Trial starts today..............It's already been 'hashed-out' here, just waiting for the 'peers' to weigh-in...............
It seems open and shut from the info presented. I'm no lawyer, but who was the initial aggressor would not seem to matter. Drejka got pushed to the ground, then shot the guy who pushed him as he walked away. The only way he is not guilty of at least manslaughter, is if he can convince the jury the guy he shot still posed a threat to "a reasonable man". IOW would a reasonable man believe his life was still being threatened by the guy who pushed him to the ground and then was walking away from him. It wouldn't seem to me that the Stand Your Ground law would have much to do with it.
It's troubling though, that the article started off with "shot a BLACK man" and then later went on about how colored folks thought the Stand Your Ground Law represented a threat to THEM. How would a law (I'm assuming here) that didn't list anything about a person's race, favor one race over another UNLESS ONE RACE COMMITTED THE PREPONDERANCE OF DEADLY ASSAULTS/MURDERS? In that case, it would seem to favor the victim over the criminal, which I don't have a problem with.
But...showing such bias in the article makes one wonder if the facts are presented truthfully in the first place.
So on the surface, if the facts are right, it looks like the guy shot the other guy in a fit of rage after being "attacked". Since he wasn't harmed much, it's hard to work up much sympathy for him.
Different states have different 'stand your ground' laws and it all depends on how Florida's law is written. Like EE, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not familiar with FL state laws, but if there laws are anything like Louisiana's, there are other things that come into play.
First, the man was shoved and until he pulled his weapon, the black man was still in his 'kick your ass' mode, but as soon as he saw the weapon, the black man started backing up. In LA. if you pull you weapon and don't shoot, you can be charged with 'brandishing a weapon'.
Second, see the other fellow, that walked out the door behind the black man..... he is advancing toward the man on the ground and only changes direction when he see the gun. The man on the ground might have thought the 2nd fellow was going to attack from the rear.
But, Louisiana law also states that if you are the aggressor, which could be the interpreted as starting an argument (who knows?), then the 'stand your ground' law cannot be applied. In other words, If you start a fight and are getting your ass whipped, you cant shoot your opponent and use the stand your ground law as your defense.
I'm not saying the man that did the shooting was right in starting the argument, he should have called the law, if he was so upset about people parking in a handicap spot. He certainly should not have started an argument with a woman setting in the car. But, if attacked......
It all depends on the wording of the Florida laws and the interpretation of that wording.
Someone comes lookin for trouble, they oughta find it, in spades.
The guy on trial deserves to do some time. He murdered that man.
The Stand Your Ground aspect of Florida self-defense law really has no part in determining justification under these circumstances, since escape (even if desired) wasn't an immediately viable option for the shooter while he was sprawled on the ground. Therefore, it's correctly analyzed according to very standard self-defense concepts, i.e., was there reasonable fear on his part of imminent serious bodily injury or death from the person he shot. That's the only question. The Stand Your Ground component of Florida law is not at issue at all.
All Stand Your Ground does is say that you are no longer required to credibly assert that you had no effective and immediate means of escape in order to claim the legal defense of self-defense. In the past, you had to credibly assert that escape wasn't an immediate option. Now, with Stand Your Ground, you don't have to assert that in order to assert the legal defense of self-defense.
So, now that the Stand Your Ground aspect has been shown to be irrelevant in this case, we can analyze this under traditional self-defense law, where the only question is did the shooter reasonably believe that the man he shot presented an imminent threat of serious bodily harm to him.
That's the only question for the jury, since immediate escape was removed from Drejka's list of options once McGlockton knocked him off his feet to the pavement.
I think it could go either way under that analysis. It's a little ambiguous. A jury could see it either way. It's somewhere in the middle between justified and not.
I think he gets jail time!
Don't be a thug, and you won't get shot, don't put your hands on another and you won't get shot, and last of all don't park in a handicapped space if your only handicap is being stupid, and you won't get shot !
Nice shot placement I might add !
