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

#451
#451
Any of ya'll ever get blindside assaulted and not have that person say a word at point of contact or immediately afterwards? Did dude threaten the guy he assaulted with further bodily harm?

Does the shooter wear glasses and is that what he retrieves off the ground immediately after discharging his weapon? If so, just how sharp is his vision without them?

2nd image posted above with the red circle...from the shooter's angle on the ground is the right hand of the guy in plain view or obscured from his sight. Does it appear to the shooter that the dude that has already assaulted him is reaching for a weapon?

The guy's Mom is handicapped and that's why he fusses over placard parking. He actually has a dog in that fight although he totally goes about it the wrong way.

So many tiny but important details are still missing from the picture that ya'll have already adjudicated in the VN court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#452
#452
Squints said:
Jurors shouldn’t act on the emotions of what they think, their decisions should be made on what’s provable, in accord with the case being tried and any applicable laws.
Prove, from the frame of Drejka’s mind, that the SYG law, specific to what we currently know, is null and void. You can’t logically do that at this point.

I’m not a fan of jury nullification, but that’s in fact your stance, only in reverse. The law is “protecting” the shooter, but instead of choosing innocence over the law, as it is written, you’re choosing guilt.

I’ve said this before but it bears repeating, all involved share culpability. Personally, I have no emotional attachment to or concern for the eventual verdict. I’m applying my thoughts on what is written, juxtaposed with what is seen/known from the footage. Per FL SYG law (as written), this man will be charged, at most, with manslaughter, but will likely be exonerated of all criminal charges.
JMO.
Click to expand...


A person creating space from the shooter was shot. There is video that 100% supports that contention. SYG immunity is something that is available, not guaranteed.

The problem here is that if people really accepted what SYG meant in their head everybody in FL might as well just start purging because "I was scared" would suffice for damn near any action. Even under the new rules I'm not seeing that being the criteria for SYG immunity.

IMO one of two things has to happen. Either shooting an unarmed and retreating person does not meet the "reasonable" criteria for use of deadly force under SYG immunity (what I'm asserting) or scrap the law and start over. As much a 2A and self-defense advocate as I am if this incident qualifies for SYG immunity I do NOT think it is acting as it was, or should be, intended.

This is going to be an interesting case to follow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#454
#454
ClearwaterVol said:
My personal opinion is that the deceased was wrong in knocking the old guy down. However, he retreated after that and was no longer a threat. Therefore I don't believe stand your ground should apply. It gives you the right stand your ground and not retreat. It does not give you the right to shoot somebody who has retreated.
Click to expand...


Agree. I spoke to two friends who have concealed weapons permits and both said that, given the shooters history and the video, that it appears he was itching to use his weapon or just overreacted.

Like others have said, three people who chose to take a situation to another level have caused someone to lose their life.
 
#455
#455
n_huffhines said:
But his frame of mind only pertains to the question of whether or not it's manslaughter or murder. If he had an innocent frame of mind but made a bad choice, he still needs to be convicted of manslaughter, not exonerated.
Click to expand...

The bold text is muh feelz. Feelings don’t supersede laws, rights or due process.

Further.....

Prove Markeis was no longer a threat, and prove that in Drejka’s mind, he “knew” the threat was neutralized, even though the boyfriend appeared to be reaching in his blindside (to Drejka) pocket......

You have to establish that before you can establish what he should be tried for/convicted of. Furthermore, if this is so cut and dry, Pinellas County should have his ass in the clink already. They don’t! Why? (Yes, I’m aware of the DA yada yada yada... still doesn’t change my point)

That’s like charging an erratic driver with a DUI, but the driver is completely sober (passes all field checks, breathalyzer, blood, etc.).

The burden of proof rests with the state. Hell, I’m actually in agreement with LG, which NEVER happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#456
#456
DancingOutlaw said:
Bangers do it here all the time. Shoot each other in the legs and arms rather than fight. People show up to the hospitals here on the regular with non life threatening gunshots.
Click to expand...
To which I say. :eek:lol:

Actually I read an interesting article in (I believe) Guns and Ammo that talked about how bangers use cheap ammunition that doesn't kill. If they actually used quality stuff, lots more would be dead. I say we donate free stuff to their cause. I couldn't care less if they kill each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#458
#458
Squints said:
The bold text is muh feelz. Feelings don’t supersede laws, rights or due process.

Further.....

Prove Markeis was no longer a threat, and prove that in Drejka’s mind, he “knew” the threat was neutralized, even though the boyfriend appeared to be reaching in his blindside (to Drejka) pocket......

You have to establish that before you can establish what he should be tried for/convicted of. Furthermore, if this is so cut and dry, Pinellas County should have his ass in the clink already. They don’t! Why? (Yes, I’m aware of the DA yada yada yada... still doesn’t change my point)

That’s like charging an erratic driver with a DUI, but the driver is completely sober (passes all field checks, breathalyzer, blood, etc.).

The burden of proof rests with the state. Hell, I’m actually in agreement with LG, which NEVER happens.
Click to expand...

