But that's irrelevant. Drejka didn't shoot McGlockton because he was useless, or because of the rap sheet. He shot him because McGlockton assaulted him.
-
Sorry ... multiple felony (beginning at age 17) and numerous misdemeanor convictions over a span of multiple years is a tad bit worse than "useless." But that's irrelevant. Drejka didn't shoot McGlockton because he was useless, or because of the rap sheet. He shot him because McGlockton assaulted him.
Shooting someone who is backing away from you after an assault isn’t legal. Provocation reduces your sentence, it doesn’t justify a killing.
Probably helpful to read the warrant - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4755192-Michael-Drejka-Arrest-Warrant-081318.html (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4755192-Michael-Drejka-Arrest-Warrant-081318.html)
-
Shooting someone who is backing away from you after an assault isn’t legal.
"After"?
-
Would you issue a concealed carry permit to someone who thinks shooting people for being generally useless is a good thing?
I wouldn't issue a ccw permit to anyone who couldn't recognize sarcasm .... they might not have a rap sheet, but that's the only difference. [tinfoil]
-
I wouldn't issue a ccw permit who couldn't recognize sarcasm .... they might not have a rap sheet, but that's the only difference. [tinfoil]
And I wouldn't issue a CCW permit ever. CCW permits are for commies. >:D [ar15]
-
Shooting someone who is backing away from you after an assault isn’t legal. Provocation reduces your sentence, it doesn’t justify a killing.
Admittedly, I haven't actually watched the video.
How long an interval between the assailant backing up and the first shot? Because it's entirely possible (and plausible) that the shooter was already squeezing the trigger when the assailant started to back up. I've read of shootings like that
-
I have heard a lot of people say he had stepped back. With no sound and grainy picture, I couldn't really tell if he backed up when he saw him trying to draw or if it happened at the first shot. I thought he knocked him to the ground, followed through with a couple steps, stopped, then backed up a step somewhere between the shooter drawing and the first shot. Once the shooting started, he backed up more and went back into the store. I just don't think the backing up is clear enough or soon enough to negate the self defense claim.
Maybe I will go back and watch it again later also.
-
Admittedly, I haven't actually watched the video.
How long an interval between the assailant backing up and the first shot? Because it's entirely possible (and plausible) that the shooter was already squeezing the trigger when the assailant started to back up. I've read of shootings like that
I recommend finding the video. You can also see just how hard he knocked the guy to the ground.
This is a news clip, but shows the video in the first 10 or 15 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDtzofAUSJI
Looks like he did take a step back when he saw the gun being drawn, but I am not sure one or one and half steps negate the self defense claim. Would you call that an attempt to break off? The claim by the woman that he backed off after pushing is not true IMO. It wasn't until after the draw and the shooting. We also don't know what was being said by either man at that point. Police saw this footage when they decided he would not be arrested also.
When it comes down to it, we don't control what happens to this guy. For us, this is a good video to show people when you want to make a point about 1) not getting drawn into an argument while carrying, and 2) keeping aware of what is around you as someone can blindside you if you are distracted, and 3) stay aware of the situation as you pull your gun and are about to shoot. Small things that might slip your notice across a short few seconds of time can change a good shoot to a bad shoot in many people's eyes after the fact.
-
Shooting someone who is backing away from you after an assault isn’t legal. Provocation reduces your sentence, it doesn’t justify a killing.
So assault and battery is now equivalent to "provocation"? Got it.
Probably helpful to read the warrant - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4755192-Michael-Drejka-Arrest-Warrant-081318.html (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4755192-Michael-Drejka-Arrest-Warrant-081318.html)
Not helpful at all. All that does is set forth the state's contention that the shooting was illegal. Drejka says it was legal self defense. That's why we have trials, and judges, and juries. The warrant doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know.
-
OK, I watched it
Given stress compression, the shooter probably didn't even realize his assailant had backed up: looked like maybe a step or two at most. Disoriented after being violently shoved to the ground, and the assailant takes a step backwards? I probably wouldn't catch that, either
-
OK, I watched it
Given stress compression, the shooter probably didn't even realize his assailant had backed up: looked like maybe a step or two at most. Disoriented after being violently shoved to the ground, and the assailant takes a step backwards? I probably wouldn't catch that, either
Especially after the assailant had first taken a few steps forward, after the shove. And that shove wasn't an "excuse me, can we talk?" love tap -- that was a violent shove.
And, since you understand about stress and temporal distortion ... you can't be on the jury.
-
So assault and battery is now equivalent to "provocation"? Got it.
Not helpful at all. All that does is set forth the state's contention that the shooting was illegal. Drejka says it was legal self defense. That's why we have trials, and judges, and juries. The warrant doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know.
Did you catch the part where other patrons were so worried about Drejkas behaviour towards the woman they considered intervening, and went inside to report it to the store owner? And that hearing that is why the deceased went outside in the first place?
How about when Drejka called a septic tank company and told them they were lucky he didn’t blow the drivers head off for parking in the disabled spot?
Yeah, no. Reading the warrant it’s pretty clear why he’s charged and if true, those facts are a pretty solid prosecution case. I especially like how Drejka rant out of distance to keep backing up the cop during role play.
-
Did you catch the part where other patrons were so worried about Drejkas behaviour towards the woman they considered intervening,
Worried about what?
-
Worried about what?
“He appeared to be irate” and was waving his arms and shouting, to the point that a customer went inside and told the counter (and the dead guy) that someone should go outside and intervene.
The full warrant outlining probable cause to arrest for manslaughter is at that link above.
The more facts that come out the more it looks like Drejka is the poster child for anti-ccw types. He appears to have a history of waving his gun around and looking for an excuse
-
nm.
-
nm.
footnote needed.
-
“He appeared to be irate” and was waving his arms and shouting, to the point that a customer went inside and told the counter (and the dead guy) that someone should go outside and intervene.
The full warrant outlining probable cause to arrest for manslaughter is at that link above.
The more facts that come out the more it looks like Drejka is the poster child for anti-ccw types. He appears to have a history of waving his gun around and looking for an excuse
So he was angry. How does this change anything?
Any word on the woman?
-
So he was angry. How does this change anything?
Any word on the woman?
She has been hitting as many newscasts as she can. Obviously, Drejka was just out to kill a black man, because she "didn't do anything wrong."
I posted this link before, a commentary on the incident from the perspective of a black male. If you watched it before, no need to watch it again unless you want to. If you missed it ... here it is again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1bst-lJr0Q
-
So he was angry. How does this change anything?
Any word on the woman?
Did you read the warrant??? His behaviour had bystanders who didn’t know anyone involved in the shooting concerned for her.
Hawk moon, more damaging than her words will be Drejka’s documented history of shouting racial slurs while threatening to shoot people over road rage incidents and parking spaces. It is reasonable to believe he was looking to shoot a black person if that warrant has the facts straight.
I’ll add that shouting racial slurs and waving the gun is documented from multiple independent sources, some of which were recorded before the shooting. Not looking good for the guy...harder to claim you were just not aware enough to see the victim backing away when you’ve got evidence about your mindset towards black people and guns like that.
-
Did you read the warrant??? His behaviour had bystanders who didn’t know anyone involved in the shooting concerned for her.
They were concerned for a woman, inside a truck, several feet away from a man who was yelling mean things; a man who made no attempt to actually come at her. And apparently this totally makes it ok for the guy to blindside him by violently shoving him to the ground, and then threateningly move towards him while he is on the ground.
-
They were concerned for a woman, inside a truck, several feet away from a man who was yelling mean things; a man who made no attempt to actually come at her. And apparently this totally makes it ok for the guy to blindside him by violently shoving him to the ground, and then threateningly move towards him while he is on the ground.