Someone comes lookin for trouble, they oughta find it, in spades.
Pun intended?
The world is full of stupid people. You don’t have to look very far to find one. In this case two. Hasbeen
CNN's version. Rife with conjecture and inference.
A lot like my local station broadcast that comes on before Rush. Liberal hack telling Jimmy Cefalo this morning that 80-90% of all Americans approve "assault weapons" ban and far-reaching red flag laws. I don't know how Jimmy talks to these idiots so calmly.
In a word- Bullschit.
Don't be a thug, and you won't get shot, don't put your hands on another and you won't get shot, and last of all don't park in a handicapped space if your only handicap is being stupid, and you won't get shot !
Nice shot placement I might add !
If I walk out of a store and somebody is yelling at my wife or DIL in the car with kids, I would handle it in a very similar manner. The dude was a bad ass against a woman but did not even have the awareness to see a potential threat much less defend himself against a man. So he immediately goes to the gun for no good reason, I hope he serves some time.
I do agree about the handicapped parking place, don't park there unless you are handicapped.
Don't be a thug, and you won't get shot, don't put your hands on another and you won't get shot, and last of all don't park in a handicapped space if your only handicap is being stupid, and you won't get shot !
Nice shot placement I might add !
If I walk out of a store and somebody is yelling at my wife or DIL in the car with kids, I would handle it in a very similar manner. The dude was a bad ass against a woman but did not even have the awareness to see a potential threat much less defend himself against a man. So he immediately goes to the gun for no good reason, I hope he serves some time.
I do agree about the handicapped parking place, don't park there unless you are handicapped.
You can't even imagine the number of schitballs I see getting in and out of cars they've parked in handicap spaces here in south FL.
Biggest perpetrators by %? What a coincidence. Black women.
I certainly believe in the right to protect oneself. In this situation though I think he will be found guilty. He initially instigated the encounter and then finished it with a bullet. If you go looking for trouble and get punched out you kind of own it.
Yelling at someone is not illegal, however assaulting some one however is, poor dicision making can cost you your life.
My physical size and life style prevents most people from wanting to attack me, but the thug in this case towered over the guy he attacked, his lack of respect and forethought cost him his life.
It was 100% his fault, and he paid dearly for his lack of both.
I certainly believe in the right to protect oneself. In this situation though I think he will be found guilty. He initially instigated the encounter and then finished it with a bullet. If you go looking for trouble and get punched out you kind of own it.
You can certainly argue that it's best not to argue with scofflaws, but to call that an instigation of an assault is a huge stretch.
Once you place your hands on someone, be prepared for the worse, had the thug replyed to words ,with words, he would still be a carefree skittle eating burdin on society, but his hands on approach , led to the end of his dreams of a college education.
I certainly believe in the right to protect oneself. In this situation though I think he will be found guilty. He initially instigated the encounter and then finished it with a bullet. If you go looking for trouble and get punched out you kind of own it.
You can certainly argue that it's best not to argue with scofflaws, but to call that an instigation of an assault is a huge stretch.
I certainly believe in the right to protect oneself. In this situation though I think he will be found guilty. He initially instigated the encounter and then finished it with a bullet. If you go looking for trouble and get punched out you kind of own it.
You can certainly argue that it's best not to argue with scofflaws, but to call that an instigation of an assault is a huge stretch.
It will all come down to the Florida definition of stand your ground. If it is a loose definition only requiring him to feel he is in harm then he walks. If not then he gets his 3 square and a bunk for a while.
I don't see the thug walking away until the Vic starts to draw his weapon. He was still heading towards the guy and stopped to pull up his drawers that's when the Vic starts his draw and the thug starts to get the hell out of dodge, too late.....Game on.
The guy was stupid to start the whole mess to begin with but the thug got what he asked for.
I certainly believe in the right to protect oneself. In this situation though I think he will be found guilty. He initially instigated the encounter and then finished it with a bullet. If you go looking for trouble and get punched out you kind of own it.
