We are an entitled, petty, barbaric country: Handicapped parking shooting

[Vol0725]

This doesn't justify middle aged dude murdering a guy.

After he was violently shoved back and into the asphalt, what was his state of mind in that instance? Was it a nervous reaction? What was said? He shot 1 bullet, not a full clip. Was it done in a state of fear or anger? Did he intentionally shoot to kill or wound, and might that matter? That’s what lady justice must determine.

 

[lawgator1]

I never said whether he was justified or not. I wasn't there, and didn't hear everything that was said. I wasn't blindsided, and didn't know what hit me or what was coming next. The shooter may have been looking for trouble, or he may have thought he was being ganged up on, and feared for his life.

The shoving incident didn't look justified to me because there wasn't enough time for the dead guy to hear any conversation before he flew into a rage. Maybe he was high. Maybe they both were. Maybe all three.

As above, I go to the burden of proof. Shooter takes stand and says he fired because the guy had come out of nowhere and shoved him to the ground, hard. He looked up and guy was standing there with irate look on his face. He pulled gun and fired out of genuine fear the guy was going to continue. He did not pay attention to a step back or a turn. It happened so fast. He was shocked and acted instinctually to protect himself.

How can the state prove by clear and convincing evidence that his stated fear was unreasonable or unjustified? If its debatable, shooter wins.

That's why the Sheriff did not arrest. In fact, I looked at the statute. The Sheriff is barred from arresting the guy unless he has probable cause that the immunity does not apply.

So he defers to the state attorney. That's the law.

 

[Vol0725]

As above, I go to the burden of proof. Shooter takes stand and says he fired because the guy had come out of nowhere and shoved him to the ground, hard. He looked up and guy was standing there with irate look on his face. He pulled gun and fired out of genuine fear the guy was going to continue. He did not pay attention to a step back or a turn. It happened so fast. He was shocked and acted instinctually to protect himself.

How can the state prove by clear and convincing evidence that his stated fear was unreasonable or unjustified? If its debatable, shooter wins.

That's why the Sheriff did not arrest. In fact, I looked at the statute. The Sheriff is barred from arresting the guy unless he has probable cause that the immunity does not apply.

So he defers to the state attorney. That's the law.

Damn LG. Well stated. Nice job.

 

[zeppelin128]

After he was violently shoved back and into the asphalt, what was his state of mind in that instance? Was it a nervous reaction? What was said? He shot 1 bullet, not a full clip. Was it done in a state of fear or anger? Did he intentionally shoot to kill or wound, and might that matter? That’s what lady justice must determine.

He wasn't violently shoved. He overreacted, and should pay the price for it. Young dude was backing away and instead of showing his weapon and stating his fear (which I think is the NRA method of justifying SYG), he murdered a guy in front of his kids and SO over a parking space.

No sympathy for old dude. Hope he rots in prison.

 

[lawgator1]

He wasn't violently shoved. He overreacted, and should pay the price for it. Young dude was backing away and instead of showing his weapon and stating his fear (which I think is the NRA method of justifying SYG), he murdered a guy in front of his kids and SO over a parking space.

No sympathy for old dude. Hope he rots in prison.

Yes and no.

He didn't kill him over the parking spot. Let's be precise. He fired because the guy shoved him.

I agree it's an enormous overreaction. But in Florida, it may not be criminal.

 

[1972 Grad]

Yes and no.

He didn't kill him over the parking spot. Let's be precise. He fired because the guy shoved him.

I agree it's an enormous overreaction. But in Florida, it may not be criminal.

I'm agreeing with LG now?

 

[1972 Grad]

He wasn't violently shoved. He overreacted, and should pay the price for it. Young dude was backing away and instead of showing his weapon and stating his fear (which I think is the NRA method of justifying SYG), he murdered a guy in front of his kids and SO over a parking space.

No sympathy for old dude. Hope he rots in prison.

That wasn't violent shove? What would constitute a violent shove to you? And he wasn't murdered over a parking space,. He was shot because he decided to play tough guy.

