Fake news! That's not what the video shows. 3 spots in front of the door available and they pull into the handicap spot.
Stand your ground?
- Thread starter QuaZ2002
- Start date
- Status
Fake news! That's not what the video shows. 3 spots in front of the door available and they pull into the handicap spot.
Or how about “Whatever, dude...” as you get in your car and drive away?
I see people in road rage incidents all the time getting out of their cars and stomping up to drivers’ windows to yell at them. Put this shooter in that situation and who knows what can happen.
I watched that video again and it does make you wonder whether he was so emboldened because he knew he was carrying.
Probably squirted in his shorts when that bullet hit home.
The guy sent to murder him from the gang he ratted on was shot in the side. As he was running away he stopped and turned to fire at the former informant which is when he was shot and killed. It did happen outside the house though. Still in my mind it’s still a terrible thing because the LEOs put him in that position by forcing him to turn informant against a violent gang and then leaving him hung out to dry with no protection.
Years ago I used to instruct PPCT and The Use of Force Continuum. This was basically the way you could justify what level of force you used. For instance if someone throws a punch at you; you can't just shoot them. Now if someone swings a bat or pipe at you then based on the Use of Force Continuum you would be justified in shooting them; since said pipe or bat is a lethal weapon. I don't see how any reasonable person could say this guys life was in danger. Now if he started pounding him on the ground that might change.
Everyone I have ever taught a fire arms class, gun safety, shooting or whatever; to include my wife and kids. The first thing I tell them and beat this to death is if you pull your weapon the next thing that should happen is you pull the trigger and kill the person. To many people think you can just pull a gun and scare someone. Not the way it should work; if you pull the gun the threat should be so real that killing someone was the only option. This guy had plenty of other options.
Everyone I have ever taught a fire arms class, gun safety, shooting or whatever; to include my wife and kids. The first thing I tell them and beat this to death is if you pull your weapon the next thing that should happen is you pull the trigger and kill the person. To many people think you can just pull a gun and scare someone. Not the way it should work; if you pull the gun the threat should be so real that killing someone was the only option. This guy had plenty of other options.
The deceased made a REALLY bad decision to assault the gun owner instead of talking to him in a reasonable manner.
The whole situation sucks, but if the deceased didn't assault the gun owner, he'd still be alive, most likely.
The whole situation sucks, but if the deceased didn't assault the gun owner, he'd still be alive, most likely.
Yes the video does, and you say as much in your post. The shooter verbally confronted a woman, without that confrontation he doesn't get pushed to the ground and the opportunity to cowardly murder someone.
So if some jagoff is yelling at your wife when you come outside, you'd just let that be?
Get out of here w/that nonsense.
100% of us, unless you're just an ultra-wussified coward, would NEVER let another man berate our wives or significant others like that.
It's already been pointed out, but the only reason that loser who pulled the trigger felt so confident was b/c he was carrying. He was an irresponsible gun owner, who is wholly to blame. He inflamed the other guy by berating his wife. I don't see how anyone can see it any other way. The handicapped spot is irrelevant to this discussion too, IMO. It's a cop and/or a meter maid's job to do parking enforcement...not Joe Schmoe's.
I agree with everything in this post.
The issue in this situation is that LEGALLY the threshold of use of deadly force is clear : IF you have a fear of IMMINENT bodily harm or death, you can use lethal force to defend yourself. Do I think this shooter had other options? Yes, I do. But I also am trained to look at all other factors. The disparity in size, strength, aggression and age are 100% a major problem for the prosecutors in this case. The problem is, the victim initiated physical contact here. No one knows if the shooter was in fear for his life, but I would suspect he was scared shitless after he was attacked with no verbal warning or anything.
I sent this video to my partner, and he thinks it is an easily justifiable shooting. His exact words were “it doesn’t matter what the shooter was saying to the girlfriend, he was savagely attacked by a much larger, younger and aggressive guy in a sudden manner. The victim escalated the encounter by acting tough and vicious, and paid the price for under estimating his opponent”.
We teach a combat mindset. That means you need to know and decide how you will react to these situations BEFORE they happen. Under adrenaline surge, everyone would like to believe that they would “rise to the occasion”, but research has shown it is exactly the opposite. The fact is, in these situations, humans revert to their lowest level of training. That is why it is important to develop and train constantly, because of the degradation of skill under adrenaline surge.
The victim was walking away from him when he pulled the trigger. The threat was over.
I'm all for the second amendment and stand your ground laws, but this ain't it.