You can certainly argue that it's best not to argue with scofflaws, but to call that an instigation of an assault is a huge stretch.
I certainly believe in the right to protect oneself. In this situation though I think he will be found guilty. He initially instigated the encounter and then finished it with a bullet. If you go looking for trouble and get punched out you kind of own it.
You can certainly argue that it's best not to argue with scofflaws, but to call that an instigation of an assault is a huge stretch.
It will all come down to the Florida definition of stand your ground. If it is a loose definition only requiring him to feel he is in harm then he walks. If not then he gets his 3 square and a bunk for a while.
Sorry, but the Stand Your Ground aspect of Florida self-defense law has no bearing whatever on this case, since the defendant having been sprawled out on the pavement by the man he shot precluded immediate escape in any event. That removes it from Stand Your Ground analysis, and leaves only classical self-defense analysis, i.e., was it reasonable for the shooter to believe that the man who was shot posed an imminent threat of serious bodily harm to the shooter.
And to add this, only one side can testify as to what each one of those involved was thinking , the thugs thoughs can only be testified to up to the point of is last actions. which was to actively attack a much smaller man who posed no threat to you, on the other hand you can ask the shooter what was going on in his mind after being savagely blindsided by a much larger blackman, knocked to the ground and scared off whats coming next.
Of course he was scared for his life, and should walk a free man.
It's going to fall on disparity of force, which ended when the gun came into play. Then to reasonable belief, which this old guy might loose also. The video show the man taking a step back, not really in retreat, still facing and capable of striking.
Regardless of the outcome-- he started the whole thing-- parking enforcement is not his job!
I think his stand your ground case is weak, because, the attacker is backing up when he shot--- just an opinion.
It will be interesting to see the outcome. The verdict might follow the Trayvon Martin shooting since that was in Florida too. I bet the BLM people will be riled up if this follows that one.
I don't see the thug walking away until the Vic starts to draw his weapon. He was still heading towards the guy and stopped to pull up his drawers that's when the Vic starts his draw and the thug starts to get the hell out of dodge, too late.....Game on.
The guy was stupid to start the whole mess to begin with but the thug got what he asked for.
Go over to WorldStarHipHop and you can see how often that pulling up the drawers happens just before the punches start.
Regardless of the outcome-- he started the whole thing-- parking enforcement is not his job!
I think his stand your ground case is weak, because, the attacker is backing up when he shot--- just an opinion.
That he was backing up has nothing whatever to do with the Stand Your Ground component of Florida Self Defense law. It goes only to whether or not the defendant had a reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily harm.
Here's FLs "Stand Your Ground" law.
"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
The reasonableness of the shooter's belief that he was in grave danger of death or great bodily harm will be key in this case. I think it's a tough case to make that he was reasonable in his belief that he was in grave danger when the person that pushed him down was walking away. I don't think it's reasonable. But this is Florida and the pool of jurors contains Florida Men, so anything can happen.
If it wasnt on video
It wouldnt be an issue.
Dead dudes cant testify
Dude shot a guy walking away.
That's not stand your ground.
That is someone walking away after a act was commited
Shoulda just called the police
Simple assualt charge coulda been pressed
If the cops could have responded in a timely manner.
Chances are he is gonna get charged with manslaughter or 2nd degree murder.
He will be lucky with a manslaughter charge.
JMO.
Apparently, based on comments here, a misunderstanding of Florida's Stand Your Ground law is universal and irreversible.
If someone is backing away-- they are no longer a threat--
Well ya gotta take factors into this also
Dude confronted someone about a handicap parking spot.
Dude was armed and feeling the barney fife mentality looking to be a big shot cause he was armed
Dude got pushed down
Dude killed a guy .
The jury will weigh all this I'm sure hearing the defense and prosecution side.
Like I said
If it wasn't on video.
It would be a check the block trial and dude would walk.
Dead people cant testify.
But video evidence and the circumstances leading up to this can affect what the jury perceives
JMO....
