i don’t know how anyone could interpret this as standing his ground in a life threatening situation. Infuriating. http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...rgument-over-handicap-parking-space_170174041
Stand your ground?
- Thread starter QuaZ2002
- Start date
- Status
"McGlockton went up to Drejka and "slammed him to the ground," the sheriff said. Drejka, seconds later while still on the ground, pulled out his gun and shot McGlockton in the chest. The father of three was pronounced dead soon after."
Reminds me of a case I read about that was going over the reliability of eye witness testimony.
Similar situation, two cars parked side by side in a strip mall or what not, man in each car waiting on wives in separate stores. One guy started to get out to see what was taking his wife so long. Door dinged the car next to him and that started an argument.
One guy started whaling on the other dude with the short pipe he tucked to his forearm when he'd gotten out of his car. The guy getting the beat down pulled a revolver from his pocket and shot the guy - killed him.
It interesting reading how much information varied among the five eye witness accounts collected by the police from the scene. Only two of the five could even accurately state how many times the gun fired (it was a revolver, so the cops knew).
I definitely wouldn't start fights with anyone. No telling who has a gun in their pocket and might decide to meet force with even more force.
I know someone whose brother was arrested and charged with first degree murder for far less.
The brother was a typical addict, far from a hardened criminal, and got picked up for buyinh drugs. Law enforcement made him turn witness against the drug dealer who was at least midway up the chain and after the trial they stopped providing any protection. No witness protection cover name, no helpful watch on his well-being, nothing.
So when he was asleep at his parents house sometime afterwards, one of the drug dealers crew showed up with a pistol and broke into the house obviously intending to kill him. Except the parents had internal motion sensors which set off an alarm which woke the former addict. Little did the intended assailant know this was a heavily armed house. And the brother exploded out of his bedroom with an AR-15 or other assault rifle. He missed while they were both in the house but, by the time the assailant was in the grass outside there was a clear shot and the brother shot him three times. The assailant fell dead on the sidewalk.
You would THINK that the local prosecutor would cut a sweetheart deal or even let off completely an informant they abused and left hung out to dry for retaliation. But nope, they are going for murder one because he missed in the house and killed him steps outside of the property.
Jackwad has been dreaming of this since he bought that gun. Should be in jail. Hey, make stupid laws, live with the consequences.
Ugh. Speaking of stupid laws. I see they approved the free distribution of 3d printed gun plans. So any moron with a $500 or less 3d printer can make a gun that will easily slip by all typical security measures. Look for some deaths in Disney/Universal/airports sometime soon.
guy in the blue t shirt obviously could see something was brewing - maybe the dead guy shouldn't be dead but he absolutely had no right to elevate it to physical when the handicap sheriff wasn't a threat to his wife
Seems like a huge overreaction but you also can’t go around shoving people to the ground. Both at fault here IMO.
You can print that as well, although you’ll need a more expensive (now) printer that can handle chemicals like a pharmacy printer or else pack the gunpowder yourself.
You can buy 'surplus' copies of TM 31-210 at the Army Navy surplus store, or even just download the PDF.
First Amendment is a helluva thing...
Like liquid courage, looks like the guy was a little extra courageous about getting into it with the occupant of the car, knowing he had that gun on him.
Both parties were stupid, but looked like shooter was overzealous.
Is it? Despite the video of that coward pulling the trigger as his victim backed away, he still won’t spend the rest of his life in prison.
Video doesn’t matter a lick.
Guy at the kwiki-mart says that wasn’t the first time confronting people about parking OR waving a gun around. Finally found a taker.
Still a chance the state charges him. Just don’t see how this doesn’t at least go to trial. The victim was clearly backing away as he was shot. That’s the key to me. If he had been moving forward as if he was going to start wailing on him then maybe I could see this being “stand your ground”.
You may already know this, but if he is arrested he will get a stand your ground hearing. If he wins that, then there will be no trial.
The shooter should be on trial for murder. He created the situation, took the risk of getting in a confrontation just because he wanted to and then shot an unarmed man.
You get what you deserve. There were at least 3 open parking spaces they could have parked in. But no. They have to park in a handicap space? Don't lay your hands on someone, you never know what could happen.
So tell me how he knew the guy was unarmed? Especially since the guy came out of the store and shoved him to the ground? Instead of being civil and discussing the problem the guy resorted to violence.
