Over a Disabled Parking spot...

Seems to fail stand your ground, since the attacker didn't seem like he was planning a follow up attack, but was walking away. Sure, the attacker was wrong, and I don't feel particularly badly for someone who's shot after initiating a serious, unprovoked, assault, but I don't see stand your ground self defense, here. Looked like someone taking the job of executioner for the crime of assault. Assault should be punished, but not by being shot in the chest.

Now, had the attacker looked in any way like he was moving in for assault number two, that would be lawful self defense if he's shot. Also, had the attacker approached aggressively, gone for the shove, and was shot in the process, that's lawful self defense (You have no obligation to remain passive while someone is moving in to knock you off your feet onto the pavement). But not the way it happened. After the fact, you can't execute someone, even if that someone was in the wrong in what he had done.

That's my take, anyway, and I hate to second guess the guy who used his weapon in response to an assault, but the distinction in the law is clear between shooting to punish for an assault and shooting to stop an assault.

I'm sure every state's 'stand your ground' law is different. In Louisiana, their is a clause that states, "Any person "who is in a place where he or she has a right," including a public space, does not have an obligation "to retreat" if faced with a real or perceived threat and "may stand his or her ground and meet force with force."

Since the fellow came from the store and shoved the man onto the ground, that is a real threat. If the man that was shot threatened the man while he was on the ground, that would be a perceived threat, especially since he had already used force. I think the shooting would be justified.

What I'm trying to say is that he used force and if (no sound) he threatened the man on the ground, that would be perceived threat and the man on the ground defended himself.

I dont agree with the man provoking people who parked in handicapped spaces..... that's a job for LEO's.

All "stand your ground" does is remove from the self-defense statute the obligation to retreat when you may safely do so. Before stand your ground, you were burdened to persuade the trier of fact that you had no safe means of escape. After stand your ground, you don't have to persuade anyone of that. That leaves only the part of self defense law that requires that you reasonably feared imminent death or serious bodily injury the moment you fired. That part doesn't go away with stand your ground.

I don't see that here. The attack was already in the past, and there was no sign of a new attack coming. Mere verbal threats like "stay down or I'll knock you down again," or even "I'm gonna kill your ass," don't suffice absent body language to match, which didn't seem to be exhibited in this case.

In the film, it appears the man moved back, after he saw the gun. I was taught that if your gonna draw it, use it. Without sound, it's hard to determine exactly what happened or was said. Also, I dont know the Florida's law. I think in La. this would have been justified.

But, I've been wrong before...... just ask my wife!

I don’t think we will miss the attacker. That was the last old person he will assault. Hasbeen

Shooting or getting shot over a parking spot is not very bright.Walk away.

Legit.

I got this from a friend who lives in Tampa this morning,
http://www.fox13news.com/news/local...ot-leads-to-deadly-shooting-deputies-say


http://www.fox13news.com/news/local...ot-leads-to-deadly-shooting-deputies-say


And then there is this,
Seems like the “shooter” had argued over this parking spot before.
Detectives said Drejka was cooperative with investigators and has a valid concealed weapons license with the state.

According to Salous, it's not the first time Drejka started an argument over the parking spot. Salous said he wasn't surprised the fatal shooting occurred since he said he witnessed Drejka become argumentative last month.

"I told him, 'Don't do that,' and he won't listen," Salous explained to FOX 13.

He said he had to call the police after that fight.

The case will now go to the State Attorney's Office.

Ronnie

Video including shooting.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=sqPbL_1532105651

Wonder if the shooter is black or white?
Parking spot was marked really well...
http://www.fox13news.com/news/347972791-video

Ronnie

He was attacked-- pushed to the ground, that is assualt!
He has the right to self protection!

It doesn't matter what any of thinks. It only matters what a jury thinks and I don't think they'd consider this self defense since the attacker had stepped back and didn't show any sign of attacking again.

He was assualted!
Whether the guy backed off or not may be irrelevant.
My guess is that no charges will be filed.

Is it his job to enforce parking? Hell no!

Doesn't look good at all. Yeah, the guy who shoved him is a dirt bag, but that's not by itself justification. The shooting has to be preventative of attack, not afterwards.

The police seem to agree, since they are not filing charges. Not sure I agree with them, even if I have little sympathy with the attacker who got shot for what he did.

Borderline, but in my experience a tie goes to the accused. A grand jury will probably not indict. The sheriff seemed pretty unconcerned. Maybe he already knew the participants and figures no great loss.