IMO
The groid got what he deserved and in the long run ain't costing the tax payers anymore money by seeding baby momma,s on welfare as a way of life.
Sucks for dude it was caught on video.
You gotta make sure you do a righteous shoot out in the public per levels of force escalation.
Big brother is watching electronically.
This probably shoulda just been a simple assualt charge against the griod in a "perfect world".
If someone is backing away-- they are no longer a threat--
Maybe or maybe not. If they are backing up while making a furtive motion, such as reaching into one's pants, that's a justified shoot. If they are backing up in the direction of a baseball bat sitting on the driver's seat, that is a justified shoot. I don't see any of that here, so it looks on its face like it's not a good shoot, but a jury will decide that.
If someone is backing away-- they are no longer a threat--
Step back to send a big kick forward, or stepping back to retreat after an attack?
Appears to me that he was going to attack more then maybe saw the gun and stepped back.
The outcome will probably depend on who is the better attorney.
Just to clarify, only in a minority of states (12), anymore, do the self-defense laws require you to attempt retreat while not in your home, if immediately and safely possible. So, whether they call it that or not, most states in the US today are now Stand Your Ground states.
PS In a handful of those 12 states, you have to attempt retreat, where safely possible, even from your own home.
So, in other words, in 38 states, you may stand your ground (i.e., you have no duty to explain why you didn't retreat) and still assert the right of self-defense. Florida is not particularly unique in this regard. At least not any longer.
Avoiding conflict is an art that few recognize, until it is too late. There are lots of tough guys in prison.
mike r
is any one sure this black thug might still turn back around ? blackman had no business parking in a handicap zone the small whiteman is innocent ,he was protecting himself from a thug !
One of the unwritten rules of CCW is you do your best to avoid confrontation, my guess is if he had not been armed he wouldn't have had the balls to initiate the conflict. I think he was looking for an excuse to to use that gun. In a previous incident he allegedly threatened to shoot another person over the same parking spot. If he had such a problem with it he should have called the authorities instead of taking the law into his own hands.
Round here, a move into the pocket like that means he's carryin, and the gat is comin out.
But ta keep it simple:
If it was a cop it happened to, would the cop be convicted (or even charged)?
Not guilty.
I certainly believe in the right to protect oneself. In this situation though I think he will be found guilty. He initially instigated the encounter and then finished it with a bullet. If you go looking for trouble and get punched out you kind of own it.
Not exactly.
He was not the initial instigator against the man he shot.
He was having an altercation with another person in a parked car. The dead man instigated the encounter between himself and the shooter by walking several feet an injection himself into the situation.
The shooter did not walk up to the dead man, did not speak to the dead man and did not even know the dead man was approaching.
The dean man instigated the deadly altercation.
I certainly believe in the right to protect oneself. In this situation though I think he will be found guilty. He initially instigated the encounter and then finished it with a bullet. If you go looking for trouble and get punched out you kind of own it.
Not exactly.
He was not the initial instigator against the man he shot.
He was having an altercation with another person in a parked car. The dead man instigated the encounter between himself and the shooter by walking several feet an injection himself into the situation.
The shooter did not walk up to the dead man, did not speak to the dead man and did not even know the dead man was approaching.
The dean man instigated the deadly altercation.
I hadn't thought of it that way. That's an excellent point.
is any one sure this black thug might still turn back around ? blackman had no business parking in a handicap zone the small whiteman is innocent ,he was protecting himself from a thug !
The 'blackman' didn't park in the handicap space, the woman did, .....
SHE gets out of the car to 'confront' the man, and the huge blackman comes out and bowls him over, he's now facing two, not one.............
But, like I said before, the Fire has already hashed this out, we're now waiting on the Jury...............
Was the shooter talking to the black woman or screaming at her ?
It's not likely that he started yelling - 99% chance the BMBB big mouth black bish ramped it to the top immediately because we all know that no one has the right to question a black queen .
