Florida man who claimed self-defense after shooting man over parking spot sentenced

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-man-sentenced-parking-spot-self-defense

From the article:
A Florida man who claimed he fatally shot an unarmed man in self-defense after the two squabbled over a handicapped parking space was sentenced Thursday to 20 years in prison.
Michael Drejka, 49, was found guilty of manslaughter in August in the death of Markeis McGlockton, a 28-year-old man, in the parking lot of a Clearwater convenience store in July 2018.

I remember seeing this right after it happened. The shooter actually initiated the confrontation because the other guy was illegally parked in a handicap space, which I doubt he'd have done if he wasn't packing heat.
The guy was younger and had some pounds on him, and shoved him to the ground. He claimed the guy was advancing towards him, guess the jury saw it differently. You'd think just drawing would have ended the altercation without squeezing off a round.
It does make one wonder though, what the verdict may have been had an older Black shot a younger stronger white guy.
I carry constantly, as I believe everyone should. But if you're gonna pick a fight with someone you wouldn't mess with just cause you're packing, you're better off not packing.
Avoid any confrontation if humanly possible.
7mm

The shooter did NOT "initiate the confrontation". He was merely calling out the woman for parking in a handicap parking space. No problem with that. Something I have done, too as I've seen it abused and abused when I know people that need that space. He did not hit her or threaten her. The guy that died layed hands on the shooter when he pushed him down. That was not necessary and THAT is what lead to the shooting. Had he not done that, he'd be alive today.

Based on the video and all i'v read, I do not think deadly force for self defense was needed. But then, I was not the guy on the ground looking up at a taller and heavier attacker.

Interesting, considering the police department was sure it was justified, and had no intentions of charging him with anything. It took someone outside the usual chain of command to push for an indictment.

Idiotic statement. Speaking to someone's girlfriend about illegally parking isn't any sort of crime, and certainly doesn't justify an assault. The black guy had every right to say, "Excuse me, what's the problem here" or "Hey, if you have a problem, address it to me, not her." No contact of any kind, however, was justified by his speaking to her about illegal parking.

Yeah, someone capable of rational thinking. Murderer is a psycho. Wanted to kill someone and he did.

The worst he should have got was manslaughter, which is the usual conviction in the case of an "imperfect self-defense."

Imperfect Self-Defense

Dead guy was turned and walking away when he was shot. You can see him hunch his shoulders when he’s got his back to the shooter.

It was a bad shoot, for a lot of reasons.

Murderer is a psycho. Wanted to kill someone and he did. [/quote]


This.

Remember the backstory?

He had that fight before..
Had even threatened to shoot someone over it.
Enough of that in the past that it became a problem when it
actually happened.

And he started the chain of events.
And, his assailant was turning away when he shot.

And that’s exactly the prize he won. Convicted of MANSLAUGHTER. Sentence was 20 years.
Jury did their job. Bad shoot. He went looking for trouble and it bit him in the ass.
Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

Shooter was looking for trouble. Decided to be a self appointed parking lot cop. If I come out of a store and you're giving my lady chit as in this case you got a problem. As stated above the shooter had backed off when he was shot. Color don't matter. Shooter got less than he deserved.

Side note I've trespassed on handicapped parking for a quick in and out. And I've never seen a parking lot with more than a couple of handicapped spots that were all full.

What would the sentence have been if the races were reversed

But the guy on the ground was likely dazed from slamming into the concrete, and his perceptions at that point of fine details of the position and movement of the attacker were likely not perfect, but all that is due to having been attacked by the black guy, so it's on him. It's not on the dazed victim sprawled on the concrete, desperate to save himself from being kicked to death while down (a very common mode of murder, by the way).

Your analysis would only apply if the defender hadn't already been mentally stunned by an unjustified attack, which he perceived (in a stunned state) as only the first stage in a sustained attack. Once the attack has already begun in earnest, you don't slavishly stick to the same analysis as you would if the deadly force were used to prevent the initial attack making contact. Different circumstance. Mental state is completely different at the point you're sprawled on the ground, just having made hard contact with it as a result of an illegal assault. At that point, the law doesn't necessarily require you to be thinking and perceiving on all four cylinders.

If you fall to the ground and are "stunned" just because someone pushed you, maybe you're a wimp. You can't tell me that if you saw a man bitching at your significant other, you wouldn't have pushed (or worse) him if he didn't back off.

I didn't see any sign of the black man demanding the white guy back away from his girlfriend. Had that occurred, reasonable force would be permitted, but not the degree of force we saw, but we don't even get there, since there was no demand to back away, or if there was, there was no time gap between the demand and the assault.

That depends on what the shooter said, and how he said it. Do you know what he said?

What does a witness claim he said?

I have no idea what he said, my point was that there are some things you can say to a man's wife or girlfriend that should earn you an ass-beating, not just a shove to the ground.

What makes you think that happened here?

Hawkeye sticking up for this guy more than his attorney is. Not telling you how to live your life but this guy is a convicted murderer, probably not deserving of your defense.

Wife & daughter both disabled we try not to use solo handicapped spots in case wheelchair bound folks need to park. Nice to know you balance that out by being a lazy jerk.

LOL, what makes you think that I think that happened here?

I just said I have no idea what the shooter said. My point is, neither do you. Read my first post for clarification, it's 18 short words.

When I go to the Minit Mart, I get what I'm there for and move along. It never occurs to me to have a confrontation with someone over where they've parked.

A person can go out into the world and find an endless number of people to have a confrontation with. Generally speaking, I just don't pay any attention to those people. They're not a part of my world. They don't exist.

2 of those are medium words, in my opinion.

Yep, it's just asking for trouble. Unless you're handicapped and need the spot, it's really none of your business.

You should not put your cock in another man's Chrysler.

What Florida law states an earned "ass beating" for speaking to another man's woman? Which one allows a shove to the ground, for that matter?

Dodge or Plymouth okay?

Don't go around looking for dogchit to step in and you wont have to wear stinking boots!

You can be assaulted legally for telling somebody they're illegally parked? In Florida, Colorado or what other states?