Again - did you actually read the document setting out the charge?
-
Again - did you actually read the document setting out the charge?
Yes ... three times. What are you seeing that we're missing? Remember, this is only the state's allegation, it's not necessarily correct or factual, and it hasn't been tried in court.
Basically, all the warrant says is that Drejka used a gun to shoot a person, and the state thinks that it wasn't legal for him to have done so. Oh ... and in so doing, he offended the "peace and dignity" of the State of Florida.
-
I read the warrant and the one thing that jumped out at me was the statement that the shootee was over 10 feet away from the shooter. The access aisle (hashmarks on the ground) is 5 feet wide, and in looking at the video unless the shootee is 12 feet tall I find it hard to believe he was > 10 feet away. One fatal flaw in the warrant which points to possibly even more problems with it.
As far as the prior actions alleged by the Detective, they will never see the light of day in court. It is hearsay at best and flat out lies at worst and even some two bit ambulance chasing lawyer knows how to get that thrown out.
bob
-
I read the warrant and the one thing that jumped out at me was the statement that the shootee was over 10 feet away from the shooter. The access aisle (hashmarks on the ground) is 5 feet wide, and in looking at the video unless the shootee is 12 feet tall I find it hard to believe he was > 10 feet away. One fatal flaw in the warrant which points to possibly even more problems with it.
I watched the video again, and I have to agree. I'd put the distance at more like 6 feet, certainly not "over 10 feet."
Distance aside, IMHO you can't overlook the factor of time. We get to watch a video, slow it down, rewind, play it again, and analyze it until we're cross-eyed. Drejka didn't have the benefit of instant replay. The shove was at 0:18. From 0:18 to 0:21, Drejka was falling and rolling on the ground, and McGlockton was advancing. At 0:21, Drejka apparently starts to draw and McGlockton stops advancing. The shot(s) was (were) at 0:23 to 0:24.
So in the span of five seconds Drejka's universe switched from being in a verbal argument with a woman to rolling on the ground and having shot a man, purportedly in self defense. That's just not a lot of time in which to process "Hey! WTF just happened here?"
-
Actually, my first reaction to McGlockton was that he was getting ready to follow up with a kicking and stomping attack.
After I watched it again, I wasn't so sure, but I could see how the person on the ground might view it that way, not having the "long view" of the camera.
We'll see. I still don't see how any antecedent activities or statements mattered in terms of the self defense decision of the shooter at that moment.
In somewhat more civilized days, the respective parties would have selected Seconds to arrange a time and place to settle the matter.
But those were more civilized days.
Terry, 230RN
-
I read the warrant and the one thing that jumped out at me was the statement that the shootee was over 10 feet away from the shooter. The access aisle (hashmarks on the ground) is 5 feet wide, and in looking at the video unless the shootee is 12 feet tall I find it hard to believe he was > 10 feet away. One fatal flaw in the warrant which points to possibly even more problems with it.
As far as the prior actions alleged by the Detective, they will never see the light of day in court. It is hearsay at best and flat out lies at worst and even some two bit ambulance chasing lawyer knows how to get that thrown out.
bob
Hahah, okay dude - you don’t think a direct witness saying “he called me racial slurs and got his gun out over that same parking space” and his boss directly testifying “this nut job called and said I was lucky he didn’t blow my employees head off” will be relevant to his state of mind in a shooting....of a black person over that very same parking space???
LOL. Everything about those facts screams relevant.
For the distance, the technology they used to verify Drejka’s own re-enactment of how far away McGlockton was when he fired is outlined in the papers. Pretty sure that tech combined with the shooters own immediate recollection is more likely to be accurate than a guess from an internet replay.
-
Yes ... three times. What are you seeing that we're missing? Remember, this is only the state's allegation, it's not necessarily correct or factual, and it hasn't been tried in court.
Basically, all the warrant says is that Drejka used a gun to shoot a person, and the state thinks that it wasn't legal for him to have done so. Oh ... and in so doing, he offended the "peace and dignity" of the State of Florida.
Well, no - the warrant says he shot someone backing away after causing a commotion that drew the other patrons attention. It also says this guy has a history of threatening to shoot people while yelling racial slurs at them over that parking space.
That is most definitely a Prima Facie manslaughter case and a lesson - if you don’t feel like you can refrain from threatening to use your carry piece over parking spaces, or shouting racial slurs in the process, you probably should not carry a firearm. Those behaviours will be used to make inferences about your state of mind should you ever actually shoot someone.
-
It wasn't a game of Hacky Sack … When the attacker took a step or two back it was to line up a kick to the shooters head … Has anyone ever kicked something from a flatfooted standing position … ;/
That warrant was as accurate as the warrant used to charge Zimmerman … [popcorn]
-
It wasn't a game of Hacky Sack … When the attacker took a step or two back it was to line up a kick to the shooters head … Has anyone ever kicked something from a flatfooted standing position … ;/
That warrant was as accurate as the warrant used to charge Zimmerman … [popcorn]
Who do you know that has a 10 foot kick radius?
-
I must have missed the measuring tape in the video. =)
-
I must have missed the measuring tape in the video. =)
Hahahaha did you read the warrant???? Explains very well how they measured the distance - including the shooters own version
-
Hahahaha did you read the warrant???? Explains very well how they measured the distance - including the shooters own version
Seriously? A reenactment in an interview room. I would say Dreika was stupid in doing that. He should have had his own lawyer present.
-
Seriously? A reenactment in an interview room. I would say Dreika was stupid in doing that. He should have had his own lawyer present.
How about the video tool that measures distances???
Drejkas main stupidity was in continuing to carry after having had road rage incidents that led him to brandish his gun and shout racial slurs. With that little self control he should’ve given up guns in a sober moment.
-
How about the video tool that measures distances???
Drejkas main stupidity was in continuing to carry after having had road rage incidents that led him to brandish his gun and shout racial slurs. With that little self control he should’ve given up guns in a sober moment.
How about a Tueller Drill? I'm sure an expert firearms witness can be found to testify that the time it takes to tee off and kick a face like a football from 10 feet is at or less then the reaction time to aim and fire a good shot. Especially if the shooter is already disoriented on the ground.
Honestly, as I've said before, I think Drejka might be screwed on this. A lot is going to rest on what the jury can be convinced is a reasonable fear. It's hard to call right now. As the trial progresses and more actual evidence comes out perhaps it'll be easier to predict an outcome.
De Selby, however, seems to be following his normal program of pulling one or two things from evidence, ignoring what he doesn't like, and doubling or tripling down on his preconceived notions. For those reading that don't feel like going through the archives, this technique doesn't leave him with a very good ratio of predicting the outcome of self defense shootings.
ETA: the alleged Road Rage incident(s) is exactly that; alleged. When the cops showed up the people he supposedly brandished at suddenly had a change of heart about the gun's presence. (or they didn't wait for the cops at all) Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't. Perhaps the folks that called the cops told a story that made them look innocent. We'll never know because no one actually made a criminal complaint. Yet De Selby is going to ride that horse down.
-
How about the video tool that measures distances??? Drejkas main stupidity was in continuing to carry after having had road rage incidents that led him to brandish his gun and shout racial slurs. With that little self control he should’ve given up guns in a sober moment.
I'm married to a black woman … Drejkas first mistake was interacting with a black person needlessly … Perhaps OK in some parts of the world but not here in Central Florida ... Would this have even made the news had the races been reversed … =|
-
Here's where McGlockton advanced to the moment before Drejka started pulling his firearm, it's blocked but he's standing on the yellow parking space divider. This is certainly not 10 feet away.