The guy deserved to get shot, not enough facts in evidence to know if deadly force was legally justified. At least young Markeis Jr. learned that actions have consequences, and letting your woman illegally park in Handicapped spaces is bad karma.

If you choose to play vigilante there may be dues to pay.


mike r

Going a little off topic... She was not parked, she was "standing". As in No Stopping, Standing or Parking. Stopping is, for instance, to let someone get out of the car and then move on. Standing is remaining stopped with driver remaining at the wheel. Parking is turning the car off and leaving it.

Now if she was stopped in that space with no right to park in that space and someone came along who was entitled to use that space and she refused to move, that is probably parking.

Was the shooter politely asking her to move or was he hassling her? If he started the hassle, does he lose his recourse to self defense? It seems like the shooter instigated the confrontation between himself and the group of people related to the parked car.

Was it justified? I don't know. Seems like thin ice to me.

This may stop other [bleep] from shoving people!

I thought it was a good shoot, the attacker was not retreating any significant distance he was right there standing over the victim. His body language indicated that he pushed that man in full confidence that he held an overwhelming physical advantage. There was a very real possibility that he would have assaulted the man again had he tried to get up.

Looked to me like he wasn't done until he saw the gun.

I think the only mistake the shooter made was not shooting him again, this was in Florida and they take pissing with old people serious.

The world is now short one more [bleep], and hopeful his kid will always remember what happens when you hurt people, what a dumbass, a dead dumbass!

Hope the old man walks, that punk needed to be shot for shoving old folk down, way past time that prick learned some manners, not sad his best learned lesson will be his last.

The shooter is 47, I don't consider that OLD PEOPLE territory.

The guy that got shoved is 47.

Well he was twice as old as the assclown that assaulted him. And he didn't appear to to be a picture of health, but he was smart enough to protect himself.

LOL, well, he sure hit the ground like an old dude, zero balance recovery.

I'm wondering how far some of you are willing to let a looney go reaming out your wife before he gets a good shove?? Fugger didn't need a handicap place so what was he up to?

Good shoot, this country needs fewer McGlocktons.

You can teach your wife to stand up for herself.

He was doing us a public service, ridding the world of an idiot, and doing it in splendid fashion I might add, the tough guy must have thought being stupid qualified him as being handicapped , it didn't .

The way it has been explained to me by a member of SWAT of Memphis, is that anyone over the age of 60 that gets assaulted by someone younger and in excellent health, and feels that their life is in danger, may use deadly force to prevent additional injury. I asked the question because one of our customers had said they were going to come around the counter in our restaurant and kill me. I told him I had a gun on me and would shoot him if he crossed a line in the floor or reached for a weapon. He started to come and I pulled the gun and ordered him to stop. He did just before I had to shoot him. I had already pushed the panic button, that all restaurants have, and right after he ran out of the restaurant, it filled with police. They viewed the tapes and said I would have been within my rights to shoot the guy. Also, we had a regular customer that is an assistant attorney general for the state and he also said the law is clear for people over 60 that feel endangered. That said, I am so happy that guy stopped. I would have hated killing someone over an argument over food.

At 47, unless he was disabled, he may not be able to assert that claim.

In some states, Stand Your Ground does not apply if a person "inserts themselves into an altercation", or in any way provoked the altercation. Not having watched the video, but just going off the comments of those who have, ti may apply. Regardless, I wouldn't want to be the person answering when the DA asks why I didn't just elect to walk a few more feet to mitigate the altercation, Stand Your Ground law or not.

Again, math eludes you.

Young thug got what he was astin for.

I see two dumb people in the video. The guy who got shoved was hanging around looking for a confrontation. The dumbchit who shoved him got one. All over a parking spot.

Stupid games/stupid prizes.

Looked to me like the attacker continued to advance on the victim until the gun was drawn. I think it's reasonable assumption he was going to assault him again. Probably verbal cues to the same.

If it was a legal shoot, it was borderline. That said, I would not fire if the guy was backing away like that. Shooter may not get prosecuted, but he'll have a hard time living with killing a man becuase he got shoved.

While being attacked and knocked to the ground? Pfft I think not. pussification of the US continues

Yeah, J.B. Books would have shot him, too. That's not the legal standard, though.

PS Had he shot him WHILE being shoved down, it would have been much closer to justified. He shot him AFTERWARDS, though. That's much closer to retribution, which isn't allowed in the law, even if we're all sympathetic to the sentiment behind it.

I guess we'll see if the Attorney General for the state overrides the local decision to let it slide...