I've stepped in plenty of shixt I wasn't looking for...dog and otherwise.

My, what a lovely murder you have there.

I avoid the ebt crowd like the plague, they have no idea what simmers just below the surface ; ]

So, because this guy has an issue with people taking up handicapped parking spots illegally, he deserves 20 years in prison??

This guy has a history of arguing with people who are illegally using the handicapped spot.
I have a good friend up in Iowa, I went to visit him in May, and we went to the grocery store, he parked in the handicapped and we went into the store.
And I said "Jeff you aren't handicapped why do you park here?" He had a little sign that he had hung from the mirror.
Well, his wife had been in a wreck in December, she was all banged up and she got the handicapped sign, it was good for a year. In fact his wife was OK after 2 months, but Jeff just decided he would use the sign until it expired this December. Jeff has gotten his knees banged up playing football, he limps but, he is not handicapped.

I didn't bitch him out, I didn't say anything. I wouldn't do this. But Jeff does it. He is not a bum or a parasite but he is illegally using the handicapped. At least one forum member here has admitted to illegally using the handicapped space.
And I have seen plenty of people parking in handicapped that just hopped out of their car, and walked unimpeded right into the store. The handicapped spots get abused left and right.

If your mission in life is to go out and defend the handicapped spots of the world, you have put yourself on a fool's errand. This guy was looking for trouble and he found it.

It wasn't his mission in life, but he was there when it happened, and said something to the miscreant. That's worth a 20 year prison sentence?

That video illustrates a completely different topic.

I, naively, would expect remorse on the choice of parking spots.

Not that it matters in the shooting, but, that was what started the
whole schitz show.

You cannot identify an action that is legal as the initiating cause of a chain of events leading to a death. Legal activities aren't "starting it." What started it was the illegal attack on the man who was behaving within his rights in confronting a miscreant.

If you're going to go around confronting people you best know how to use your fists first, a chickenchit that pulls a gun and fires over getting shoved to the ground should have kept his fu-king mouth shut, remind you of any spooky popo's?

Well, yes, the law does. The standard is "what would a reasonable person do in that circumstance" - sprawled on the ground with your attacker walking away from you.

Seriously, it's pretty much impossible to make a claim of self-defense when you shot a person in the back. The only way that passes muster is if he's shooting at you while running away.

If you're not in imminent danger, your need to defend yourself goes out the window. Someone who is walking away from you is no longer an imminent danger. If he turns and advances again, fill him full of lead.

He landed on his azz, not his head, which does not appear to work well anyway.

There are IMO two distinctly separate things that require scrutinizing in this case.

The shooter was absolutely assaulted and there's not even any ambiguity about this observation as it's on video. After the shooter was knocked to the ground the aggressor actually continued to approach and if the person had fired at that point we possibly would have never heard of the incident because the threat of further violence would be considered real. That's not what happened though.

On seeing the assaultee produce a weapon he immediately began backing away. This is actually the best scenario for all parties. Violence is stopped, nobody is shot and the aggressor could even be charged with assault as he should be. What happened is the person fired a fatal shot anyway after the person has already retreated and is actually starting to turn away.

After watching the video I would have been nothing short of stunned for there not to have been a conviction.

The attacker wasn't shot in the back,he was shot in the chest.

Let's be clear, he didn't get 20 years for saying something, he got 20 years for shooting and killing someone who had their back turned to him.

Nope. "In like circumstances" takes into consideration the defender's mental state, if diminished by the attack of the deceased. So the correct and complete statement of the law would be that "a reasonable person, in like circumstances (including state of mind, if a diminished state of mind was caused by an illegal attack by the deceased), would have perceived a threat of imminent serious bodily injury or death."

Making a good case for red flag laws there......seeing how he was so "diminished".

How so? If I blindside you with a haymaker, you will have a diminished state of mind, and your judgment won't be to its usual level of precision. How does that have anything to do with Red Flag laws as regards you?

Ha!

What if you say something mean?

Diminished! Bang bang!



Yep....real comforting.

Essentially, according to the analysis of many here in this thread, by their own words (e.g., "He deserved to go to jail because he didn't mind his own business about the handicapped parking spot, so he started it"), he deserved to be sentenced because he started it by confronting the miscreant. Therefore, the reasoning goes, no matter that he was then assaulted (which assault many here applaud), he had no right to self-defense. The people arguing this way are not even reaching the analysis of justification after the assault, since they've already determined he was in the wrong from the start, thus he is, legally speaking, denied the defense of self-defense (so they imply), due to lacking "clean hands."

Bizarre argument, you have there. I thought more of your intellect before today.

IMO, the only reason the dead guy turned to walk away was because shooter guy drew his weapon.

BUT he WAS starting to walk away when he got shot. That's what makes it a bad shoot. Had dead guy turned back around and came back at shooter guy AFTER the weapon was drawn and got shot, then it would be a good shoot.

The Din-Doo was shot in the chest not in the back. Watch the video, even the news anchor says he was shot once, in the chest.

Oh dear. You are a bit catty this morning.

No, by all means....keep beating the diminished drum.

It might work once to get a guy off a murder rap.

After that it will play right into the hands of the opposition.

The opposition who predicted that every confrontation would end in gunfire......

You know....since every one is so diminished.

We was NOT walking away, he was facing the shooter. That's what I saw in the video. He turned and staggered away AFTER he was shot.

Good one.

Did you get "blindsided"?

Dont shoot bro.

Thank you gunner. You are going to go around confronting people, EVEN IF they are illegally using the handicapped spot, and your first line of defense is pulling a gun? No, you better know how to use your fists.

As an aside, it's amazing how news reports ALWAYS get it wrong on what Stand Your Ground laws do. They think that they permit deadly force self-defense. No. That's already well established law. Has been for over a century. All Stand Your Ground laws do is remove from the accused the obligation to credibly assert that he had no safe means of escape. That's it. Some states require you to credibly assert, when lethal force was applied in self-defense, that you had no safe means of escaping. Stand Your Ground removes that obligation. It literally does nothing else. All the other aspects of lethal force self-defense law are the same as they've always been.