Not a good idea when the other guy is armed. Too bad, and I don't really care what happens to the shooter. Not my problem, but it may take 2 idiots off the street. ...at least one.


Oh yeah, 47 ain't old.

 

[Carl Pickens]

He wasn't violently shoved. He overreacted, and should pay the price for it. Young dude was backing away and instead of showing his weapon and stating his fear (which I think is the NRA method of justifying SYG), he murdered a guy in front of his kids and SO over a parking space.

No sympathy for old dude. Hope he rots in prison.

You never played sports at all did you? Getting blindsided sucks.
He could have hit him harder, but I guarantee you it felt like he was pushed very hard.
I have no sympathy for either of them to be honest.

 

[1972 Grad]

He wasn't violently shoved. He overreacted, and should pay the price for it. Young dude was backing away and instead of showing his weapon and stating his fear (which I think is the NRA method of justifying SYG), he murdered a guy in front of his kids and SO over a parking space.

No sympathy for old dude. Hope he rots in prison.

Murdering over a parking space would be Drejka saying "move your car or I'm going to kill you." Then McGlockton would say "I ain't movin' my car." Then, Drejka would kill him and say "I told you so."

 

[hndog609]

The way this works is that if he is charged his attorney files a motion invoking the defense. An evidentiary hearing is held and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show by clear and convincing evidence that the shooter was not justified in using force that he reasonably believes was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.

The judge decides the issue at that hearing, not a jury.

Watching the video my personal opinion is that the guy was backing off and turning away when shot. But that is not the issue. The question is whether it is clear and convincing that the shooter could not have believed he was at risk of death or great bodily harm.

An interesting point is that it looks like the gun is what caused him to back away. If you assume that, then how does the shooter know that it's the end of it? It might be. It might not be. Can the state prove convincingly that the shooter's subjective fear is unreasonable? Tough.

And here's more. The woman is going to sue him for the kids. If the shooter is found to have the immunity from the criminal prosecution, then she has to pay the shooter's legal fees and costs.

The fact is, the NRA wanted this to protect those who use firearms in these cases. And they put in scare tactics into the statutes to prevent people from taking action in cases where it's arguably not justified.

Isn't that still only a kind of preliminary matter in qualifying for immunity? I'm thinking the burden, even under the new criteria, of giving a yea or nay on just the immunity question is a hell of a lot less than that for guilty or innocent.

Let's say the (mostly) Honorable Judge Hndog was presiding at this hearing. Considering the defendant was obviously assaulted establishing prima facie self-defense is probably a given. However, after rolling that video back and forth a dozen times and watching the shooter clearly back away and actually start to turn away I'm going to deny immunity. Final guilt or innocence will be up to a jury.

 

[zeppelin128]

You never played sports at all did you? Getting blindsided sucks.
He could have hit him harder, but I guarantee you it felt like he was pushed very hard.
I have no sympathy for either of them to be honest.

Yes I played sports. I also grew up in martial arts. I would have been blindsided just the same as the rest of us.

That isn't justification to shoot someone when they were backing away.

 

[1972 Grad]

Isn't that still only a kind of preliminary matter in qualifying for immunity? I'm thinking the burden, even under the new criteria, of giving a yea or nay on just the immunity question is a hell of a lot less than that for guilty or innocent.

Let's say the (mostly) Honorable Judge Hndog was presiding at this hearing. Considering the defendant was obviously assaulted establishing prima facie self-defense is probably a given. However, after rolling that video back and forth a dozen times and watching the shooter clearly back away and actually start to turn away I'm going to deny immunity. Final guilt or innocence will be up to a jury.

A couple of things. This didn't happen in slow motion for Drejka to watch unfold. I'm sure that he was startled and scared.

Also, another man was coming out of the store right after McGlockton. Of course, he got out of the way, but Drejka didn't have but a second to determine whether or not that guy was an accomplice or whether McG was backing away to pull a pistol out. He reacted very quickly to insure his safety. Maybe he shouldn't have after looking at the tape, but he didn't have that luxury.