He will probably get over by the time the sun comes up the next day.

I don't think the parking situation is going to be what's analyzed here.

There is no magic age for situations like this.

Use of force situations are just like snowflakes and divorces. No two are exactly alike and the wild cards are always the guy doing the arresting, the DA, and the jury.

The shooter made it past round one but now he has to make it through round two.

Is there more to this video than is shown? The last bit I see is the pusher backing up while the guy on the ground holds what I presume to be a gun pointing at him and then it stops.

Yes.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=sqPbL_1532105651

YouTube sucks more every day.

We also don't know what was said or what witnesses claimed what was said, etc.

Agreed.

good shoot

Apparently the old guy was an [bleep] and had had words with other people there over parking spaces. Made threats, brandished, profanity and n word type trash talking. Seeing how the dead [bleep] took two steps back with his palms showing before he was shot, I'll bet the old guy goes to prison.

McGlockton might have believed the blue parking curb was reserved for Crips and Democrats.

Borderline at best. May be different where this was recorded, but Ohio lost "stand your ground "at the polls a few years ago. If it were me on the ground, and a gun in my hand, I would have to hold him for the cops (citizens arrest), or back away, or I'd be facing charges myself. I have a legal obligation to retreat if possible in public, and the attack was broken off at the sight of the gun. He did not NEED to fire to save life of prevent further damage. His response looked more like retribution than protection.

He fired in amongst them!!

Nighty night sooty. The man should be given a medal.

Belligerent groids are dangerous whether armed or not.

None of us know the full story, the fact that the shooter stood around and waited for it to happens tells me he was hoping for a confrontation. Pussificatiin? I agree, I’d have used my fists, that people think they need to have a gun instead of their own fists shows how far we have fallen in the last 50 years or so.

Actually, if this shooting is justified (which it doesn't seem to me), it would have nothing at all to do with stand your ground, because being on the ground makes it highly unlikely that he could retreat from a quick follow up attack.

IF the attack resumed, and IF he felt he could not retreat, it could be justified. But NOT as his attacker is withdrawing and the immediate threat is gone.

Took his time and put one right in the boiler..

A stupid prize was won.

Well, yeah. I've already said that was my take on it.

How many shots do you guys see being fired?

Police stated that only 1 shot was fired.

Looks like recoil from at least two shots.



https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/n...r-parking-space-leads-to-fatal-shooting#

that's way you should not put your hands on somebody you do not know. you mite get your a$$ shot

Dead groid, got what was coming to him. One down millions to go.

Funny how so many people responding here know more about Florida law than the sheriff who has watched the video and heard what witnesses had to say.....

A prosecutor is going to have a tough time winning a case when the sheriff has said publicly that the shooting was justified.

I think I see 2 shots fired, one is reported as hitting its target.

The video looks like two.

Not that it matters.

Yep. One of 'em needed some relief!

A half assed step back by the aggressor doesn't mean he wasn't going to finish the physical attack that he began. He won't be attacking a much smaller, possibly physically disabled fellow again.

What if the weapons had been reversed!?!?!?!?


What if the guy had charged out of the store with a gun and capped the 'old' guy....... should the 'old' guy have used 'fists' ....... as you say!?!?!?

Hey man nice shot!

Well that depends,... the physical attacker is then seen reaching for his waist after the push ,
apparently that sort of action its good enough reasoning [in many LEO minds] to swiss cheese someone.

but courtrooms tend allow LE to get away with responses they would not allow an ordinary pleb.citizen.

one could argue he was not shot while his hands were at his waste, but how does one establish that
the shooter wasn't not in fair and reasonable imminent fear of harm or his life?
If he claimed to see or just fear a gun [even if only imagined] is that sufficient?...cops have used such defence
and courtroom judges have bought it.

Anyone who decides to physicAlly assault someone, and doesn't have a good follow up response to counter
something the other party may then do....

The ‘Old Guy’ was 47, I guess you could make up a situation like, “what if the guy had charged out with a gun”. Except he didn’t. I am 58 and would have used my fists.

Actually, I would not have had to use my fists, I would not have placed myself in that situation. Fighting over a parking spot to the death. Brilliant move.

quote]..
CLEARWATER — Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri announced Friday that his agency will not arrest a man deputies say shot and killed
another man during an argument over a handicap parking space.

The incident falls under Florida’s self-defense law known as "stand your ground," the sheriff said during a news conference. The law gives
immunity to those in fear of their lives who use force to defend themselves.