I never stated he knew the guy was unarmed, just stated a fact, that he murdered an unarmed man.
As far as discussing things in a civil manner , this would be my take of the situation
A man walked up on woman who had children in the car in a confrontational manner .. He was looking for a confrontation and when he got one he was weak and resorted to murder because he was unwilling to answer for his actions.
He should be arrested and tried and let a jury decide if it was reasonable to fear for his life and use deadly force in this situation. Even if applying the stand your ground rule, the defense would still possibly fail. Based on what I see in the video, he was pushed to the ground. The guy that did it shouldn't have and broke the law. However, he did not after pushing him continue to move forward and say jump on him or go to kick him or anything else that I can see. Just because someone breaks the law by parking in a handicap spot illegally and then pushes you down does not give you the right to shoot them. I must say I think the DA should take this case on and try him. I am thinking a jury would find him guilty even with stand your ground. IMO, most people do not think it is reasonable for him to have feared for his life in this specific scenario, stand your ground or not defense.
You can NOT shoot someone in the back and claim stand your ground. Period. The intruder was in the process of fleeing, and was no longer a threat. You also can NOT use lethal force protecting property. There is a very clear legal burden, and it is this : An immediate and imminent threat of serious bodily harm and/or death. If someone breaks into your home armed, and you confront them with a gun, and they drop their weapon, you can NOT legally shoot them and expect to escape criminal charges.
Well if you are the only survivor in that situation, and there is no video of the incident, unless you admit that is what happened instead of saying nothing, I would say there is a damn good chance you escape criminal charges. Heck even if you shoot an unarmed intruder in your house and kill the perpetrator, there is a good chance you won't be charged. IT is reasonable to believe someone breaking into your house will put your life in danger or cause bodily harm. But that isn't what happened here.
There is actually a specific portion of the self defense scenario that addresses these situations. The example we use is an actual event that was prosecuted (properly). So, here is the scenario. Jealous ex husband finds out his ex wife is dating a new guy. He finds out they are out at a restaurant hanging out. Ex husband takes his legally owned gun and comes up with a plan. He thinks he will go down the restaurant, provoke the new guy into attacking him in front of witnesses and then shoot the new guy and claim self defense and get away with it. Well, that is exactly what he did. However, the law found that the ex husband, even though he was defending himself, CAUSED the confrontation in a pre meditated fashion, AND he instigated the outcome by aggressively pursuing the ex wife and the new guy. Ex husband is doing life.
Agreed.
Funny how the one detail the witness provides is completely contradicted by the video:
"Jacobs parked in the handicap spot, she said, because the parking lot was busy and they were just stopping for a minute."
Doesn't change my opinion about what the guys did, but its just interesting to me how the eye witness stuff plays out in traumatic scenarios.
So can they bring up this guy's past of waving guns at people for the same or other situations?
I just watched the video.
Ok, here is my professional opinion. I have been a firearms instructor at the best school in the world for over 10 years. We specifically deal with proper use of deadly force, in all scenarios imaginable. Most people do not know that these are not black and white, cut and dry situations. There are a lot of variables that go into these decisions on whether to prosecute. I will give a few, then tell you what I believe, and why.
First of all, there is a real common sense and belief aspect. For example, I am 6’4, 245 pounds. Is it believable that I would be in fear of imminent bodily harm or death from an unarmed, 5 foot tall woman? Even if she had a bat or a club and she was attacking me, would deadly force be an explainable defense for me if I were to shoot her and kill her? The disparity in size and strength is an important factor.
In this case, I understand why the sheriff chose not to charge this guy. I don’t necessarily agree with his choice, but I understand it. Let’s go over the facts shown in the video tape. Obviously, the shooter was speaking aggressively to the victim’s girlfriend. The victim, who I point out is younger, stronger and very angry and violent, as evidenced by his actions, comes to her defense by immediately assaulting the shooter. Yes, it was assault. Let’s go over the second portion. Put yourself in the shooter’s place. Some huge guy just came out of nowhere and blasted you and you are on the ground, scared for what could come next.
Remember, the burden for the use of lethal force is this: fear of IMMINENT or immediate bodily harm or death. I think that burden is met. In these cases, decisions are made in split seconds, and the victim didn’t think of the consequences of his assault.
The fact that the victim was backing up means nothing here, as he could have easily stepped forward and continued his assault, he was less than 6 feet away.