(https://i.imgur.com/saXASfSm.jpg)
The moment he saw him drawing McGlockton shuffled back three steps before pausing. This is where he stood the moment before he was shot. Only took about 2-3 seconds between the top picture and this. Depends on where you are measuring, but this also doesn't seem like 10 feet away.
(https://i.imgur.com/wFtfGGcm.jpg)
-
I dunno ...top photo, 10 feet seems possible. Lower photo, no, not....so much ....
-
I'm sorry, dogmush, but I'm afraid I agree with you. Drejka may have been OK to shoot, but he may go down, anyway. His is not the ideal self-defense case, and certain people, one of them on this website, are too eager to prosecute him.
-
How about a Tueller Drill? I'm sure an expert firearms witness can be found to testify that the time it takes to tee off and kick a face like a football from 10 feet is at or less then the reaction time to aim and fire a good shot. Especially if the shooter is already disoriented on the ground.
Honestly, as I've said before, I think Drejka might be screwed on this. A lot is going to rest on what the jury can be convinced is a reasonable fear. It's hard to call right now. As the trial progresses and more actual evidence comes out perhaps it'll be easier to predict an outcome.
De Selby, however, seems to be following his normal program of pulling one or two things from evidence, ignoring what he doesn't like, and doubling or tripling down on his preconceived notions. For those reading that don't feel like going through the archives, this technique doesn't leave him with a very good ratio of predicting the outcome of self defense shootings.
ETA: the alleged Road Rage incident(s) is exactly that; alleged. When the cops showed up the people he supposedly brandished at suddenly had a change of heart about the gun's presence. (or they didn't wait for the cops at all) Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't. Perhaps the folks that called the cops told a story that made them look innocent. We'll never know because no one actually made a criminal complaint. Yet De Selby is going to ride that horse down.
How about the septic tank truck business owner who got a call about his employee? Or the racial slurs from multiple independent sources? You don’t think that’s a problem?
I think it’s a bit surprising how far some will stretch to make all the problems with this shooting technical.
-
I'm married to a black woman … Drejkas first mistake was interacting with a black person needlessly … Perhaps OK in some parts of the world but not here in Central Florida ... Would this have even made the news had the races been reversed … =|
So correct me here - you don’t think having a history of pulling guns on black people and calling them racial slurs is a problem in a shooting of a black persons over a parking space???
-
You just never know what a jury will do, we had a guy here leave his car running to warm up (in his driveway) and along came a guy that figured it was warmed up for him. Car owner came out, found him leaving with his vehicle and work tools so he did what he thought was right and fired one round at the fleeing vehicle. Bullet went through rear window, headrest and into the borrowers brain pan. He went to trial for 2nd degree manslaughter and the jury found him not guilty. You just never know.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/apr/11/gerlach-acquitted-in-shooting-death-of-fleeing/
bob
-
Hahahaha did you read the warrant???? Explains very well how they measured the distance - including the shooters own version
You're jesting, right? Or just trolling us again?
From the detective's affidavit supporting the warrent (not from the warrant itself):
Your Affiant asked him to reenact the shooting demonstrating the distance between the men at the time the shot was fired. Your affiant played the role of the victim. MICHAEL DREJKA sat on the ground and pointed his arms outstretched toward your Affiant in a shooting position. MICHAEL DREJKA directed your Affiant to back up, at which point your Affiant had stepped all the way to the wall and could not retreat any further. The interview room where the enactment took place is a 10 x 10 foot room. Based upon this reenactment, MICHAEL DREJKA demonstrated that Markeis McGlockton was in excess of 10 feet from him when he shot him.
That's about as ridiculous a statement as I've ever encountered. Even highway cops use tape measures and sometimes surveying equipment at accident scenes to establish distances, and in a homicide this detective uses a [subjective] reenactment, in a room far removed from the scene, without describing where in the room Drejka was sitting on the ground [sic], whether he was backing up rectilinearly or diagonally, and what furniture was in the room and how it was arranged? And we're supposed to attach significance to this?
Gimme a break.
[Edit to add] Then the affidavit goes on to mention that they used a FARO [sic] 3D Scanner to take measurements, and that based on this the distance was from 10 to 15 feet, probably 12 feet. Having had some exposure (in court) to people citing results from technical measuring equipment used improperly, that interested me, so I looked up the FARO 3D laser scanner. It has a precision of less than 1.5mm (0.039 inches). So with a piece of very high tech, laser measuring equipment capable of measuring to 1/32 of an inch the best the sheriff's detectives could come up with was a range of 5 FEET! They would have done better to draw marks on the pavement with chalk and use a tape measure. They probably had a grant to buy the equipment, but didn't have the money to train anyone how to use it properly.
Sorry, Mate ... I'm not convinced.
[/end edit]
Honestly, as I've said before, I think Drejka might be screwed on this. A lot is going to rest on what the jury can be convinced is a reasonable fear. It's hard to call right now. As the trial progresses and more actual evidence comes out perhaps it'll be easier to predict an outcome.
Indeed, it's all going to come down to the trial. Initially the sheriff's office didn't think charges were appropriate. Now that the State has overridden that, the detective has concocted a multi-page affidavit to support charges. Personally, to me this has the earmarks of someone who wrote what he was told to write. In a non-criminal situation, I've been in that position. A boss once asked me if something he had designed met the building code. I told him it didn't. He then said, "Well, I already told the client that it does, so write something to support that." So I wrote a bunch of wishy-washy, conditional words that said if this and if that, then maybe. Of course, the boss didn't like it. He told me to make it stronger, and to "own it." I told him the only opinion I was willing to "own" on the question was that it didn't meet code. Then I quit.
Back to Drejka. Clearly, there is no consensus, either in this thread or in a similar thread on The Firing Line. Dogmush is entirely correct: it's going to be up to the jury to decide. All I can say is that, based on what I've seen to date, I think the shooting was legally defensible. I'm not saying that Drejka was smart or a good person, only that I think it's reasonable under the circumstances for him to have been in fear of death or serious bodily injury.
-
o correct me here - you don’t think having a history of pulling guns on black people and calling them racial slurs is a problem in a shooting of a black persons over a parking space???
Woah woah woah I thought past history didn’t matter...or at least that’s what you said in regards to the deceased felon *expletive deleted*head
-
So correct me here - you don’t think having a history of pulling guns on black people and calling them racial slurs is a problem in a shooting of a black persons over a parking space???
The deceased wasn't shot over a parking space. He was shot because he attacked someone. The accused maybe a nasty ahole- who knows- but the video I saw was of a man being attacked, who then killed the attacker. Good shoot.
-
The deceased wasn't shot over a parking space. He was shot because he attacked someone. The accused maybe a nasty ahole- who knows- but the video I saw was of a man being attacked, who then killed the attacker. Good shoot.
And that is the point the news media (and others) talk right past. The deceased wasn't involved in the argument over the parking space. He just walked up and shoved the guy. Had he gotten involved in the argument first instead of attacking, Dreka may have backed off and he would still be alive.
-
What De Selby (and admittedly many others) are missing is being an ahole, even a racist ahole, does not deprive you of your right to life, nor the right to defend your life.
One could in fact tell your room mate "I'm gonna go shoot me a black man!" and then go to the ghetto and walk up and down the street counting a roll of $100 bills until you are mugged, and still have the right to defend yourself. The trial would be more of an uphill battle, for sure, but with the right circumstances it's legal. Much like saying you're having an Art showing of Mohammad cartoons and capping the terrorists that show up (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Culwell_Center_attack). Laws tend to be written against the person that initiates physical assault.