The shooting "is within the bookends of ‘stand your ground’ and within the bookends of force being justified," the sheriff said, later adding,
"I’m not saying I agree with it, but I don’t make that call."

"This will go to the state attorney. Drejka will not be charged [and] will not be arrested by us," Sheriff Gualtieri said.

"The state attorney will review it and either he’ll concur or not. And, if he concurs, then there’ll be no charge. Period. If he doesn’t concur, then he’ll make a
determination as to what to do with it. And, if he feels like he can overcome that heavy burden at a Stand Your Ground hearing of proving
by clear and convincing evidence that Drejka was not entitled to use force in this circumstance, then that’s the state attorney’s determination to make."

Sheriffs are not attorneys. I think he misunderstands stand your ground. Unless, as someone suggested, the other guy made moves like he was reaching for a weapon. Still wouldn’t involve stand your ground, though, since retreat wasn’t an option anyway, being sprawled on the ground. Stand your ground only comes into play when retreat might have been an option, ie it eliminates the requirement that this fact be demonstrated. So even without stand your ground, this guy would be safe so long as he can persuade the authorities (or, failing that, a jury) that the attacker still posed, in the judgment of a reasonable person, an imminent threat when he shot him.

Damn right it posed an imminent threat. It was an uppity with prior coonfrontations with others in the same spot. Had the man stood up and uttered one word to this gibbon, it would have been full blown ch*mpout.

Tough to argue with.

I think you have it backwards. The shooter is the one who had prior confrontations in the same spot.

Yes, my mistake. But still had the shooter made one move to regain his feet and I bet the monster African would have resurfaced.

Dey's arredee deemanin juctice!

Are you??

My not being an attorney in no way bolsters the argument that a sheriff knows the law because he's a sheriff. Sheriffs tend to know enough law to function adequately as law enforcement agents, but that's not always sufficient to understand legal subtleties.

I just find it ironic that you doubt his knowledge of the law because he is not an attorney.......yet you think you know more than he does and you are not an attorney......

You are in a hole......might want to stop digging!!

as a older person with a handicap and having trouble walking, 1st those people parking in a handicap spot was wrong,2nd we can`t hear the argument,3rd the dude that knocked the old guy down was wrong big time,4th I bet the tuff guy dude mouthed off too. so he got shot I don`t care if the old guy shot him 5 times or once dead is dead and he had it coming. no crime a legal justified shoot that even has the sheriff on his side ,no crime in protecting yourself. as far as I am concerned he had it coming maybe his son learned something to respect your elders !

Hawkeye, I see your from FL. , got a question. Retreat wasnt really an option, since the man was on the ground. But, does Fl. require a person to attempt to retreat? If the attempt to retreat fails, would a shooting be justified? Just curious.

I don't agree. Knowledge of the law is an objective matter, not dependent on titles. Either someone is right or he is wrong, and this can be hashed out on objective terms. I've made my arguments, and now they stand till someone finds fault with them on objective terms.

No need to retreat in Florida. We have "Stand Your Ground." In states that don't have it, you are only required to retreat if you would not be able to persuade the authorities (or a jury) that you could not do so safely.

Thanks for the reply. I was just curious.

In La. we also have 'Stand Your Ground' and juries are not allowed to even consider the 'Possibility of Retreat'. Also, a person does not even have to physically attack you, for you to 'stand your ground'. It would be a fine line in court, but with witnesses, you could probably win.

I am sure there are some who want a "duty to retreat" law. Turn and run or stand there (or lie) and take a beating or worse if you can't run fast enough.

the handicap parking is a contentious thing. Once I watched a big boat covertible park in one, probably to keep from getting a door ding, tdhe passenger pointed out the sign, and the driver had a don't GAS attitude and shrugged it off, only time I ever called and watched the police put on the ticket, didn't wait to see if it was towed.

If I am on the ground I have to figure if I can get up from a vulnerable position with someone standing over me. OTH I do not go looking for trouble, like maybe confronting said convertible's driver.

This guy lived by the J.B. Books Code:

Agreed. Here in Ohio, I must retreat if possible. (No stand your ground) and I fully understand being pissed off by the parking spot issue. My wife requires one, and my boss was injured on a job and spent time in a wheel chair. Had enough trouble getting around and had a similar ass steal the handicap spot from him while he was trying to park. Forced him to park a lot further out in the lot. He was so angry when he got back to the office, he made it a company policy that ANY employee who parked in a handicap spot without a permit, ticketed or not. Faced immediate termination.