What about the woman with small children in her car being confronted unprovoked by a man who is clearly agitated and won't leave her alone? Seems like the shooter initiated the contact and underestimated her by not thinking she might have a large and imposing husband who was capable of beating his ass. So his getting shoved on his tookas was justifiable using reasoning above.
It was unknown if the threat was over.
I disagree. The victim was beginning to walk away and showed no signs of further physical agression. If I'm on the jury, he's going to jail based on that video.
The shooter didn’t put his hands on anyone. I am not saying there were not other possible options, but in my opinion, this shooting can be construed as justified. By your reasoning, the victim underestimated the shooter by not assuming the old man would be armed and prepared to shoot a large and imposing assailant that would make the mistake of attacking him.
Can’t have it both ways.
i wish the woman he was berating had a gun and shot him...and we were instead arguing was her shooting justified?
The idiot w/the gun incited the violence that was perpetrated against him by harassing a woman. It was his own fault that he was pushed to the ground.
Bud you have mentioned the victims size a couple of times,
just curious, if the victim would have been of similar or smaller size than the shooter would your opinion be the same that the shooting was justified?
I think you missed my section on disparity of size, strength and age. This was a savage, sudden attack by a much larger, more aggressive person, and I don’t doubt that the shooter was crapping his pants in fear. The rest is irrelevant. The burden is simply that the shooter feared that he was in IMMINENT danger of bodily harm or death. Easy burden in this case, IMO. I think the shooter over reacted and had other options here, but LEGALLY, he was justified.
No chance of a conviction on a murder charge.
Last edited by a moderator:
Aren’t you an insurance salesmen?
I realize you say you taught some firearms classes, and maybe you did, but you keep speaking like an attorney or judge. Did you switch professions?
Yes. Imagine if the situation were reversed. Would it be believable to a jury or prosecutor that the shooter, a 47 year old, pudgy slob, shoved the much larger victim so hard as to cause the level of fear for his life to justify lethal force? I think a jury would have a tough time buying that. In fact, I would wager that if the shooter shoved the victim as hard as he could, he could not have forced him to the ground. So yes, it is a huge mitigating factor in every decision as to whether to criminally charge someone in these cases. Especially with murder.
I didn't miss it. I disagree that it matters. Had the victim continued to attack him then the size difference would come into play, but he did not. He pushed him down and then started to walk away. Thats not reasonably a threat regardless of size or age.
Again, I'm all concealed carry and true self defense. I'm also for being held responsible when you shoot someone just because you got knocked down.
I could see arguing for manslaughter rather than murder, but he is guilty. He put himself there and took a gun and killed someone that was no longer threatening him.
I have been a Financial Advisor for 24 years, and a firearms instructor at Front Sight, Nevada for over 10.
I am a Senior Rangemaster for all of our handgun & shotgun courses, and a range master for our rifle courses.
A large part of our training consists not only of on range activities, but also of fantastic, world recognized lectures on many topics, including use of force, color code of mental awareness, legal consequences of firing a firearm in self defense, combat mindset and circumstantial awareness.
Front Sight is the best firearms training facility in the world.
It matters legally. Remember, if this guy legitimately feared for his life, he was legally justified in doing what he did. He did not initiate contact.
Like I said, I personally think he had other options, but when you consider the entire situation, I understand why he acted as he did.
I think a manslaughter charge would be proper, but very tough to convict. If this shooter got on the stand and cried and said how the big bad man attacked him, etc.., there is no way to truly know how fearful he was in the instant he pulled his weapon.
Tough situation.
I agree with you on Manslaughter, but it would be tough to get a conviction in Florida.
If the victim had any history of violence at all, forget it 100%.
It’s interesting to me how we measure risk in pretty much everything we do and then go about our lives not worrying about everything that could theoretically happen. Really, what are the chances of being in a position where using a firearm against another individual would be appropriate and justified?
I’m almost 50 and have never once felt threatened to the point I wish I had a firearm on me. Certainly not worth the hassles and huge responsibilities that come with concealed carry.
I’m almost 50 and have never once felt threatened to the point I wish I had a firearm on me. Certainly not worth the hassles and huge responsibilities that come with concealed carry.
Last edited:
Sort of neither here nor there, but financial advisor and insurance saleman = same thing.
And gun range instructor does not equal some sort of legal standing.
It’s as I thought...you’re just as unqualified as any of us to be commenting on things LEGALLY (which you keep doing). Just say it’s your opinion like the rest of us do and let’s leep the debate going.