I'm unaware of a successful, modern, "Fighting Words" defense to shooting someone.
Drejka is almost certainly racist, and certainly has been intemperate in the past, with a firearm, but apparently not to the level of a conviction. He likely was spoiling for a confrontation. Had he shot the woman that he started abusing over a parking space this would be a very different conversation. But he didn't. He shot the guy that attacked him. Indeed, absent some evidence not in public McGlockton attacked him without any legal provocation.
Unless the store clerk, or McGlockton's girlfriend or someone can show that McGlockton was acting out of a reasonable fear for someone else's life or health, McGlockton is the aggressor and Drejka is the victim, regardless of Drejka's earlier acts and statements.
I suspect that's why the Sheriff's office kicked it up to the State Attorney, so they can fall on that hand grenade, ala Casey Anthony. Now, Drejka is almost certainly an ahole, and made some bad decisions, so the wrong jury (or right jury) could still convict him. They could find that his fear was unreasonable, and his previous statements and acts could add to that perception.
I think technically he's probably on the legal side of this shoot.
I think morally he's a racist ahole that was out looking for a fight.
I think practically there's no way to tell where the jury's going to go.
The points De Selby is harping on are, once again, wrong or irrelevant under FL law.
The one prediction I will make about this trial with a fair bit of confidence is that CNN will try to get and publicize the juror's names. That worked so well they won't be able to help themselves.
-
De Selby, however, seems to be following his normal program of pulling one or two things from evidence, ignoring what he doesn't like, and doubling or tripling down on his preconceived notions.
Man, I hate to sink to arguing on a personal level, but that just about sums up my thinking about De Selby's contributions to this discussion. Mea culpa.
My summation?
1. Antecedent stupidities have nothing to do with this incident.
2. Antecedent police records have nothing to do with this incident.
3. Antecedent discussion with the woman had nothing to do with this incident.
4. My first impression of McGlockton's movements were that he was getting ready for a follow-up kicking and stomping attack.
5. Subsequent viewings made me reconsider but not reject point 4, and I could understand that it might well have reasonably looked that way from the point of view of the person who had been violently shoved down to the ground.
6. Absent a clear confession of premeditated intent from the shooter, this was legally a good shoot under most definitions of fear of severe bodily harm or death.
7. Don't be such a jerk, whether you're carrying or not.
Terry, 230RN
-
What are you seeing that we're missing?
Remember who you're asking; do you really want to hear all about the green-sky land of the chipmunk people? His world probably looks like some scene the Rick and Morty producers deleted as "too incomprehensible."
-
Many of you are missing the salient point here, and it’s not a theoretical one - past actions absolutely can be used to say something about your state of mind in a self defence shooting.
The problem and the relevance of these past incidents isn’t that they show Drejka is a toolbag.
What’s important is that in a trial where the video divides opinions even on the most presumptively favourable to ccs shooting boards, he will have to show that his state of mind was fear, and that he shot someoen backing away out of fear.
But that’s going to be a problem - because there’s a history of his behaviour in very similar circumstances that suggests his decision to shoot was motivated by retaliation, anger, and racism. The argument will be made, not unreasonably, that he should’ve seen McGlockton backing away, but chose to follow him with his pistol sights in order to carry out his clearly indicated “looking for an excuse” fantasy.
The analogy is being a homeowner with “trespassers will be shot” signs, and a history of pulling guns on jehovahs witnesses. If one day the police show up to find a body at your house, of course you’ll say “I was afraid for my life.” But they’re going to look at your past conduct and, if it looks like you were itching to shoot someone, there’s a much higher chance they’ll let the jury decide whether to believe you.
And in making a call, that jury is highly likely to hear about how you’ve behaved in those circumstances in the past.
-
Will the dead thugs history of crime and violence be allowed in court as evidence of his mindset?
Or will mind reading only be allowed to be used by the prosecutors?
-
Hahahaha did you read the warrant???? Explains very well how they measured the distance - including the shooters own version
You are confusing the warrant with the supporting affidavit -- most of which is inadmissable because it speaks to prior acts.
-
There's something else that De Selby is overlooking ... there's no indication that Drejka chose to engage the woman because she was black. Rather, the handicapped space seems to have been his hot button issue. From the affidavit (which De Selby refers to as "the warrant," but which is not the warrant):
Britany Jacobs remained in the car with her two children. The car remained on with the windows in the upward position.
This was Florida, and these were (IMHO, based on what we know of McGlockton's criminal record) low-life trash. There's about a 98.7 percent probability that the windows of that car are tinted with limo tint so dark that you can't see who's behind the glass. And the windows were closed until after Drejka initiated the "discussion." My guess is that he had no idea what color or race or even gender she was until after she opened her windows and started mouthing back at him.
So he didn't pick a fight with Britany because she was black ... he confronted Britany because she was illegally parked in a parking space reserved for the handicapped.
-
There's something else that De Selby is overlooking ... there's no indication that Drejka chose to engage the woman because she was black. Rather, the handicapped space seems to have been his hot button issue. From the affidavit (which De Selby refers to as "the warrant," but which is not the warrant):
This was Florida, and these were (IMHO, based on what we know of McGlockton's criminal record) low-life trash. There's about a 98.7 percent probability that the windows of that car are tinted with limo tint so dark that you can't see who's behind the glass. And the windows were closed until after Drejka initiated the "discussion." My guess is that he had no idea what color or race or even gender she was until after she opened her windows and started mouthing back at him.
So he didn't pick a fight with Britany because she was black ... he confronted Britany because she was illegally parked in a parking space reserved for the handicapped.
On the other hand, if he saw the deceased exit the car...
-
Will the dead thugs history of crime and violence be allowed in court as evidence of his mindset?
Or will mind reading only be allowed to be used by the prosecutors?
No, because he isn’t being charged for the shove. His mindset isn’t relevant to what Drejka perceived.
-
You are confusing the warrant with the supporting affidavit -- most of which is inadmissable because it speaks to prior acts.
The fact of something being “prior” by itself does not make evidence inadmissible in any jurisdiction in the United States. I have no clue what you’re talking about here but it is certainly possible to admit evidence of the kind described in the [pick your technical term].
-
There's something else that De Selby is overlooking ... there's no indication that Drejka chose to engage the woman because she was black. Rather, the handicapped space seems to have been his hot button issue. From the affidavit (which De Selby refers to as "the warrant," but which is not the warrant):
This was Florida, and these were (IMHO, based on what we know of McGlockton's criminal record) low-life trash. There's about a 98.7 percent probability that the windows of that car are tinted with limo tint so dark that you can't see who's behind the glass. And the windows were closed until after Drejka initiated the "discussion." My guess is that he had no idea what color or race or even gender she was until after she opened her windows and started mouthing back at him.
So he didn't pick a fight with Britany because she was black ... he confronted Britany because she was illegally parked in a parking space reserved for the handicapped.
This is a great piece of fantasy that demonstrates how far you’re going to try and lock this up as a good shoot.
Drejka would be unrealistically lucky to have jurors so motivated to find a way to acquit.
-
This is a great piece of fantasy that demonstrates how far you’re going to try and lock this up as a good shoot.
Drejka would be unrealistically lucky to have jurors so motivated to find a way to acquit.
It only takes one ...
-
It only takes one ...
To hang a jury. With that video of the guy backing away as soon as Drejka reaches for the gun....
-
Many of you are missing the salient point here, and it’s not a theoretical one - past actions absolutely can be used to say something about your state of mind in a self defence shooting.
The problem and the relevance of these past incidents isn’t that they show Drejka is a toolbag.