You've lost it.

I don't think he was charged with, convicted of, or sentenced for "saying something." It was a little more than that, don't you think?

Best thing to do is mind your own business and know how to regulate your mouth.

View this video and stop at :38. Drejka has been knocked to the ground and McGlockton has actually advanced a few steps further looming over Drejka. If the firearm had been drawn and fired immediately at that point this would have been a different case.

Now note the IMMEDIATE backing up of McGlockton as the weapon is produced. Note the spacing difference between :38 and :41 when McGlockton clearly reacts to being shot. Note that immediately prior to being shot McGlockton's right leg was blading out and left was stepping into a turn to the right.

https://www.courttv.com/title/8-5-1...eo-shows-fatal-shooting-graphic-content/

The jury saw a person clearly creating space from a weapon and was shot anyway. (though not in the back as some have suggested)

Nice try, did I mention anything about Florida law, or say the law allows for any level of physical force? I don't believe I did.

But here's something to think about. Put yourself in the dead guy's shoes, and pretend your wife parked in the handicapped spot, just for the sake of argument.

Is there anything the shooter could say to your wife that would cause you to physically confront him?

No.

He deserves 20 years in prison for being the poster child against concealed carry.

He's a dumbass that goes around sticking his nose in other people's business and when somebody shoves him on his ass for it, he uses it as an opportunity to kill the man.

He's a mouthy little pissant that goes around with a gun in his pocket looking for confrontations.

Fug him.

Truth!

Way I see it, the guy was obviously assaulted but it didn't warrant a shooting. There was no real threat to the guy at that point. He'd been shoved and he fell, no big deal. There are varying levels off assault....getting spit on is assault, but doesn't justify shooting. This guy was not in real danger. The guy pushed him and then maybe moved forward a bit but not real aggressively, and was turning away as the gun was pulled. I think the jury got it right.

Idiotic thing to do, getting in an unnecessary verbal confrontation with a stranger while your carrying gun. People here like to say stupid should hurt, and this time it did.

The good news if Florida is anything like Texas that 20 will be something less than 7. I’m sure the do gooders played a part in this trail. Probably afraid they might be some riots if not tried and convicted. As far as I’m concerned you can talk and argue all day long. When you put you hands on someone that changes things for the worse.
Hasbeen

self defense?

Charged with manslaughter after submitting to an interview without benefit of counsel by a Detective George Moffett, who then swore out a criminal complaint on that manslaughter charge.

A member of the Law of Self Defense community alerted me to a news story by the web site Law Enforcement Today (and confirmed by other more recognizable news sites), reporting that Detective Moffett was arrested last week for showing up to a crime scene intoxicated.

And Moffett showed up at the crime scene not just a little intoxicated, either:

[A]fter [Moffett] exited his unmarked detective unit, deputies noticed signs of impairment.

Field deputies noticed the detective smelled like alcohol, had bloodshot eyes and was slurring his speech, the Sheriff’s Office said.

As a result, deputies began a DUI investigation in tandem with the shooting investigation. Moffett performed poorly in field sobriety tests

A breath test taken several hours later indicated a blood-alcohol level of about 0.130, half-again above the 0.08 limit for driving impaired. Naturally this means that Moffett’s actual blood alcohol level at the scene was substantially greater than this measurement.

It is noteworthy that Moffett drove himself to the scene, and was armed at the time.

It is also noteworthy that Moffett has previously been convicted of DUI.

Hahaha!

That means a lot coming from you!


I musta finally made it.......

I've followed this closely and this is about the best summary of events I've seen.

Minding ones own business is rarely the wrong thing to do.

Wow!

It looks like a bad shoot to me. I thought so at the time that it happened and still think so. I'm not surprised at the verdict.

It could have been me. If I come out of a store and find someone giving my Wife a hard time about something I'm going to interfere. I'll tear her butt up later if it was for doing something stupid like that entitled person did by being in that handicap parking spot, but someone else is not going to do it.

Seeing the whole handicap thing being abused makes me mad all over but I'm not the handicap police and its not my place to enforce those laws. Confronting others is a good way for stuff like this to happen.

Good advice, indeed. That's my modus operandi, too. Doesn't mean that someone who chooses not to ignore a miscreant, and attempts to dissuade her miscreancy, deserves 20 years, though, which is essentially what some folks here are (at least by implication) asserting, if you actually break it down, since they assert that his having "started it" is why it all went bad for him, and by "started it," they mean attempted to dissuade a miscreant from her miscreancy. In actuality, however, the only one on that scene who "started it" was the dead man.

Bullsh*t. He didn't get convicted and sentenced for "attempting to dissuade his/her miscreancy."

He was convicted and sentenced for killing the guy.

Seriously, do you not comprehend the difference?

Really doesn't matter what anyone here thinks, this guy is going to do 20 years, right or wrong

Seriously?? hr shot HIM THE BACK and you are claiming he might have been stunned? lol. The guy on the ground got his ego (in addition to his ASS) kicked, so he shot him IN THE BACK.

I doubt you would go up to a black woman and black man and start berating them for parking in a handicap spot.

I would also imagine that you would understand that such foolish folly would pretty much mean violence was to ensue.

So, either the guy who did, was woefully stupid, or looking for a fight. Either way, he has to pay for killing a person who responded as we would all expect.

I would have to say most of that is correct.

The guy had just had his bell rung hard and I would bet that he had the ability to think 100% clearly. when the guy knocked him down and continued towards him he was in a position to feel threatened and he never seen the guy attempting to back off. I'll bet my last dollar that was all he saw was a threat continuing.

I would fell different if the guy would have backed off immediately after ringing his bell but he didn't he was gonna teach that guy a lesson, unfortunatly for him the other guy was quicker than he was.

I've had my bell rung hard and had I been on that jury there's no way I would have convicted him after taking everything into consideration.

By the way things have gone in the last 10 years I would also bet that if this had been to white guys we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

So what?