Would the dead dude be charged with assault for knocking the old guy down ? Big difference in being knocked down and 'pushed to the ground' [media wording] .
I use to get ' pushed to the ground ' when playing football - see how that wording works ?
You put your hands on someone much less knock them down - you started the violence .
What Fubarski said - had a cop got knocked on his ass what would happen to him --> nothing what so ever .
My bet is if the white guy wasn't carrying he wouldn't have started up with the person illegally parked. Situational awareness and problem avoidance always follows me when I am carrying.
My bet is if the white guy wasn't carrying he wouldn't have started up with the person illegally parked. Situational awareness and problem avoidance always follows me when I am carrying.
Nonsense
So you are of the camp, like the liberal left, that carrying a firearm turns ordinary men and women into tuff guys. Tuff guys that strap on a firearm and go looking for trouble.
How progressive of you.
When in reality, just the opposite is true. Most of us that carry take that responsibility very seriously and go out of our way to avoid confrontation such as this.
My bet is if the white guy wasn't carrying he wouldn't have started up with the person illegally parked. Situational awareness and problem avoidance always follows me when I am carrying.
Yep carrying makes me more aware and less likely to confront but it sounds like it may have done the opposite for this guy.
That seems clear particularly if what is said in the article about his history is true.
I can’t speak to how he felt on the ground there and I get this isn’t an instance of “stand your ground” but this seems less than clear.
We don’t need people like this guy getting off scot-free; it casts good concealed carry license holders in same light as Barney Fife cops cast good cops.
I've been hear a long time and I'm still surprised by how uneducated and unintelligent some of you people are.
I've been hear a long time and I'm still surprised by how uneducated and unintelligent some of you people are.
Learn to spell dumbass .
My bet is if the white guy wasn't carrying he wouldn't have started up with the person illegally parked. Situational awareness and problem avoidance always follows me when I am carrying.
That has zero bearing on the case. The fact remains that he was well within his rights to verbally confront someone about parking in a handicapped space without a tag authorizing it.
My bet is if the white guy wasn't carrying he wouldn't have started up with the person illegally parked. Situational awareness and problem avoidance always follows me when I am carrying.
Nonsense
So you are of the camp, like the liberal left, that carrying a firearm turns ordinary men and women into tuff guys. Tuff guys that strap on a firearm and go looking for trouble.
How progressive of you.
When in reality, just the opposite is true. Most of us that carry take that responsibility very seriously and go out of our way to avoid confrontation such as this.
Exactly.
Nonsense
So you are of the camp, like the liberal left, that carrying a firearm turns ordinary men and women into tuff guys. Tuff guys that strap on a firearm and go looking for trouble.
How progressive of you.
When in reality, just the opposite is true. Most of us that carry take that responsibility very seriously and go out of our way to avoid confrontation such as this.
You obviously recognize that not everyone is like us because you say “most” and I agree.
From what I read, if it is true, this guy may not be among that majority.
My bet is if the white guy wasn't carrying he wouldn't have started up with the person illegally parked. Situational awareness and problem avoidance always follows me when I am carrying.
That has zero bearing on the case. The fact remains that he was well within his rights to verbally confront someone about parking in a handicapped space without a tag authorizing it.
True enough he was well within his rights to legally confront the parking scofflaw. His issue was, as pointed out before, with the black guy who later came out of the store. My point made earlier is when I carry I am actually more aware of my surroundings and try to put myself in a position to never pull my gun. Last resort option for me but certainly one where I would use it if forced into it. In all honesty I don't think I would have pulled my gun if someone merely pushed me down. Hard to understand what the true perceived threat was on that guy though.
Nonsense
So you are of the camp, like the liberal left, that carrying a firearm turns ordinary men and women into tuff guys. Tuff guys that strap on a firearm and go looking for trouble.
How progressive of you.
When in reality, just the opposite is true. Most of us that carry take that responsibility very seriously and go out of our way to avoid confrontation such as this.