My opinion is, LEGALLY, if the shooter was in legitimate, imminent fear for his life, this shooting was justified.
Just my professional opinion.
The video doesn’t support this statement. The shooter was engaged with the victim’s girlfriend VERBALLY. The victim was the one who chose to escalate to physical violence.
This is the part that is gray. I don't believe he was. And I don't believe a reasonable person would be either. That's why I think the DA should go ahead and try the case. I think a jury of his peers will find him guilty. But I could be wrong. But I do think he should be charged and tried.
This is where the size & strength disparity come into play. Any defense attorney would win this case hands down. And if the victim had ANY type of assault or violent history, forget it. I bet that is one of the reasons the sheriff opted not to try this case. The DA is bound to NOT bring charges if they don’t think conviction is likely.
Casey Anthony & George Zimmerman were cases that were brought on public outcry, not strong evidence. Neither ever had a chance of a conviction.
I watched that video, and I have analyzed 100’s of these videos, and the way the victim reacted tells me this isn’t the first time he has assaulted someone without any words, etc. It was just on, period. He straight bum rushed the shooter for being rude to his girl.
I hate people that park in handicap spaces illegally. I don’t think they should be shot, but I wouldn’t hate it if they had to experience being handicapped and having to walk a long distance because some asshole took the last spot because “they were only there for a minute.”
I think the video can go either way. If the DA feels there is more support for a trial, he’ll file charges. Personally, I don’t feel this is stand your ground. The McGlockton guy and his girl are turds, but death should not have been the result because he pushed him to the ground. There was a clear pause by McGockton and was not not going to continue the attack. Drejka seemed almost calm and rehearsed as he pulled the gun and shot him. Maybe the witnesses will tell a different story based on the verbal argument that we can’t hear
I think the video can go either way. If the DA feels there is more support for a trial, he’ll file charges. Personally, I don’t feel this is stand your ground. The McGlockton guy and his girl are turds, but death should not have been the result because he pushed him to the ground. There was a clear pause by McGockton and was not not going to continue the attack. Drejka seemed almost calm and rehearsed as he pulled the gun and shot him. Maybe the witnesses will tell a different story based on the verbal argument that we can’t hear
I agree with this. I also think the publisher of the video should be shot for making us sit through 2+ minutes of nonsense before getting to the action.
The video I saw starts with the car already parked. Maybe the other spaces were taken when they pulled up.
That’s a crying shame.
While they shouldn’t have parked in the handicap, the individual who shot the victim is not the police. He should have called the police and reported. Berating the female driver with children in car seats is not okay, and should be considered Illeagal on some small level.
Also, the suspect was parked closer to the entrance than if he had parked in the handicap. He might not of had access to the ramp leading up to the sidewalk, but that shouldn’t have been an issue in his case being he was not in need of a walking device.
This guy was going beyond his reasonable rights as a citizen and should be punshied. The fact the DA can’t prosecute is sad. That is not justice imo.
While they shouldn’t have parked in the handicap, the individual who shot the victim is not the police. He should have called the police and reported. Berating the female driver with children in car seats is not okay, and should be considered Illeagal on some small level.
Also, the suspect was parked closer to the entrance than if he had parked in the handicap. He might not of had access to the ramp leading up to the sidewalk, but that shouldn’t have been an issue in his case being he was not in need of a walking device.
This guy was going beyond his reasonable rights as a citizen and should be punshied. The fact the DA can’t prosecute is sad. That is not justice imo.
Nobody would argue that shoving him down was the best option. The thing is...he shoved him. Nobody dies from a scraped elbow and bruised ego. One of the two people’s first move was to use fists and one was to squeeze the trigger.
I’d also argue the civil thing to do would have been to ignore the parking job and shop for whatever it was he went there for. 3 kids have no dad today because that guy thought he was Walker, Texas ranger.
Regrettable incident. Bad decisions all around, including the dead guy’s initiation of violence over a silly parking dispute. Call the cops, tell the manager, or whatever. But when you initiate violence against a complete stranger, you really don’t know where things may go from there, rightly or wrongly.
How can anybody argue that this is the way that society should operate? Shooting people dead in a parking lot is how I am supposed to raise my kids?
We need to step back from this ledge.
Last edited:
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Golf PGSF FedEx Cup Week 18: The CJ CUP Byron Nelson
- Latest: NoleLizards