 

[hndog609]

A couple of things. This didn't happen in slow motion for Drejka to watch unfold. I'm sure that he was startled and scared.

Also, another man was coming out of the store right after McGlockton. Of course, he got out of the way, but Drejka didn't have but a second to determine whether or not that guy was an accomplice or whether McG was backing away to pull a pistol out. He reacted very quickly to insure his safety. Maybe he shouldn't have after looking at the tape, but he didn't have that luxury.

Which is why my judgement would only deny immunity under SYG. The arguments for and against what you cite can be made in a full courtroom in front of a jury.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Here's a good question.... If the guy had come out and shoved the guy down, where the guy hit his head and died, would he be charged for murder? Would he be justified in protecting his gal?

I don't think so.

 

[TheDeeble]

Drejka was trying to see that a law was enforced when it didn't need to involve him. The frivolous examples you cited could (in certain cases) directly involve the person trying to see that they are followed. In this instance, Drejka had a very clear course to follow which didn't have to involve confronting the driver (Jacobs). And for about the 5th time (which nobody ever acknowledges), there is the claim from a trucker, that Drejka had threatened someone before with his gun over parking in a handicapped spot.

And did he shoot that person? Did he violently shove him to the ground?

Nothing frivolous about the examples I cited. They are identical. Little things people do that most people ignore. Some don't.

I'm not saying the shooter was justified. His history makes it sounds like he might be too willing.

But there's nothing illegal about confronting someone.

Maybe you just want to be argumentative. I'm not defending the guy after seeing the video. But this took two people to make it happen. Boyfriend would probably still be alive if he had remained non-physical.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Telling someone they shouldn't park in a handicap spot isn't enforcing the law.

"Hey your dog has to be on a leash".
"You can't drop your trash there"
"You can't smoke in here".

Happens every day. It's verbal until you make it physical. Then you've got yourself to blame.

The shooter should see some jail time I think. Boyfriend looked like he was backing away. Not sure the threat was there to justify pulling the trigger. But if you could ask the boyfriend now, do you think he'd run up and shove the guy to the ground like he did? It was dumb and escalated the situation.

It was verbal until he made it physical. Dangerous game to play nowadays because you never know what the other person is capable of.

.

 

[InVOLuntary]

He wasn't violently shoved. He overreacted, and should pay the price for it. Young dude was backing away and instead of showing his weapon and stating his fear (which I think is the NRA method of justifying SYG), he murdered a guy in front of his kids and SO over a parking space.

No sympathy for old dude. Hope he rots in prison.

If you don't think he was violently shoved then you're not looking at this objectively. The guy landed 10' from where he was shoved. The guy took a running shot. He wasn't bumped.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yes I played sports. I also grew up in martial arts. I would have been blindsided just the same as the rest of us.

That isn't justification to shoot someone when they were backing away.

I have decades in martial arts and several forms of combatives. That was a violent shove. You're being intellectually dishonest to continue a narrative.

 

[Orange_Crush]

A couple of things. This didn't happen in slow motion for Drejka to watch unfold. I'm sure that he was startled and scared.

Also, another man was coming out of the store right after McGlockton. Of course, he got out of the way, but Drejka didn't have but a second to determine whether or not that guy was an accomplice or whether McG was backing away to pull a pistol out. He reacted very quickly to insure his safety. Maybe he shouldn't have after looking at the tape, but he didn't have that luxury.

This is what hasn't been answered. The shover instinctively turned his right side away (present a smaller target) and put his hand to hip/pocket height. Shovee couldn't see whether he was reaching or what for.

I've asked this twice and marcus once... If a police officer shot someone with this video as evidence, and a police officer defended his decision with, "I had just been violently shoved to the ground on a blind side. One guy was posturing over me and closing distance. Another was on his way over as well. I drew my gun and the closest aggressor backed up two steps, turned his right side away from my purview, and appeared to be reaching for a gun. Out of fear for my life/safety, I fired one shot."