You said he was justified because he felt threatened. I'm saying if I'm that woman stuck in a car with small kids, including an infant and a toddler, I'm feeling pretty threatened by a grown man who is approaching me in an aggressive manner. She has no idea what a guy like that is capable of. It's not like the victim had a lot of time to assess the situation. He's got a five year old with him and the first thing he sees leaving the store is a man inches from his car in the middle of a heated argument with his wife. He may not have felt threatened personally, but he sure as hell felt that his loved ones were under threat and reacted instinctively. He removed the guy as a threat without going beyond what was necessary. The guy reacted by pulling a gun and shooting him as he was backing away. It takes some serious mental gymnastics to see this as a justifiable shooting.
If some jagoff was yelling at my wife, I wouldn't assault him; I'd try to calm the situation down verbally and if that didn't work, I'd call 911 immediately.
Was the shooter yelling at the girlfriend? How can you know? We don't have audio, do we? Even if the shooter was yelling at the girlfriend, does that excuse assault?
I'm asking these questions because I'm not a lawyer and don't know the answers.
However, the deceased assaulted the shooter, which was a deadly mistake. The deceased definitely did not deserve to die, but he shouldn't have assaulted the shooter in the first place, IMO.
The deceased should have approached the shooter and smiled politely and "killed" him with kindness. He should have said "I'm sorry, sir, we parked here for a second and will leave now."
One time, years ago, I was driving in a city while talking on the cell phone to a Doctors appointment. I took a wrong turn and cut a middle aged guy off and he pulled up next to me and was red with rage.
He started yelling at me for talking on my cell phone so I politely said "I'm sorry, sir, I'm lost and don't know the area well." He immediately calmed down and gave me directions.
I also was driving home from a party 10 years ago at 3 A.M. and had my bright headlights on and some scary looking guy pulled up to me and said "You almost blinded me with your lights" and I said "I'm sorry, sir, I didn't know they were on."
He said "it's cool" and drove away.
The reason I did that is because the world is full of heavily armed psychos and you never know who will snap.
CSB.
Last edited:
Three beats between drawing his weapon and pulling the trigger. Staring at the victim as he backed away during those three beats.
I don’t see how this is defensible. My dad (30 year, high ranking cop; range master for 20+ of those 30, firearms instructor, STAUNCH NRA / 2nd Amendment guy — to the point we can’t usually discuss gun issues reasonably) agrees with me.
Suppose it’s true what they say about opinions though.
How are you possibly calling him “much larger” or this was a “savage” attack? What video are you watching? This was an able bodied man in his mid 40s, not an 80y/o with a walker. And a shove is “savage”?
Oh, you wrote it on the internet. Thanks for changing my mind with such expedience.
Did you read the rest of my post, where the guy who’s a bona fide expert on the law with a strong personal bias toward defending the shooter doesn’t feel that way?
The shooter isn't being charged with a crime, right?
That's my point. The law doesn't agree...
When he's able to bring charges against the shooter, let me know.
Again, the shooting was tragic, but the deceased should have handled it differently, IMO.
The bigger lesson here that I would emphasize for all young men — not that it will help this dead guy — is be very careful before you escalate a dispute or confrontation to “hands on.” You really have no idea who you are dealing with, and you may have no ability to control the situation after you escalate things.
Is the other guy a Golden Gloves boxer? A martial arts specialist? A psycho? Is he armed with a gun or knife? What is in his car? You have no idea. But these are all relevant considerations before you decide to go all Billy Bad Ass.
Is the other guy a Golden Gloves boxer? A martial arts specialist? A psycho? Is he armed with a gun or knife? What is in his car? You have no idea. But these are all relevant considerations before you decide to go all Billy Bad Ass.
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."
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."
See my quote above. So this clown considered himself some sort of parking lot enforcer and had already threatened someone else. Additionally he was involved in a disputed a few years ago where he pulled a gun in a road rage incident but wasn’t charged. A complete hardass who should be in prison. I wonder how far a wrongful death civil suit would get.
I'll suspect the shooter has no resources. Most moneyed people do not hang out in parking lots picking fights over handicapped parking violations. There may be a decent claim against the property owner and its insurance company, especially if it had knowledge of any prior incidents of this nature.
The shooter sounds like a piece of garbage who may have "invited" these kinds of confrontations. Which loops back nicely to my original (bigger) point: going "hands on" is a really-really risky idea. You have no idea who you are dealing with. Here, the dead guy obviously never considered the possibility that he was maybe being LURED into being shot. The shooter may have indeed violated the law.....but the dead guy is still dead.
You likely need to understand law better than you do. Law is interpretive; what is viewed as the law in Mass or NY is not the same law judged in say Miss.
- Status