What’s important is that in a trial where the video divides opinions even on the most presumptively favourable to ccs shooting boards, he will have to show that his state of mind was fear, and that he shot someoen backing away out of fear.
But that’s going to be a problem - because there’s a history of his behaviour in very similar circumstances that suggests his decision to shoot was motivated by retaliation, anger, and racism. The argument will be made, not unreasonably, that he should’ve seen McGlockton backing away, but chose to follow him with his pistol sights in order to carry out his clearly indicated “looking for an excuse” fantasy.
The analogy is being a homeowner with “trespassers will be shot” signs, and a history of pulling guns on jehovahs witnesses. If one day the police show up to find a body at your house, of course you’ll say “I was afraid for my life.” But they’re going to look at your past conduct and, if it looks like you were itching to shoot someone, there’s a much higher chance they’ll let the jury decide whether to believe you.
And in making a call, that jury is highly likely to hear about how you’ve behaved in those circumstances in the past.
I don't think you're wrong.
-
I don't think you're wrong.
I have to agree with that as well. From the layperson's perspective, I don't understand why the dead guy's past wouldn't be brought up, since he initiated the physical stuff, but I don't see how the shooter's past would not be brought up as well, because it's just too related to his behavior before the physical part of the incident started.
That doesn't mean I think the shooter should be prosecuted. There is still the law and reasonable doubt, and the initiation of physical contact by the other party. It's just the more I read about the shooter, this is kind of going to be like a first amendment case, where someone says something stupid and disgusting, but their rights have to be protected just like anyone else's.
As I said earlier in the thread, if the shooter had been circling my vehicle, I'd be prepared to go to condition orange. If he pulled his gun to wave it around to show me he was a tough guy, I'd likely consider it a threat to my life and shoot. Again, the dead guy wasn't the one in the car, and all I said about him earlier in the thread still holds, which is why I (barely) give the shooter the benefit of the doubt.
As was pointed out elsewhere here by zxcvbob, this is really a case of "When aholes collide".
-
Are past complaints admissible that didn't result in charges and may or may not be true?
-
This is a great piece of fantasy that demonstrates how far you’re going to try and lock this up as a good shoot.
Yeah, almost as fantastical as those who tried to make Zimmerman guilty.
In any case, the kernel of Hawkmoon's post was that Drejka was upset about the parking issue more than the race of the driver. That seems reasonable enough, right, since he had accosted people for that previously?
-
Yeah, almost as fantastical as those who tried to make Zimmerman guilty.
In any case, the kernel of Hawkmoon's post was that Drejka was upset about the parking issue more than the race of the driver. That seems reasonable enough, right, since he had accosted people for that previously?
You mean accosted people by shouting racial slurs? Yeah, I’m sure it was just about the parking.
The video itself is also a problem. His victim is clearly backing away before the shot. And take a look at how many people are staring at him before the confrontation with the victim.
He’s also, unlike Zimmerman, charged with a more easily proveable offence.
-
Are past complaints admissible that didn't result in charges and may or may not be true?
There are two actual witnesses identified in those papers. Whether they are admissible or not will depend on lots of things, but the fact that they weren’t charged won’t be determinative.
People who have seen you do a thing are always liable to show up testifying at the worst times.
-
You mean accosted people by shouting racial slurs? Yeah, I’m sure it was just about the parking.
The video itself is also a problem. His victim is clearly backing away before the shot. And take a look at how many people are staring at him before the confrontation with the victim.
He’s also, unlike Zimmerman, charged with a more easily proveable offence.
I have no argument with the last two things, and I never said it was only the parking that bothered him. But aren't all of the past incidents related to parking, or road rage?
-
You mean accosted people by shouting racial slurs? Yeah, I’m sure it was just about the parking.
The video itself is also a problem. His victim is clearly backing away before the shot. And take a look at how many people are staring at him before the confrontation with the victim.
He’s also, unlike Zimmerman, charged with a more easily proveable offence.
Did he ever yell and say mean things to non-black people over parking in spots where they weren't supposed to or did he ignore them, or did he simply never see one do it so hadn't had the opportunity?
-
Did he ever yell and say mean things to non-black people over parking in spots where they weren't supposed to or did he ignore them, or did he simply never see one do it so hadn't had the opportunity?
If a tree falls in the forest when there's no one there to hear ... does it make a sound?
-
Thread necro:
Convicted on Manslaughter. I need to reread this thread, because I can't remember exactly where I ended up on this, other than "When aholes collide".
https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-michael-drejka-second-amendment-guilty-manslaughter-mcglockton
-
Thinking back, that was a case that was hard to pin down outside of arguing with DeSelby. I could see it from either perspective. What kept getting to me is the dead guy just walked up and knocked him to the ground without a word. I guess the lesson if there is one is to be really careful. Even if attacked, if pulling the gun makes them back off, it is likely better legally to avoid firing. Every situation is different. That and juries are not necessarily going to make dispassionate decision based solely on the law.
Drejka will be sentenced in October and could get up to 30 years behind bars.
You can get 30 years for manslaughter in Florida? That seems excessive for that charge.
-
I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that both the prosecution and the jury decision may have been heavily tilted by the fact that a certain other notorious shooting in Florida did not result in a conviction.
To convict, the decision of the jury must be unanimous. Obviously, I wasn't in the courtroom so I didn't hear the witnesses or the arguments offered by the prosecution or the defense. I DID watch the video -- numerous times, both at normal speed and slowed down. I get that the video shows the attacker beginning to back off -- AFTER Drejka pulled the gun and was in the process of "presenting" and firing. I can understand also how that's too late to back off. The way the mind works, and the way muscle response works, once Drejka started the act of drawing, especially after having just been shoved rather violently to the ground, I can understand how drawing and firing became a single act that he might not have been able to consciously interrupt, even if he had realized that the attacker had reversed direction.
I can understand that some on the jury voted to convict. I think many of the members here who joined in the discussion probably would have voted to convict. What I find surprising is that everyone on the jury voted to convict. I would have expected a hung jury.
-
This provides a pretty good breakdown of the verdict … :old:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/08/verdict-michael-drejka-guilty-of-manslaughter/
Although sentencing isn’t scheduled until October 10, there seems little ambiguity in what that sentence is likely to be. Florida’s “10-20-Life” firearms sentencing statute, §775.087, mandates a 25-year-to-life sentence for a crime committed with a gun in which the gun is used to shoot and kill a victim. Drejka turned 49 earlier this month, so he would be 74 years of age before there is a possibility of his release from prison.
-
My take-away from the article in Chester's link:
In evaluating whether Drejka reasonably perceived an imminent deadly force threat from McGlockton at the time he fired the shot, it’s important to differentiate between facts and claims that are relevant to that question and those that are not. Frankly, it seemed to me in my quick review of the trial testimony and argument that there was an excessive emphasis on irrelevant matters.
To start, even the video itself is not decisive on the question of whether Drejka was seeing what the video camera was seeing, if only because of differences in position and angle. Also, the camera had not just been thrown violently to the ground, a physical experience that can affect perception. The reasonableness of Drejka’s perception of a threat is properly judged in the context of a person in his circumstances—that is, was it the reasonable perception of a person who had just been violently thrown to the ground?
Related, it doesn’t matter if McGlockton actually presented a deadly force threat to Drejka. Rather, it only matters if Drejka reasonably perceived such a threat.
And that's why I am amazed that there wasn't at least a hung jury, if not an acquittal.
-
White shooter, black decedent. The outcome was predetermined.