You obviously recognize that not everyone is like us because you say “most” and I agree.
From what I read, if it is true, this guy may not be among that majority.
Anything read from the media, is suspect from the start and propaganda at the end.
I'll add another thought. I am pretty seasoned as far as life at this point. In my early days I had plenty of bar fights and thankfully never encountered anything like a weapon. At that time in my life I didn't carry. Win or lose it was just a fight and during those times I was never afraid for my life. Now very early in my 7th decade I no longer have the confidence that I could take care of myself based on shear strength and skill alone and now I carry. That being said I know if I ever had to pull that gun it puts me in a whole different set of circumstances that of which I might not like the end result. My carry is insurance to me that I have a final option if and when things ever turned really ugly. Like all insurance I hope I never have to use it. I stay out of sketchy places now but still feel I need that insurance whether I am at the market, taking a drive or out in a public place that might attract someone wanting to hurt someone.
They didn't convict OJ but they did Mark Petersen, good council is usually how justice is served,
How bad they want a conviction and how good the prosecution and/or his defense is
That's what will happen here
Once the thug laid his hands on the shooter he became fair game.
A hung jury will set him free.
Here's a thought:
From the video it is clear, from the cameras perspective, that the assailant is backing away................ however....
From the viewpoint, perspective, of the assailed, having been knocked on his azz, sitting on the tarmac, with a 6'+ man standing, towering over you, looking at you HEADON, would he appear to be backing up???
We can see what the camera 'saw', not so much what the shooter saw.
Another point that many of you are missing, is the fact that the shooter was out numbered , as you can see the car door opening at the same time that the thug attscks !
But I'm sure that point will be neutralized when the she thug. Plays the race card, you all know she will testify that the shooter used the "N" so he deserved to have his white privileged azz whooped upon.
Jury has been selected.
5 Men 1 Woman, 4 white 1 Asian
3 alternates, 2 Women 1 Man, all white..........
The Asian?will be his savior.....
I can honestly see this going to the extreme either way. Either he is not guilty of anything, or gets buried under the prison.
If the white man had any common sense he’d mind his own business and the whole thing could have been avoided on the other hand if I’m suddenly knocked to the ground at a ghetto gas station trouble is coming
Mentioned this experience in the past and I'll tell the story once more just to pass along where my tripwire is located.
Driving into town one day headed for the post office and the light was green at a 4 way intersection. Fella ahead of me slowed to about 20 in a 45 zone, stacking traffic up big time. I flashed my lights and he slowed more. He turned off the highway about 1/4 mile later and I followed. He pulled into a shopping center, I continued to the PO without further thought on the matter. However, he pulled a tire squealing u- turn and followed into the PO parking lot and began bitching up a storm.
I went inside, grabbed the mail and exited to find him parked by my truck and obstructing my path to same. He mouthed off, I told the fat man to GFY. That led to him striking me. I asked, politely, if he was really sure he wanted to be doing what he was doing and another bucket of chitt spewed from his mouth. My reason for asking him was simple. I knew for a fact that I could kill him with one well placed punch. He was oblivious, such was his anger. I finally just walked around him and got in the truck and started the engine and began to back out as I rolled the window down. He yelled something and charged, arm cocked to punch me again.
I hit the brakes and stuck my carry piece in his face. He hit the brakes as well and started to backpedal. First smart thing I'd seen him do. I drove away, called the sheriff and reported the event, which was recorded in security video. The Man asked later if I wanted to press charges and I declined. Case closed. Had Fat Man laid a hand on me a second time he would have died right there.
Was he handicap was he inconvinionced by them parking in a handicap zone I see dumb [bleep] like this escalate all the time keep your mouth shut go on about your way
I don't know. In Texas you can kill people for stealing.
If you choose to put your hands on me, I will be the last warm and fuzzy thing that you do that to.
Was he handicap was he inconvinionced by them parking in a handicap zone I see dumb [bleep] like this escalate all the time keep your mouth shut go on about your way
Irrelevant to the criminal charges.