He shot him in the front. The guy was turned a bit but not nearly enough to claim he shot him in the back. You can see it here:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/...cap-parking-spot-shooting-case-arrested/

A big bully got his ass shot and the shoulda minded his own bidness dumbazz that shot him goes to prison,,, when fools collide or is that play stupid games, win stupid prizes, X2..

Good post. Good to see someone beside myself capable of seeing this.

That's different, then if he indeed shot him as he was approaching..

Wait a minute.

The statement was obviously directed at the woman.
Don't you find it odd that she doesn't wish she had parked where she
belonged. Survivors guilt is a normal thing. Her actions started this.
That may well be the most clear fact in the whole thing. If she parked
in a normal spot. No argument, no pushing, no shooting.

As for legal.
I think parking in a handicapped space, when you aren't, is illegal.

Pertinent to the shooting case or not, I find her lack of responsibility interesting.

Why are you so invested in this?
These things usually have more than one side, and a thinking person
can usually see them both. Then decide.

You seem to have a fixation on this?

“A breath test taken several hours later indicated a blood-alcohol level of about 0.130, half-again above the 0.08 limit for driving impaired. Naturally this means that Moffett’s actual blood alcohol level at the scene was substantially greater than this measurement.”

Not necessarily, not that it matters. If he had a belly full of alcohol his blood level could still be climbing hours after the initial test.




P

The problem is (see my later post with video) there's simply no ambiguity about the shootee immediately creating space from the shooter literally up until the point of being shot. In fact given the position of the vehicle behind him he'd retreated about a far as physically possible and beginning to turn away. There's nothing on the video or (to my knowledge) medically supportive of even a small degree of head trauma that would lend much credence to the "bell rung" defense. One can try to be somewhat sympathetic to the idea that he was assaulted as that fact is not even in dispute by anyone honestly assessing the situation. In any case what a jury sits there and watches is someone shooting someone else that is unarmed and, without any question whatsoever, retreating. It is this last fact that brought about the conviction.

This is wild!

I'd missed this the first time but think it deserves an up. The misrepresentation of SYG is so prevalent and pronounced I no longer believe the majority of it is simple ignorance. (some sure) I've become 100% convinced a significant portion of the SYG narrative in most media is outright deception.

Agreed.

I know self-righteous, morally smug a$$holes just like the killer that get in involved in other peoples' business and it's a wonder they haven't gotten a beat down.

Exactly what I saw in the video as well.

Yeah, but he started it!

Did not you poopy head!

Interesting twist... I suspect cops would fall under DOT impairment guidelines which are 50% of the general public.. so .04 in this case.

He shot him when the black guy was backing up.

That's the way it went down.

It's meaningless. This case hinged on the video of the incident. Whether or not the cop was drunk (which was not even alleged) when he took the statement is meaningless, too. The expected standard is audio/visual recording. Unless there's evidence that the statement was coerced, taken without Miranda, or was somehow doctored by the cop, this doesn't even get on the radar, Since none of those things were raised at trial, whatever the cop does IN THE FUTURE, is meaningless.

Does the fact the cop might be a drunk now negate everything he's done in his career?

"Hey, Dindu! That cop who caught you after you raped and murdered that 2 year old girl 20 years ago got drunk the other day. You're free to go!!"

Law breakers are everybody’s business. To much of it being ignored. To many entitled people, think what they are doing is more important than what anybody else needs or wants.
In the area I live in the police have deputized ordinary citzens to write tickets to people parking in HC spots. The take a picture of HC sign and license plate of car parked illegally in space. Ticket is pretty rough.
Hasbeen

He was certainly within his rights to say something to her about parking illegally. What further purpose did it serve to stand there and argue with her about it? Why didn't he just call a cop?

I have the right to flip someone off if they cut me off in traffic. Getting out and engaging in fisticuffs (or worse) with them solves what? That makes me the aggressor.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/publi...nd-your-ground-shooter-s-past_170719109/

Jeez- how many times do we read guys in this forum telling us all what they would do if some guy dared to confront 'MY' wife.

Stupid and avoidable by all parties.

Disrespectful people with entitled mindset parking in the spot. No problem with someone telling them off- to a point.

Then there is cocky little man, over the limit - walking around armed. No effing excuse for that. WTF. Beyond dangerous.

Discovers his mouth has written a check his intoxicated azz can't cash because, oh-oh, it ain't just a woman he is dealing with.

Worst part of all is, if I remember correctly, there are kids in the car. They certainly didn't deserve to see that. No Sir.

Blame enough all around. -adults!

If Dad parks in the right spot, or keeps his head and gee, I dunno, sets a good example he lives to set another one.

If responsible gun owner stayed responsible he sleeps it off at home. No jail time or sore ass and ego.

Avoidable. That word will 'what if ' these folks for the rest for their days.

Mom was driving and it was a police officer who was drunk.

Right, not the shooter. Amazing how people want to twist this.

Sorry- I am not wanting to twist anything - just misread. My bad. I still stand by that responsible thinking would have saved lives- and spared children.

This guy is the self appointed sheriff of handicapped parking. And he is a bully.
Why? Because, he saw a black female, by herself, and he confronted her.

All we need to ask, to see if he is a bully, is What would he have done, if rather than a single black female, what if there were two big Hells Angels on their Harleys, parked in that handicapped spot. Would he have confronted them?

Since I carry 24/7 365 I’ve learned to stay out of petty squabbles. I don’t GAF if some mud shark parks in a handicap space, it ain’t my fight. I damn sure don’t care enough about petty laws enough to get into a fist fight over them and a gunfight ain’t gonna be precipitated over a parking spot.

I don’t know about 20 years though....I also don’t know the particulars that got him 20 years. The entire thing was stupid and unnecessary from get go.

Yup, agreed men, that's why I was after TRH's take on the matter, iirc he's pretty quick to call out trigger happy popo's, if correct, defending this pos pussy is 180 off that, guess I'm just looking for a little consistency in conviction, oh well, I may have said something bad about a bulldog and got put on ignore ; ]

TRH never misses an opportunity to display the product of a You Tube education. He continues to retain a narrow lead in the KOTY comp as a result of his depth of ignorance on such a broad variety of topics. Credit must be given for consistency.


mike r

The detective who busted the shooter, got busted for DUI, in a completely unrelated case, many months after the shooting.