-
This case and thread remind me of a presentation I saw on the impact of Hollywood on the legal system. Jurors now, having watched so many TV shows and movies, have grossly distorted beliefs when it comes to injuries caused by violence. People seriously underestimate the level of damage that can be done by punches and kicks, because they have seen many times people kicked in the head by Chuck Norris be completely fine moments later. Jurors don't equate unarmed violence with deadly force. At the same time, the "shoot him in the arm/leg" thing still exists. Frankly, from what I have read and seen of this case, I believe that the Hollywood factor came into play. Unarmed man = no threat. Drawn gun fired center of mass = shoot to kill. For us as lawful gun owners, need to keep in mind that jurors won't know everything we know. They wont know an unarmed man can be a deadly threat. They wont know that you aim center of mass because it's the best way to get a hit. Your lawyer does need to know these things, and be prepared to present expert testimony as needed.
-
This case and thread remind me of a presentation I saw on the impact of Hollywood on the legal system. Jurors now, having watched so many TV shows and movies, have grossly distorted beliefs when it comes to injuries caused by violence. People seriously underestimate the level of damage that can be done by punches and kicks, because they have seen many times people kicked in the head by Chuck Norris be completely fine moments later. Jurors don't equate unarmed violence with deadly force. At the same time, the "shoot him in the arm/leg" thing still exists. Frankly, from what I have read and seen of this case, I believe that the Hollywood factor came into play. Unarmed man = no threat. Drawn gun fired center of mass = shoot to kill. For us as lawful gun owners, need to keep in mind that jurors won't know everything we know. They wont know an unarmed man can be a deadly threat. They wont know that you aim center of mass because it's the best way to get a hit. Your lawyer does need to know these things, and be prepared to present expert testimony as needed.
All good points. A single punch can cause permanent damage, or kill. Even the shove here could have killed - all it would have taken was for the victim's head to smack the curb.
Also (again, thanks to Hollywood), far too many otherwise rational people really believe that if you have a gun, you can "shoot him in the leg". They completely ignore all the instances of trained LE sending 20 rounds downrange (while aiming for COM) before they hit a guy.
I'm still unsure where I fall here. Absolutely Drejka should have not been an ass. I reiterate that if someone approached me in my car in the manner he did with that woman, I would go to condition orange. I also reiterate that what he did did not deserve the shove out of nowhere after the fact. I still submit that the dead guy was a bully who figured he had an easy advantage. The potential sentence certainly seems out of line considering the circumstances. Had Drejka shot before he was shoved (depending on circumstances and perceived threat), I might agree with "up to 30 years". I'd be curious on the demographics of the jury.
-
. . . I'd be curious on the demographics of the jury.
Ditto. As well as the judge, prosecutor, and any witnesses.
-
This case and thread remind me of a presentation I saw on the impact of Hollywood on the legal system. Jurors now, having watched so many TV shows and movies, have grossly distorted beliefs when it comes to injuries caused by violence. People seriously underestimate the level of damage that can be done by punches and kicks, because they have seen many times people kicked in the head by Chuck Norris be completely fine moments later. Jurors don't equate unarmed violence with deadly force.
People also aren't aware of the effects of temporal distortion in times of stress. I have been in more than one incident (thankfully none involving physical attack) in which the time the event actually took to transpire was completely different from the perceived time as the incident unfolded. Also, irrespective of whether or not Drejka's head bounced off the pavement when he was shoved, the violent shove had to have been disorienting. It was a sneak attack -- he didn't see it coming. In fact, as I think I commented at the time, the female set him up for it. She stayed in the car until McGlockton came out of the store. THEN she got out of the car, attracting Drejka's attention toward her so McGlockton was able to blindside Drejka.
Try to imagine yourself in that situation. One second you're standing on a sidewalk, arguing with a woman. The next second you've been violently shoved to the ground and there's a big, angry, muscular dude coming at you (and probably telling you he's going to stomp your [bleep]ing butt). I respectfully submit that it's completely unrealistic to expect that Drejka could have been capable of calm, rational analysis at that moment in time. And, as the author of the recent article stated, self defense law is supposed to be viewed according to what a reasonable person in the same position as the defendant would have known and would have done.
-
When I was a paramedic, I saw many patients who died or suffered permanent disabling injuries as a result of a punch, strike, kick, stomp or shove. The skull, brain and spine are more fragile than most people think.
-
it seemed like a clear case of self defense to me, i hope it gets tossed out on an appeal.
I certainly don't want that idiot telling me how to park tho.
-
The shooting someone backing away part of the video was likely key.
The lesson is that you’ll be expected to make quick decisions if you carry a gun. If you have a history of waving the thing around and starting confrontations, it seems to me a jury is always going to be much less likely to buy a defense.
-
On the issue or prior acts coming into evidence, here's what the rules are in general...
For the "victim" (i.e. the person who got shot), that person's prior history generally can't come into evidence. Why? Can't justify a shooting using information the shooter obtained after the shooting is all done. The shooting must be justified by the acts leading up to the shot. Now, someone in this crowd is going to say "but what if the shooter knew of the person's history of violence/prior threats/etc.?" That can change the rule somewhat, and you have an argument that can be made as long as you can demonstrate that the shooter had that knowledge before the incident. Example: Guy has repeatedly said "I'm going to cut your head off," and one day he's walking towards you with a machete in his hands. You can probably get those threats into evidence.
For the shooter, now it gets less clear. In general, a prosecutor cannot introduce "prior bad acts." In plain English, a prosecutor generally cannot introduce evidence of previous actions by the accused in an effort to show "he did it before, so he must have done it again." This rule (like almost all court rules) has exceptions, and among those are the use of prior acts to show motive, or to demonstrate a continuing course of conduct. The biggest is for use as impeachment, and that's where a good lawyer comes in. If the shooter is testifying and says something along the lines of "I would never pull my gun on someone because of (X reason)," the prosecutor can then introduce evidence of all the times you did pull your gun for that reason.
Bottom line: assume that the prior history of the person shot isn't going to see the light of day at trial. And, live your life as if everything you do will be offered as evidence against you. Don't go around making racist statements. Don't go around threatening people. Don't go around saying you'll shot someone. Don't wear shirts that say "kill them all and let God sort them out." Don't create a history of drawing your weapon. Avoid giving evidence to the other side if, God forbid, you end up in a shooting and are on the legal defense.
-
Bottom line: assume that the prior history of the person shot isn't going to see the light of day at trial. And, live your life as if everything you do will be offered as evidence against you. Don't go around making racist statements. Don't go around threatening people. Don't go around saying you'll shot someone. Don't wear shirts that say "kill them all and let God sort them out." Don't create a history of drawing your weapon. Avoid giving evidence to the other side if, God forbid, you end up in a shooting and are on the legal defense.
And for Heaven's sake, don't put Punisher grips on your Roscoe.
-
it seemed like a clear case of self defense to me, i hope it gets tossed out on an appeal.
I certainly don't want that idiot telling me how to park tho.
This. It seems like horrible call by the jury. A video of a man attacking someone from behind... the accused shoots the attacker while still on the ground a few seconds later?
Looked like clear cut self defense to me.
-
This. It seems like horrible call by the jury. A video of a man attacking someone from behind... the accused shoots the attacker while still on the ground a few seconds later?
Looked like clear cut self defense to me.
My guess is that the defense did not present any evidence on the disparity of force issue, and the jurors found a gunshot in response to an unarmed shove was excessive, and an improper use of deadly force. Assuming no legal errors along the course of the case, it will be extremely difficult to win an appeal. Appellate courts pay great deference to jury decisions.
-
My guess is that the defense did not present any evidence on the disparity of force issue, and the jurors found a gunshot in response to an unarmed shove was excessive, and an improper use of deadly force. Assuming no legal errors along the course of the case, it will be extremely difficult to win an appeal. Appellate courts pay great deference to jury decisions.