The dead man intersected himself into the discussion between the driver and the shooter. That discussion was None if his business, thevdead man should have minded his own business.
As the boyfriend approaches, the woman begins to get out of the car, that was escalating the argument and likely accounts for why the shooter was so blindsided.
Boyfriend violently shoves shooter to the ground, the way I see it shooter is confronted by two individuals standing over him. Boyfriend steps one pace back still facing and towering over shooter.
If ya wanna see what retreat looks like Watch the actions of the second male on the sidewalk behind the boyfriend.
I do understand that the boyfriend was in support-his-woman mode for the female right next to him at that moment in time and in those mere few seconds prob’ly less likely to flee right away.
Boyfriend blindsided the shooter and violently initiated the physical confrontation, shooter on the ground was facing two opponents and could not readily avoid further blows ergo he was in reasonable fear. He should walk.
Civil court howerever is a whole diff’rent story, it apportions monetary damages based on blame, and yes, we are told the shooter went out of his way to precipitate an argument with the woman.
But...showing such bias in the article makes one wonder if the facts are presented truthfully in the first place.
Are they ever??
Was he handicap was he inconvinionced by them parking in a handicap zone I see dumb [bleep] like this escalate all the time keep your mouth shut go on about your way
Irrelevant to the criminal charges.
That’s the bottom line in terms of the legality or lack thereof here.
I disagree re: it not being the second guys business. If my wife is involved in an altercation I’m involved too.
if folks just minded their own damn business.........................
It's fun to watch attorneys lie...
Unless it's your ass on the line.
It's going to fall on disparity of force, which ended when the gun came into play. Then to reasonable belief, which this old guy might loose also. The video show the man taking a step back, not really in retreat, still facing and capable of striking.
I keep saying this. If you watch the video closely, THE MAN TOOK HIS STEP BACK WHEN HE SAW THE GUN.
THE SHOT COULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN FIRED.
Verdict is in..............
waiting on announcement.
Civil court howerever is a whole diff’rent story, it apportions monetary damages based on blame, and yes, we are told the shooter went out of his way to precipitate an argument with the woman.
Not around here. If you used lethal force and the shooting is justified then you can NOT be sued. If the state prosecutes you and you prevail by being found not guilty then the state has to reimburse you for your costs for defending yourself and you still can NOT be sued.
Video is not always your friend.
Video is not always your friend.
Especially when it shows that you are a murderer.
Does take the edge offa the old "better ta be judged by 12" theory.
Best to mind your own bidness.
Civil court howerever is a whole diff’rent story, it apportions monetary damages based on blame, and yes, we are told the shooter went out of his way to precipitate an argument with the woman.
Not around here. If you used lethal force and the shooting is justified then you can NOT be sued. If the state prosecutes you and you prevail by being found not guilty then the state has to reimburse you for your costs for defending yourself and you still can NOT be sued.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You're not permitted to bring in past conduct in this case. It has no legal bearing.
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.
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 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.
You're not permitted to bring in past conduct in this case. It has no legal bearing.
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......
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
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!
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.
+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.
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.
TRH, there is little doubt as far as I'm concerned that society is probably better off with the Negro not being around anymore. He probably needed killing......but that was neither the time nor place for it.
The one glaring fact that stands out here.....and IMO cannot be dismissed.....is the past behavior of Drejka. He was a shooting waiting to happen......a man who straps on a gun, and all of sudden becomes a bad azz, just looking to intimidate someone. People like him are the ones who project the image that the news media likes to put out there, that ultimately affects the people like you and I who carry responsibly.
Had the Negro had a weapon, or had he been shown to be keeping up his attack on Drejka, we wouldn't be having this discussion. That is the reason that I like to see some form of training for anyone who has a concealed carry permit. They need to know exactly what the law says about when you can use deadly force, and I'm not sure the "stand your ground" defense applied in this case.
people should just mind their own damn business.