Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Stand Your Ground

Best to mind your own bidness.

Guilty
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/m...-ground-trial/ar-AAGeyht?ocid=spartanntp

Same in Florida, except for reimbursement. We should have that, too. Seems only fair.

As I've maintained, this was right on the edge of self-defense and murder, and could go either way, depending on the jury. Objectively, it appeared to me that the victim of the shooting was in fact retreating as soon as he saw the gun, and only thereafter was he shot. So, objectively, it wasn't legit self-defense, but that's from the standpoint of the video camera. Maybe from the perspective of being sprawled out on the ground things looked different, and perhaps the victim's retreat wasn't as clear to perceive.

It can be argued in court that you are required to have a clear view of your target. 4th Rule.

If the information we read in the article was admissible, it was talking.
It showed a m an with a chip on his shoulder,
a man with a record of similar altercations,
Also, of persuading those alterations even after the fact.
He contacted a man's employer to try and exact vengence.
And, he threatened to shoot someone in one of those alterations,
which he eventually did. Honestly, I question his honesty in his statements,
if a jury thinks you are dishonest, you are screwed.

He chewed someone's ass for a bad park job, no big deal really.
No violence.

The black guy is the one who started their thing.


I would bet that if this guy was parked in the middle of the lot with a handicapped
Plate, and had never had these kind of alterations before.
But simply walked over to give her hell, because his passenger needed a wheelchair space,

And then this happened....

He would have walked.


On that day, his mouth got this thing started...
And his mouth is also what sent him to prison.

I thought from the beginning that it was more than likely that he'd be found guilty. I get pizzed off too at people who abuse handicapped parking spaces, but to be honest about it, I'd guess that half the people with a handicapped sticker aren't really handicapped.

I pack a gun for a legitimate self defense need, not so I can use it to shoot someone that is parked in the wrong place. It appears that the defendant was just looking for a reason to use his. I'm actually glad they put his azz away, because he would have shot someone else in all likelihood.

You overstate your position by a mile. He wasn't looking to shoot someone. He was knocked down by a man after nonviolently confronting a woman over parking in a handicapped spot without a tag. That used to be considered being a good citizen, i.e., not relying on the police to maintain public order, but doing what little you can to contribute to maintaining it on your own also. The man who knocked him down was 100% in the wrong. You're not allowed to assault someone for arguing with your girlfriend or wife. The only problem was that he shot him a second after he turned away. In all other respects, he was in the right and the dead man was in the wrong. A misjudgement by one second can land you in prison for what would have been 100% lawful a second earlier.

You're wrong. Look up Michael Drejka past history. He absolutely was looking to kill someone. He had threatened the life of others for parking in handicapped parking, even so much as to call one's employer and say he should have blown his n_____ head off.

He is trying to be the hero of handicapped parking. I see plenty of people walking out of their cars in "handicapped" spaces and they are walking just fine. I knew a guy whose wife was injured in a car wreck, she got the handicapped sticker. She was ok after 2 months, but kept the sticker, and four months later this guy was still using the handicapped spaces.

So, the so called "handicapped" are cheating left and right, defending the handicapped parking is a waste of time.

You're not permitted to bring in past conduct in this case. It has no legal bearing.

There might be some cheats, for sure, but you cannot assume that someone who is "walking fine" isn't legitimately handicapped. Some conditions are intermittent, i.e., they can be fine for an hour, and then hardly able to walk, never knowing when it will occur. This is typical for people with severe heart conditions, for example.

in my op I think the guy was one of those people that think that because he has a carry permit made him a badass . I think if he did not have a carry permit he would not have said nothing .some people look for a chance to use their gun. just my op I don't know him

I believe it did have a legal bearing and was permitted. This is from the local news:

The first witness prosecutors called was the man Drejka had confronted about parking in a handicapped spot at the same convenience store in February 2018. Richard Kelly, who works at a septic company, testified that Drejka threatened him, but he didn’t brandish any weapon. Drejka told him a relative is handicapped. The argument de-escalated when the convenience store owner came outside and Kelly left.

That's legally unusual. Great grounds for objection, so I hope his attorney objected so as to preserve that as a grounds for appeal. Past behavior would have been permissible only if it was that of the man who was shot, and then only if the man who shot him knew of said past behavior. For example, if the shooter had heard that the dead man was a hot head known to stomp people in the head after knocking them down. He'd then be able to call a witness to his reputation for doing that.

We have reached a place in our society where people do not care about the rights of others. The "lady" had no business parking in a handicap parking spot if she was not handicapped or transporting a handicapped person and the vehicle had the appropriate stickers verifying it. There is nothing wrong with another person reminding her that she was breaking the law by doing so. So she was in the wrong and the dead guy should never have put his hands on the guy telling her she was wrong. Were her and the dead guy together and was another guy with him?

Since the incident resulted in a death and originally stared with her illegal parking does she bear any legal responsibility in the incident? If she does then she may have some exposure in a civil court and the shooter sues her. But, Florida may not allow it if there was no criminal complaint against her. I personally hope there is, because if she had not parked there maybe the guy would still be alive and the shooting would never of happened.

Should he have shot him? Ya got me, if I had been there and watched the whole thing unfold it would be easier to make an informed opinion. Hard to tell what all happened from one short video.

I really think this country should bring back dueling. Just saying......

My thinking as well. Lots of idiots think that. And any legality he had to shoot the asswipe went away when the guy turned to walk away.

Personally, carrying a gun everywhere everyday makes me a little more cautious in what I do or say to a stranger. Knowing that I’m armed damn sure doesn’t give me the “badass Syndrome”. The shooter went looking for trouble and found it.

When I first saw this on the news-- I said-- He is screwed!

Yes, he was assualted, but, when the attacker backed up he was no longer a threat.

Self defense is a tough call-- you better be right!

+1 Walk very softly and carry a big stick. He wasn't even hit, just shoved. I'm sure that most here wouldn't be happy if they came out of a store to find some a-hole yelling at our spouse.

Looks like the shooter won't have to worry about handicap parking spaces for 30 or so years.