Why did someone post this? What in the world has this got to do with the case at hand?

What makes you think I have you on ignore??

Amazing how YOU want to twist this.

The best ending to this story is that two idiots will not do any more breeding and that my friends is a win -win in my book !

Only one was shot.

it takes TWO to argue, and the parking offender was prepared to argue her case.
but according to some the argument is all the fault of the shooter.




The physical aggressor did not even begin with a reasonable approach by asking what's going on,
he just came charging in and assaulted.

effectively we have an aggressive rash hot headed man breaking the law in order to defend his female partner
that is breaking the law..
but again a number here see the fault of the situation as being all on the shooter.




walking away?....I only see him take A step back after he sees the gun....maybe if he had actually turned and walked away
with his back to the self defence gunman,.. he would not have been shot.

No it's not. But then again he got 20 years for killing the guy who knocked him down. Frankly, I'm not sure how I would react if a critter from the dark continent knocked me down. Or anyone else for that matter.
Paul B.

George Zimmerman was carrying a gun and looking for trouble by not minding his own business,
in fact he was a very nosy and highly enthusiastic neighborhood watch type.
but most of the CF vehemently defended his actions of shooting Martin for assaulting him.

Even the cops just prior had told Zimmerman to leave it alone when he called 911.

Not even close. Zimmerman was on the ground with his assailant astride him, getting his head pounded into the sidewalk when he shot St. Trayvon of Skittles.

This guy was knocked down by someone who was starting to walk away. I have no problem with him pulling his gun and holding it to make sure the guy kept walking, but he had no reason to shoot.

So an assault victim has to wait till the assailant has an increasingly huge physical advantage over them before shooting in self defence?

You would not shoot the carpark physical offender until you were being so severely beat up/disadvantaged like Zimmerman was?

well consider, [for some folk] that may be way too late to have opportunity to save themselves from serious harm or death.




NO body is considered walking away till they are actually walking away, A simple step backward is not walking away.

iF an intruder ever knocks you down on your own property remember not to shoot when he takes a single step backward.





Kept walking?...you are conveniently imagining things like those who erroneously say he was 'shot in the back'.

I'll bet that dumb broad will think twice about parking in a handicap spot again............

That about sums it up^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Tough guy wannabes should learn to mind their own business. Both actors embarked on paths that they would avoid if not carrying a gun as a penis extension.


mike r

Wishful thinking?

Honest serious question,
When should John Marvin Weed have produced his weapon?
When should he have fired a round?
He is dead.

It seems that the jury thought that simply pushing someone or getting into fisticuffs is not, by itself, enough reason to kill a man. I’d have to agree. The result of a mouthy guy getting into a fight with another guy should result in the mouthy guy getting his ass kicked, not the mouthy guy winning because his big mouthed ass had a gun. That completely goes against natural selection and allows short statured, small penis, big mouthed, mullet or ponytailed pussies to breed and multiply creating MORE of that type. Eventually talking chit to someone will be considered grounds to kill a man.

If you can’t back up your words like a man and you have to rely on your gun then you’re a GIANT pussy, as referenced above.

iF you were arriving home to see a Hells Angel that has blocked your drive and a family member is asking them to move,
but another bad ass angel then knocks you or your family member to the ground...what would you do?




Since you have no clue what was said in the argument and no clue what very brief part the dead person may have actually heard
or mistakenly thought he heard, then your point is irrelevant to the incident in question.

A reasonable person would ask what the argument was about before so rashly deciding to go so physical.

Good point.

From the responses here, gotta reassess the "better ta be judged by 12" adage.

It's lost some of its luster.

Yep. That and Blue County, Blue Jury.

You don't have a clue. It's almost like you're a CNN watcher.

The dead person relied on his obvious physical superiority to intervene thinking he had the upper hand,

but you don't like folks who have been so assaulted trumping that with a gun?

fools bring knives to gun fights, what does that say about those who only bring their fists?

No she wont. Trust me. Young black women are the biggest perpetrators of misuse of disabled parking here in Florida. It's disgusting. They get a second sticker for grandma's disabled parking and put it in their own car.

This whole situation was her fault. I understand completely where the older gentleman was coming from. He was probably sick and tired of seeing it day after day after day.

The dead person didn't like mouthy little pissants who refuse to mind their own business.

I don't either.

So you are much like Trayvon Martin, in that you wouldn't like George Zimmerman bothering you.

That they're not looking at 20 years in the slammer.

Or better yet, mind your own business and you won't have to use your fists.

Baby Daddy's are a dime a dozen. Those Handicap parking tags on the other hand...........................

Don't rashly use your fists in a verbal that don't involve you.. and you won't get terminally shot.

Case is closed, shooter got 20.

Maybe you would too?

He was minding his own business. Some Dumb phugk chkunt was illegally parking in a disabled spot... A spot he could use.

I could take a chance with a jury knowing its a far better option than the physically aggressive one who got life in the grave.

1. Being on your own property is different than being in a store parking lot.
2. How do you know he didn't know what the argument was about. He wasn't deaf.
3. In a prior post, you called it a "carpark". You're not from around here, are ya?

It did involve him. The shooter was messing with his partner. Wouldn't you get involved? Look at it another way---he was protecting a female that a man was harassing.
I think we have a few incels in this thread.

1./ Hells Angels blocking your drive does not have to mean they are on your property, but they are blocking your access.

2./ I didn't claim to know what he did or didn't hear, or what he may have only thought he heard,

How do you know he wasn't hearing impaired?

3./ Ive been around, so at times I can use terms that various countries use simply because I got used
to using them interchangeably , so I don't think it strange like a village idiot would.

That female was committing a crime.. and the older man was letting her know he wasn't happy about it because it was affecting him.

You obviously must live in a utopian section of the world where people respect the use of disabled parking spaces and do not abuse the rules regarding them.