"An unarmed shove"?! Are you blind? He shoved him with his ARMS! It's on the tape!
-
I also heard it pointed out the guy gave a full interview to the cops afterward without having a lawyer present. Without other evidence, I suspect he was one of those people that can't bring themselves to shut up when they are agitated. He may have said something that didn't go over well in court.
Either way, the lesson for us is that we may not be able to control how events are viewed by others. We may be certain our actions are justified, but the perception of others may be different.
-
I also heard it pointed out the guy gave a full interview to the cops afterward without having a lawyer present. Without other evidence, I suspect he was one of those people that can't bring themselves to shut up when they are agitated. He may have said something that didn't go over well in court.
That wouldn't surprise me one little bit.
-
yep, the dude certainly is a dope.
can you imagine going thru all the trouble of getting a ccw, just so you can yell at parking violators?
iirc he was sort of well known for awhile as being the self appointed parking control officer.
if he had kept his mouth shut he might have skated, he was just so certain he was right.
-
this is the intial police interview i guess
-
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/09/drejka-case-analysis-when-the-tueller-drill-21-foot-defense-is-defined-out-of-existence/#more-293585
Applying that legal standard in this case, the core question in this case is this: Did Drejka, in the context of the circumstance that had been imposed on him, reasonably, even if mistakenly, perceive McGlockton to be an imminent threat when Drejka used defensive force against McGlockton?
If so, the shooting was lawfully justified. And that is precisely the question intended to be answered by the criminal trial of Michael Drejka in the shooting death of Markeis McGlockton.
[popcorn]
-
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/09/drejka-case-analysis-when-the-tueller-drill-21-foot-defense-is-defined-out-of-existence/#more-293585
Very good analysis, and it confirms my supposition that Drejka had lousy lawyers.
-
he talked his way into prison.
i thought i posted his interview with the cops after his arrest.
its on youtube.
he basically says he didn't call the police on parking violators because the police didn't do anything.
in essence, he was telling people what to do, a parking vigilante.
I would not vote to convict if i was on the jury, but i also feel like sending him pictures in jail of me violating parking rules.
i guess its a florida thing, this jackwagon spends his days videotaping parking violators
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXis4ftoPVo&t=198s
-
he basically says he didn't call the police on parking violators because the police didn't do anything.
Are you suggesting that he's wrong, that the police will immediately dispatch a patrol unit to a report of someone parking in a handicapped space without a placard?
in essence, he was telling people what to do, a parking vigilante.
I don't regard it as "telling people what to do," I regard it as reminding people of what the law requires. He should not have to do that but, if the police won't enforce the law (and they don't, for handicapped parking spaces), then somebody has to step up. Reminding someone that they're breaking the law should not result in being ambushed in a violent physical attack. The reality is that legislators should not pass laws without making certain that those laws will be enforced.
-
Are you suggesting that he's wrong, that the police will immediately dispatch a patrol unit to a report of someone parking in a handicapped space without a placard?
I don't regard it as "telling people what to do," I regard it as reminding people of what the law requires. He should not have to do that but, if the police won't enforce the law (and they don't, for handicapped parking spaces), then somebody has to step up. Reminding someone that they're breaking the law should not result in being ambushed in a violent physical attack. The reality is that legislators should not pass laws without making certain that those laws will be enforced.
While not disagreeing with the basis of your statement, that's a *very* nerfed representation of what the shooter was doing, and had done in the past.
Were I forced to reflect on it, I would consider enforcing the laws on handicapped parking spots right about on a par with enforcing the laws on selling individual cigarettes. That is to say, probably don't need the threat of force that comes with a Law Enforcement Officer's arrival on seen.
***
A very big takeaway from this case for the rest of us, is even if your are technically justified in the instant you pull a trigger, which I still think Drejka probably was, the totality of your behavior before and after will be considered by law enforcement, prosecutors, and a jury. Both Zimmerman and this case should have firmly cemented that for all of us.
I refer again to my favorite quote. "Be Polite, Be Professional, Have a plan to kill everyone you meet." Had Drejka had a long history of politely requesting folks to move their cars, this would likely be a different thread. Let us also not conflate what "should be" with what "is".
-
If you are the type to confront people about essentially nothing stuff like parking in handicapped spaces, besides placing yourself in danger by initiating contact with someone who obviously doesn’t give a *expletive deleted*it about societal norms, it’s not going to convince somebody like that to not do wrong. It’s wasted breath on trash.
-
In general, just telling people they are parking violators is one thing. Chewing them out for a few minutes and running your mouth about it is probably not the best way to go. Had he just informed the woman, written down her license tag number, and walked away nothing further would have happened. I take that as a lesson about being confrontational when carrying. It just isn't worth the potential problems.
-
A very big takeaway from this case for the rest of us, is even if your are technically justified in the instant you pull a trigger, which I still think Drejka probably was, the totality of your behavior before and after will be considered by law enforcement, prosecutors, and a jury. Both Zimmerman and this case should have firmly cemented that for all of us.
I refer again to my favorite quote. "Be Polite, Be Professional, Have a plan to kill everyone you meet." Had Drejka had a long history of politely requesting folks to move their cars, this would likely be a different thread. Let us also not conflate what "should be" with what "is".
I don't disagree with any of this. I don't think I ever suggested that Drejka isn't a moron. I just think his lawyers dropped the ball hugely. He should have gotten an acquittal or, at worst, a hung jury.
-
If you are the type to confront people about essentially nothing stuff like parking in handicapped spaces, besides placing yourself in danger by initiating contact with someone who obviously doesn’t give a *expletive deleted*it about societal norms, it’s not going to convince somebody like that to not do wrong. It’s wasted breath on trash.
There's another wrinkle, too. The ADA requires providing and marking handicapped parking spaces, but there are no penalties under the ADA for an able-bodied person who parks in a handicapped space. In fact, I don't think the ADA even addresses that possibility. That falls to the states to cover it under state law. In my state, statute very specifically spells out the size of the handicapped spaces, the painting of the lines on the pavement, and the size, color, and language that must appear on the signs. That's all well and good -- except that if a property owner doesn't comply with any aspect of the statute when laying out and marking the handicapped spaces -- then under the law they AREN'T handicapped spaces, and the cops CAN'T issue a ticket for able-bodied people parking in them.
-
The biggest take away is not to shoot someone while they are backing away from you.
The teuller drill thing won’t work because anyone in public will have multiple threats that *could* reach them, and the odds of having an APS-like juror to tell that story to are near zero. Rely on a credible, clear behaviour that shows a live threat and you’re as safe as you can be.
It’s heen interesting watching other gun forums on this shooting - most owners I’m seeing called this a bad shoot from day one.
-
The biggest take away is not to shoot someone while they are backing away from you.
The teuller drill thing won’t work because anyone in public will have multiple threats that *could* reach them, and the odds of having an APS-like juror to tell that story to are near zero. Rely on a credible, clear behaviour that shows a live threat and you’re as safe as you can be.
It’s heen interesting watching other gun forums on this shooting - most owners I’m seeing called this a bad shoot from day one.
That assumes you realized they are backing away rather than everyone looking at video and acting as Monday morning quarterbacks. I agree that you need to continually judge the threat after you draw to the best of your ability. If it happens on video, your actions will be picked apart by everyone.
-
well, I thought it was a good shoot "but".
however the jury and lawyers don't much care for him.
I totally dislike people parking in handicapped spots and blocking wheelchair access ramps.
i have even called parking enforcement - they come way quicker than cops sometimes because its revenue.
however - getting into pointless arguments while packing results in incidents like this.