I imagine a lot of people in here who are saying this guy should do time would be defending the officer.'s decision And I seriously can't understand why. We give police officers, who are paid to protect us, and who have been given hours and hours of training at our expense, more leeway on fear response and decision making than we do average citizens who are physically assaulted?

I'm not defending the shooter. He sounds like an a-hole who should have been arrested a couple of times over. He sounds like a busy-body that should stay out of other peoples' business.

But--again--busy-body isn't illegal. Needing to be arrested in the past doesn't call for a make-up arrest now. Being an a-hole isn't illegal, or all of you guys would be locked away forever.

The guy was assaulted from out of nowhere. He was laying prone and helpless before a guy that was closing in. His fear response kicked in. "Backing away" or not, I don't see this as immune from SYG defense.

It's sad. It's needless. Yet it's also probably quite Darwinian...

Maybe we should put a new gun law on the books... Stand Your Ground laws in all 50 states. Caveat is that every person in the state gets a text message every morning reminding them to be polite and not to assault someone because there is a SYG law in effect and you may get a toe tag for being a tough guy.

 

[Grand Vol]

As above, I go to the burden of proof. Shooter takes stand and says he fired because the guy had come out of nowhere and shoved him to the ground, hard. He looked up and guy was standing there with irate look on his face. He pulled gun and fired out of genuine fear the guy was going to continue. He did not pay attention to a step back or a turn. It happened so fast. He was shocked and acted instinctually to protect himself.

How can the state prove by clear and convincing evidence that his stated fear was unreasonable or unjustified? If its debatable, shooter wins.

That's why the Sheriff did not arrest. In fact, I looked at the statute. The Sheriff is barred from arresting the guy unless he has probable cause that the immunity does not apply.

So he defers to the state attorney. That's the law.

Yeah, there's my problem. It wasn't like he shot him as he was standing right over him. The guy walked back two steps after shooter presented and there's still a pause in the time before he shoots him.

 

[Grand Vol]

Maybe you just want to be argumentative. I'm not defending the guy after seeing the video. But this took two people to make it happen. Boyfriend would probably still be alive if he had remained non-physical.

The boyfriend would still be alive had the shooter showed a little self restraint as well.

There's two sides to this argument.

 

[InVOLuntary]

The boyfriend would still be alive had the shooter showed a little self restraint as well.

There's two sides to this argument.

There's blame to be shared all around here.

 

[lawgator1]

Yeah, there's my problem. It wasn't like he shot him as he was standing right over him. The guy walked back two steps after shooter presented and there's still a pause in the time before he shoots him.

I know and I agree. But thinking that and proving it by clear and convincing evidence are two different things.

 

[AirVol]

I know and I agree. But thinking that and proving it by clear and convincing evidence are two different things.

Funny how that works.

Pfff Trump Pftt

 

[Grand Vol]

There's blame to be shared all around here.

It should speak volumes seeing me stand against the shooter here knowing my track record on 2A items.

Here's my problem with the whole thing. This turd gives the rest of us law abiding gun owners and CCW carriers a much harder time in doing just that. Just like those idiots carrying their rifles into Chipotle or Target, they do more to harm the cause rather than help.

The shooter presented his firearm, boyfriend backed off.

No. Longer. A. Threat.

Pause.

Shooter engages.

I'd dare say in every CCW class in the US, nobody would rule that a valid shoot based on the video alone. Now, there could be extenuating circumstances we are unaware of. I'll give that leeway, but overall, the shooter needed to have been arrested that night.

You have some in here saying "well, the boyfriend had a criminal record as well!" Yes, he does have a record for battery. Relevant? Perhaps. However, once the firearm was presented, he backed away and was not in a position to do further harm when the shot was fired. And don't quote the Tueller Drill. That applies when and if the perp is charging you which clearly was not happening.

Call. The. Cops.

No, this was some Rambo wannabe that has a history of escalating encounters with people all while carrying a CCW. And it's going to make it harder for the rest of the law abiding citizens to legally defend themselves when (not if) they change the law in Florida.