As Ive already said,, A reasonable person would enquire as what the argument or quarrel was about.
he didn't , he just came rushing in and assaulted the man.

can you explain what the immediate or imminent threat was to his female partner that required
such hurried physical intervention?

LE doesn't bring charges
so,,,
PC demands
Someone be sent down the Whitey's Fault Rail Road...
C-Ya sucker...

The female was committing a misdemeanor, nothing to get all worked up about. How was it affecting the man, he wasn't disabled?
Is your Utopia where you find new production Colt Series 50 guns and think they are originals from the 70's? laughing...

Been to 19 countries myself, but I don't use their terms. Are you like your girl Madonna, who affected a British accent when she moved to London awhile ago?

Your dumb phugkedness marches on.

The good news? I'm still me and can buy any gun I want anytime I want and go wherever I want with whom I want. And you're still some jealous little phugk.

Enjoy the view from your single-wide. Laughing.

nothing to get worked up about very true....
now tell that to the hot head azzhole who committed a rash unwarranted assault and got shot for his troubles.

quarrels are not unlawful or dangerous , but assaults are.



I suggest you follow me around on the Bible threads and do your petty nit picking.
...cause I use British spelling when quoting scripture.

Dead [bleep]...ass hole in prison being used as a jail pussy. Win-win?

Play stupid gameS win stupid prizes. Mind your [bleep] business and don’t get shot or shoot anybody.

I'm the "dumb phug"? You're the one bragging about buying guns and don't even know what you have. You're the one so clueless that the cable locks and plastic cases didn't give you a hint. I can buy a gun anytime I want, also. For a lot cheaper than you can. I work in the business. The last Benelli M2 I bought new cost me less than $900. Oh, I don't live in a single wide. More like a one year old, 100sf, fully paid for house. Now go back to being a good little incel.

The British wrote the bible? Who would've thunk it?

Translated , not wrote.

Be polite don't look for trouble cause it'll find you.

It was an accident

I was responding to a question, dumbass.

what if the woman was arguing with a cop ..I wonder if her partner would have knocked a cop to the ground?

Would you knock a cop to the ground in such manner if you didn't like his tone toward your argumentative
law breaking partner?




What verbal line does one have to cross to get an ass beating?

Of course if the guy arguing with your partner is an MMA fighter..

You would show him a thing or two about respect...LOL

***

Its safe to say- cops , MMA fighters and Hells Angels can get away with things that others would get a beating for...

the idea of physically defending your woman over a verbal altercation is highly conditional.

I never brag, you stupid phugk.

You are useless. You never contribute one phugking useful thing. All you do is come on and bust up everybody else's threads just like you're doing to this one, you ignorant phugk.

Like I said, the good news is I am still me and you are just a little pathetic jealous phugk. Laughing.

You are simply a blight.

It sure is funny to watch little jealous turds like you come out of the woodwork.

But it wasn't a cop so quit with your irrelevant "what ifs".

That's because you have nothing to brag about. Now that I've got you all riled up, my job is done. You are too easy...

The brother is graveyard dead and old bastard is in the jailhouse . That's unfortunate but sometimes when two fools collide one meets his match .

Act like you, but in person.

iT also wasn't my partner involved , but you still asked me a hypothetical ''what if".. would I get involved if it was my partner.

]

why are you such a hypocrite?

100 Square foot house? That's the size of my bathroom.

I'm not. I was discussing the scenario as it happened, you were bringing up entirely unrelated tangents. Speaking of hypocrites, you quote the bible left and right but act like an azzhole to everyone here. I suppose that makes you a "good christian" (small "c" intentional).

Fat fingered it. Should have been 1700sf.

I don't recall arguing with your partner.

but obviously something else has upset you in the CF cyberworld.

I'm not riled up, you dumb phugk.

I'm laughing at you, you pathetic little jealous turd. Doing the same stupid troll schit you always do, you phugking moron.

NO you put a question to me, as to what I would do in a situation.

Thats why its called a hypothetical...or "what if"

Dang you guys are weird. Let it go.

I never let these little turd trolls have the last word. I shove them back into the little chkunt hole they came from.

Local dirt, Why are you being so rude and abrasive? You’re entitled to your opinion just like everyone of us are but don’t get so worked up. I simply made my remarks earlier based upon the information I’ve seen from various sources, BUT I guaranuckingtee you that CNN was NOT one of them. 👍

I do hope you have a good night.

lol

Time to retire to our respective tents gentleman. Another big day tomorrow.


Somebody piss on that fire would ja?

Sorry dumbass. Zimmerman followed instructions and the ape chased after him and attacked him.

I might have hit you a little hard with the overspray from that dumbass.

Police transcripts show the dispatcher asking George if he is following him ,
to which he replies; "Yeah"

dispatcher then says; "we don't need you to do that"

George spotted Trayvon while driving and called police from his vehicle and then got out of his vehicle to get closer.
Trayvon did not drag of force him to the location where the altercation took place away from the road and Georges vehicle.

Trayvon made call to his girl saying there's a man in a vehicle watching him and talking on a phone - George then got out
and followed Trayvon.

but don't let facts tendered to the court get in the way of your fantasy.

***

This is the same George Zimmerman that police later found trespassing late at night at a place of business well after close,
When approached, he lied to police and said he was the hired security guard, The business owner and business manager
both went on record to say they did not hire George for any such job.

iF George claimed he was following police despatch advice not to follow Trayvon, Some may find it questionable
and unsupported, given the location of the altercation.

Lolol....great metaphor and I know the feeling. No problem here. All packed up and about half loaded up for a few days in the Okanogan with my family. We’re meeting up with good friends who left here today. It’s our son’ girlfriends mom, dad and sisters. They’re good hardworking, honest, God fearing, gun loving conservatives......thank God our son has impeccable taste in women. 👍. Any time spent outdoors is worthwhile but getting to do it with my whole family is extra special. Life gets busy with their sports and their leadership obligations so we make a point a few times a year where everything stops and we get to rejuvenate ourselves with the heavy aroma of sage on a frosty morning

It’s all good my friend and have a nice weekend. 👍

It was an interesting discussion, but, like many discussions on this forum, it has slid off into the Campfire Septic Tank.