I only get into pointless arguments when I am not packing.....
pointless arguments are more fun online where they belong
-
I still think that from the shooter's viewpoint, the deceased's backing up and making "no-no" gestures could easily have been interpreted as preparation for a kicking attack.
That's what I still think, but I guess the issue is now closed and what I still think don't mean nuthin' nohow.
Terry, 230RN
-
That assumes you realized they are backing away rather than everyone looking at video and acting as Monday morning quarterbacks. I agree that you need to continually judge the threat after you draw to the best of your ability. If it happens on video, your actions will be picked apart by everyone.
Juries aren’t required to assume you knew - they only need to find that you should have known for a conviction in a case like this. Monday morning quarterbacking is what’s going to happen (and generally does by law) in any SD shooting. You will generally face charges that apply an objective test, so whether you actually felt fear isn’t determinative - the fear has to be reasonable.
Being unable to testify because you have a history of threatening people with a gun (or whatever the reason was) doesn’t help. Jurors notice that you are not there to tell them what happened.
-
You will generally face charges that apply an objective test, so whether you actually felt fear isn’t determinative - the fear has to be reasonable.
How, exactly, is the term "reasonable" an objective test?
-
How, exactly, is the term "reasonable" an objective test?
Because it doesn’t require imagining what a specific person thought at the time - it requires imagining what a theoretical reasonable person would normally have seen. Hence it is objective - what you actually thought at the time is irrelevant; what an imaginary normal person would have thought is.
-
Because it doesn’t require imagining what a specific person thought at the time - it requires imagining what a theoretical reasonable person would normally have seen. Hence it is objective - what you actually thought at the time is irrelevant; what an imaginary normal person would have thought is.
And you think the average juror will go through that doublethink exercise?
Sorry, I think the shooter was an asshat about the parking space and I could be prejudiced against him on that account, but I can also put myself in his head after being aggressively physically shoved down to the ground, and "perceiving" the attacker as preparing to "kick a man while he's down" and "reasonably" fearing that outcome.
But, like I say, what I think don't matter nohow no more.
Terry, 230RN
-
One can say "don't shoot a man who is backing up" and I would agree with that. However, that does you a whole lot of good if you don't realize he is backing up when you pull the trigger. Your perception as the person who is defending himself may not be the same as the perception of a 3rd party watching a video. We all hope it will be simple if we find ourselves in a self defense situation, but it is not always so. Just one more thing to think about when imagining possible scenarios or looking at various self defense stories.
-
When I took my CCW class, the instructor said that the license is a permit, but should also be seen as a restriction. Meaning that when you load up, holster, and walk out the door, you are restricted from some things, like screaming at someone for cutting in line at the store, from flipping out when someone cuts you off in traffic, from yelling at someone for a bad parking job. Basically, you are restricted from doing things that would get you labeled as being an ass. I always thought that was good advice. Our shooter here should have heeded that advice, IMHO.
-
Because it doesn’t require imagining what a specific person thought at the time - it requires imagining what a theoretical reasonable person would normally have seen. Hence it is objective - what you actually thought at the time is irrelevant; what an imaginary normal person would have thought is.
Only a lawyer could claim with a straight face that asking 12 individuals to try to think like an imaginary person and then reconcile those 12 opinions is "objective". That's not what that word means.
The "reasonable man" standard is useful, and could even be the best we could hope for in the real world, but it's patently subjective.
-
Only a lawyer could claim with a straight face that asking 12 individuals to try to think like an imaginary person and then reconcile those 12 opinions is "objective". That's not what that word means.
The "reasonable man" standard is useful, and could even be the best we could hope for in the real world, but it's patently subjective.
You are absolutely correct, but I have read diatribes by attorneys on "gun" forums defending the so-called "reasonable man test" as being an objective standard. On any rational level it should be obvious that it cannot possibly be objective, but they are taught in law school that it is, and it seems most of them believe it.
-
When I took my CCW class, the instructor said that the license is a permit, but should also be seen as a restriction. Meaning that when you load up, holster, and walk out the door, you are restricted from some things, like screaming at someone for cutting in line at the store, from flipping out when someone cuts you off in traffic, from yelling at someone for a bad parking job. Basically, you are restricted from doing things that would get you labeled as being an ass. I always thought that was good advice. Our shooter here should have heeded that advice, IMHO.
My parents put those restrictions on me long before I got a pistol permit.
-
When I took my CCW class, the instructor said that the license is a permit, but should also be seen as a restriction. Meaning that when you load up, holster, and walk out the door, you are restricted from some things, like screaming at someone for cutting in line at the store, from flipping out when someone cuts you off in traffic, from yelling at someone for a bad parking job. Basically, you are restricted from doing things that would get you labeled as being an ass. I always thought that was good advice. Our shooter here should have heeded that advice, IMHO.
Good counsel, Counselor !
"Do not draw me without reason, do not holster me without honor." --My Gun
-
When I took my CCW class, the instructor said that the license is a permit, but should also be seen as a restriction. Meaning that when you load up, holster, and walk out the door, you are restricted from some things, like screaming at someone for cutting in line at the store, from flipping out when someone cuts you off in traffic, from yelling at someone for a bad parking job. Basically, you are restricted from doing things that would get you labeled as being an ass. I always thought that was good advice. Our shooter here should have heeded that advice, IMHO.
this so much!
eleventy plus 11.
so many "non gun" people think the ccw/pack a gun thing means you have carte blanche to be the assertive talk chit dude to strangers guy- for me its always been the opposite ....
I only feel free to be the aggressive jerk to the other aggressive jerk if I am not packing.
when I'm armed I am mister meek personified .
I had a stupid GF tell an aggressive panhandler i was armed.
next place I live I am keeping my views and EDC better hidden
-
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/10/769089719/florida-man-who-shot-and-killed-a-black-man-in-parking-dispute-gets-20-years?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&fbclid=IwAR0ZG3sxVFOfIF4MaNHLmz3h75NqzJ2gZolo3hfqlvJRrGw4R95aNQB0F2Y
20 years in prison for Mr. Drejka.
-
Does Florida specify when prisoners are eligible for parole? Usually that is part of the sentence in some states, but the article didn't say.
There are a lot of lessons for concealed carriers in this that we have already debated to death. Something to remember.
-
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/10/769089719/florida-man-who-shot-and-killed-a-black-man-in-parking-dispute-gets-20-years?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&fbclid=IwAR0ZG3sxVFOfIF4MaNHLmz3h75NqzJ2gZolo3hfqlvJRrGw4R95aNQB0F2Y
20 years in prison for Mr. Drejka.
I wonder when he's eligible for parole?
This is something I wasn't aware of:
the judge found it ironic that Drejka illegally parked next to McGlockton's girlfriend's car and then confronted her about parking illegally in a handicapped space.
Edit: Mech beat me to the punch on parole.
-
When I took my CCW class, the instructor said that the license is a permit, but should also be seen as a restriction. Meaning that when you load up, holster, and walk out the door, you are restricted from some things, like screaming at someone for cutting in line at the store, from flipping out when someone cuts you off in traffic, from yelling at someone for a bad parking job. Basically, you are restricted from doing things that would get you labeled as being an ass. I always thought that was good advice. Our shooter here should have heeded that advice, IMHO.
Exactly.
Also, a must read, its full of hard truths and legal opinions that aren't going to be popular with a lot of people who haven't thought the responsibility that comes with CCW through (1): https://www.amazon.com/Law-Self-Defense-Indispensable-Citizen/dp/0988867702
(1) useful book, but just as a warning, the author online personality is pompous ass dialed to 11, I had to block him on FB.