Yuuuup........
 
#460
#460
DynaLo said:
The guy's Mom is handicapped and that's why he fusses over placard parking. He actually has a dog in that fight although he totally goes about it the wrong way.

So many tiny but important details are still missing from the picture that ya'll have already adjudicated in the VN court.
Click to expand...
It should be a courtesy to have a handicapped parking spot. Unfortunately, it has become an entitlement.

No excuse to get bent out of shape over an arbitrary parking spot, especially when that video clearly shows there were several other spots available.
 
#461
#461
Rasputin_Vol said:
It should be a courtesy to have a handicapped parking spot. Unfortunately, it has become an entitlement.

No excuse to get bent out of shape over an arbitrary parking spot, especially when that video clearly shows there were several other spots available.
Click to expand...

Not defending the guy.......it is about access to the ramp.....usually only one spot in a lot that small has easy access to the ramp.......
 
#462
#462
hndog609 said:
A person creating space from the shooter was shot. There is video that 100% supports that contention. SYG immunity is something that is available, not guaranteed.

The problem here is that if people really accepted what SYG meant in their head everybody in FL might as well just start purging because "I was scared" would suffice for damn near any action. Even under the new rules I'm not seeing that being the criteria for SYG immunity.

IMO one of two things has to happen. Either shooting an unarmed and retreating person does not meet the "reasonable" criteria for use of deadly force under SYG immunity (what I'm asserting) or scrap the law and start over. As much a 2A and self-defense advocate as I am if this incident qualifies for SYG immunity I do NOT think it is acting as it was, or should be, intended.

This is going to be an interesting case to follow.
Click to expand...

How was the shooter supposed to know that the guy that just knocked the hell out of him was unarmed? The fact that he was unarmed was not clear until after the incident.
 
#463
#463
Rasputin_Vol said:
It should be a courtesy to have a handicapped parking spot. Unfortunately, it has become an entitlement.

No excuse to get bent out of shape over an arbitrary parking spot, especially when that video clearly shows there were several other spots available.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Handicapped people should exercise too.
 
#464
#464
SpaceCoastVol said:
How was the shooter supposed to know that the guy that just knocked the hell out of him was unarmed? The fact that he was unarmed was not clear until after the incident.
Click to expand...


Absent any visible weapon* would be a component of "reasonable". Otherwise, again, we may as well just start purging and argue "I was scared and assumed the possibility of a weapon" if anybody asks why you shot someone.



*Now maybe if dude reached in his pocket and pulled out a big black cell phone and they guy fired I'd wager that would become part of the discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#465
#465
Septic said:
IANAL but I would think that the DA would have the authority to overrule the Sheriff given the video. I'd wager the Feds could as well.
Click to expand...

SpaceCoastVol said:
Why should the fed get involved?
Click to expand...

Septic said:
That's not what I said.
Click to expand...


SpaceCoastVol said:
Help me out please
Click to expand...


Sure.

Could and should do not mean the same thing.

I believe the feds could get involved if the DA didn't, that does not mean I believe they should.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#466
#466
Rasputin_Vol said:
It should be a courtesy to have a handicapped parking spot. Unfortunately, it has become an entitlement.

No excuse to get bent out of shape over an arbitrary parking spot, especially when that video clearly shows there were several other spots available.
Click to expand...


It's not a courtesy or an entitlement, it's the law.

All businesses or privately held facilities are obligated under law to follow ADA guidelines. If and when a facility or business restripes its parking lot, it MUST provide accessible parking spaces as required by the ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Aug 22, 2011

ADA Handicapped Parking Rules – Access Signs Regulations | MyParkingSign.com Blog
 
#474
#474
Rasputin_Vol said:
It should be a courtesy to have a handicapped parking spot. Unfortunately, it has become an entitlement.

No excuse to get bent out of shape over an arbitrary parking spot, especially when that video clearly shows there were several other spots available.
Click to expand...

actually its a law. the parking spot has to be there, and the owner has to maintain it as a spot dedicated for that use. Doesn't justify the shooter in any means.


and if by entitlement you mean equality then yes. just because they are in a wheel chair doesn't mean they don't have the same rights as the rest of us.
 
#475
#475
DynaLo said:
It's not a courtesy or an entitlement, it's the law.

All businesses or privately held facilities are obligated under law to follow ADA guidelines. If and when a facility or business restripes its parking lot, it MUST provide accessible parking spaces as required by the ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Aug 22, 2011

ADA Handicapped Parking Rules – Access Signs Regulations | MyParkingSign.com Blog
Click to expand...

First off, some reading for you to make what I'm saying clear:

It should be a courtesy
Click to expand...

I had to add that in for the people such as yourself. In one of my earlier posts I specifically mentioned the ADA turning these parking spots into entitlements for what would generally be lazy, overweight sloths... with a handful of truly handicapped people sprinkled in between.

And even if it is the law, do you need citizens or the police wasting their time trying to enforce this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top