Someone clue me in here.
Is it illegal to shoot over a handicapped parking space?

I'd say it's in the top 10 all time whizzing matches. Quite an accomplishment, considering some of the others we've had!
7mm

I'm not sure it even rates the top 100.

WHAT???? How dare you disagree with me?
You dirty so and so..... I bet your Mom wears combat boots!
7mm

Upset? Hardly. Just a low tolerance for sanctimonious bloviation.

not if trh is the mayor...…..bob

Please back up your claim, upon which rests your entire argument, that the attacker was shot in the back. That's not what I see in the video.

Don't confuse generally being thought not worth responding to with being on someone's ignore list.

I won't, as long as you promise not to confuse a humorous remark with a serious comment.

Thought at the time that it wasn't that big a deal initially and wondered how it would turn out. I do think if this had happened before Travon or that Brown kid he would have walked. If acquitted there would have been riots and the DA knew that. That guy did something I try not to do when I carry. Situational awareness keeps my last resort right in the concealed holster where I hope it always stays. If some guy pushed me down it most likely would have stayed right where it is. I wonder whether losing his temper had anything to do with it. I guess he will have some time to think it all through.

No one wants to discuss this.

Because the sad truth is that had he done so, and saved his life, he'd likely be in prison, and there would be many Campfire members saying he deserves it.

I admit I don't know the details of the case you sight. I know he was killed by two young thugs who attacked him, but other than that, not much. Was he even carrying at the time?
I just don't see the connection between the two incidents.
Weed was sucker punched by two thugs, but Drejka seems to me to be the guy who had a hammer and went around looking for nails to pound.
7mm

You speak as though carrying a firearm means you forfeit your right (some would say, civic duty) to confront miscreants. He didn't wave his gun around while talking to the scofflaw in the car. It remained in his pocket.

The problem with carrying in today’s world is people simply forgot how to take an occasional azz whippin.

I hope that is tongue in cheek.

I'd say you forfeit your right to shoot miscreants as they are backing away.

Whether you want to "confront miscreants" or not while carrying is up to you.

Personally, when I'm carrying I try to avoid any kind of confrontation over trivial matters (like a parking violation or a guy in traffic cutting me off) that I know might escalate. Because I don't want to be involved with shooting some stupid SOB, even if he deserves it.

Juries are a wild card that I don't want to bet my freedom on over such a trivial matter. Not to mention the thought of being "that guy" who killed someone over a parking space that I didn't even need to use.

TRH, are you overlooking that Drejka had four prior incidents reported to police for berating or threatening people who hadn't met his standards driving or parking?
In two of these incidents he either threatened to use a gun or pulled the gun.
And these are only the incidents that were reported to police. Who knows if or how many others went unreported? The guy sounds like a shooting looking for a place to happen.
7mm

I hope so. Fists and feet are deadly weapons. More people die from fists and feet attacks than from all rifle murders combined in the US.

You don't know the actual details of any of those situations, and they are irrelevant to the actual events of the incident in question. The only way any of that would be relevant would be if the black guy shot him in self-defense, and then asserted that he was aware of his reputation for violence within the context of illegally parking in handicapped spaces.

Article on the incident which covers previous allegations made against Drejka.
As for their relevance to this incident, I'd say that they definitely show a pattern in his behavior. I'm no lawyer, but I figure they'd be admissible for the prosecution, and quite damaging.
7mm

Allegations against McGlockton Edit
According to Clearwater police records, McGlockton was accused of violence against his former girlfriend in 2008.[5][144] The police claimed she was pregnant at the time of the incident.[144] She denied the event turned physical and told police she did not want to prosecute.[5] She told Tampa Bay Times she was never pregnant with McGlockton's child.[144] In a separate incident five years later, McGlockton was accused of violence against his cousin during an argument over money, but she stopped cooperating with investigators.[5] McGlockton has 23 criminal charges listed with the Pinellas County Clerk's office[145] and toxicology test after the shooting returned positive for ecstasy.[146]

From Wiki... fwiw

Nope. Past similar bad acts by a defendant are not admissible. Only the facts surrounding the immediate case. Like I said, the exception would be if the black guy shot Drejka in self-defense, then asserted that he was aware of his reputation for violence related to handicap parking disputes. Once asserted, he could bring on witnesses testifying to Dreijka's reputation for violence in that context. But for prosecuting Drejka, it's inadmissible.

They are during semtemcing, which could very well have figured into the 20 years.

They may be inadmissible and irrelevant but, apparently, were also unnecessary for a conviction.

Not to establish a person's character, but they may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

The court heard his case. He lost.
He has his right to appeal.
His family should prepare for the civil case loss sure to come.

Go looking for trouble, will probably find it.

Dickhead was looking for trouble, and made it happen.

He's certainly no poster boy for CCW.

Maybe not, but that's not the point.

Okay. As I said, I don't know. Unlike a few others who post here, I won't claim to either!
But I still stick by my impression that this guy was looking for altercations, and possibly looking for a reason to plug somebody. I find it pretty easy to believe, anyway.
As I said, I carry almost everywhere I go, as I believe all honest law abiding people should.
If McGlockton had thought that Drejka was armed, he wouldn't have shoved him.
If those two teenage punks thought Weed had a gun, he'd probably be alive now.
Knowing that there are possible negative reactions in response to your own actions is a pretty good motivation for politeness!
I also realize that rudeness often leads to threats that sometimes leads to violence, I always act accordingly. Don't matter if I'm packing or not.
If I'm gonna throw down on somebody, I'm gonna have a damn good reason.
7mm

Me too.
If I had presence of mind in the midst of it all I would never shoot a man retreating from me, effectually ending the fight.
20 years...
Who would earn a living for my family?

It was only verbal over a handicapped car space, the shooting was over a subsequent unwarranted assault.




largely questionable and subjective since;

they were cases of mere allegations...with people complaining but declining to press charges
and the complaints came from who?....people who were law breakers for illegally using handicap parking.

so... Drejka had no arrests, charges or convictions for confronting people over handicap parking.




there were no verified 'bad acts' by Drejka to warranted arrest , charges or convictions for violence.

mere Allegations of questionable substance don't stand up in court.

maybe the people complaining were over sensitive types like you, who can't handle
what others say to them.

If you can't walk away from an insult or avoid confrontation if possible you shouldn't carry a gun.

The standard is "what would a reasonable and prudent person do in the same circumstances".

The jury reviewed the evidence in its' entirety and determined that deadly force was not justified. Anyone who can't see this as a teaching incident is living in a fantasy world. It would seem that there are a lot of neegroephobic frightened old women on here.

You must defend handicapped parking to the death!! LMFAO



mike r

Drejkas past looks pretty clean and he was legally allowed to carry.

can't say the same for the physical assaulters CONVICTION wrap sheet..

MCGLOCKTON, MARKEIS DEON
DOB: 3/28/1990

6/25/2008 AGGRAVATED BATTERY DOMESTIC, 784.045(1)(B)/F
6/25/2008 RESISTING ARREST W/VIOLENCE, 843.01/F
6/25/2008 DISORDERLY CONDUCT, 877.03/M
5/5/2009 SALE OF COUNTERFEIT DRUGS, 893.13(1)(A)(1)/F
9/10/2010 POSSESSION OF COCAINE, 893.13(6)(A)/F
9/25/2010 POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBS COCAINE, 893.13(6)(A)/F
9/25/2010 POSSESSION OF COCAINE, 893.13(6)(A)/F
9/25/2010 SALE OR DELIVERY OF COCAINE, 893.13(1)(A)(1)/F
9/25/2010 POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA, 893.13(6)(B)/M
9/21/2011 PETIT THEFT, 812.014(3)(A)/M
9/21/2011 DRIVING UNREGISTER VEHICLE *NCTC, 320.02(1)/M
9/21/2011 DWLSR *NCTC 1, 322.34(2)(A)/M

DWLSR = Driving with License Suspended or Revoked
* NCTC = Non-Cooperative Target Classification


but , but... he was just a good guy defending his law breaking woman from a threat....LOL.

she felt so threatened that she actually got out of her car and got closer to Drejka.
obviously she did not feel much if any fear,
but her clueless irrational halfwit partner felt he had to rush to her defence in such manner.

PREZACTLY !

as I understand things, Drejka has a couple family members including a youngster who are in wheelchairs,
and he was constantly peeved about them often not getting a park due to azzholes who are illegally using
such designated spots....So for him the issue was a little personal/frustrating, but it was generally on good
principle that he expressed himself to such offenders.

I gather he was more of man to confront the issue rather than be like many on the campfire who put up
bitching-whining cyber posts about all the things that personally annoy them, but never bother to actually
take a proactive real world approach....because it involves personal risk..!!....and of that they are afraid.



physical offenders can behave in all sorts of ways,..in this case McGlockton did not back-off after heavily knocking down
Drejka,..instead he moved forward-inclose to threateningly tower over the man he just assaulted...if not for quick drawing
his weapon , McGlockton may well have began punching, kicking and dropping his knees into him etc, from which the victim
would be screwed/finished.

even in cases where assaulters may backoff some after knocking someone down , does not mean the offender is finished,
they can be only assessing /deciding if/when to follow up and come running in with a flying boot or something else.

With the mad ass way McGlockton initially came in, Drejka does not know if he's fuelled on drugs that may cause him
to come back in for another hard attack despite seeing the gun already...As we know some wacko attackers still can
come at you even after being shot.

starfish makes TRH look well informed.



mike r

Well then, the smart thing to do would be to strap on a gun and start confronting random people in parking lots, what could go wrong?

So he should leave his CCW at home when addressing handicap parking offenders?

if someone pushes to front of a long line of customers , is it OK to call them out? ..or is that 'trouble making'..?

do we always need to be meek, mild and tolerant of such cases , because someone like you may take
objection to what's said and you then want beat someones ass for calling out/speaking up?

LOL

Nice try slick, but I don't park in handicapped spots, cut in line, or engage people over trivial BS when I'm carrying a gun.

If you want to, I think you should.

If that is the case, he could confront offenders if he has a handicapped person with him and there aren't any handicapped spots available.

So you are afraid to call people out for disrespectfully cutting into a line of customers, because you carry.
yet you want to beat my ass simply because you don't like the way I say things.

They aren't annoying him...

Would smokey have his CCW when he was trying to beat my ass for talking?

of course he would , cause he would like to be able to turn his gun when his fists fail.

2 schitbirds off the street don’t hurt my feelings at all.

Maybe Drejka can police the handicap stall in the state pen. Lol.

Wrong again dickweed. I don't carry the majority of the time. If someone buts in front of me and I'm not carrying, I will most definitely say something.

And I don't want to beat your ass or anyone else's, never said I did. What I said to TRH was, there are some things one could say to another man's wife or girlfriend that would earn you an ass-beating.

If you said one of those things to my wife, then yes we could have an issue. That's not the same as "wantingt to beat your ass because I don't like the way you talk," moron.

It ain’t gonna go well for him with the brothers in prison.

At least he won't have to fight over a handicap parking space for the next 20 years.

what iif a short fuse hot headed person takes exception McGlockton style ...pulls a knife or gun or just beats your ass up -
and you left your gun at home.




are you sure?


One of what things specifically?

what does one have to say to your wife to get an ass beating from you?

you could well be just as rash- stupid as the dead dude called McGlockton.

George says:

So you would beat my ass in person if I said the same thing I have said on the cyberworld CF.

Can you [quote] what I've posted that would cause you to want to beat me up if said in person?

Long story short...mr. honky lips wrote a check with his stupid mouth his ass couldn't cash. The larger negro physically dominated him and he then murdered the negro.

I would not commit murder to avoid a deserved ass beating...but i am not a pussy like mr. honky lips

There’s that! 😜

They both wrote checks. One was cancelled, the other bounced. Two idiots off the street.

Both idiots underestimated the level of response.

Since the attacker broke off the assault.....there was no justification legally for the shooting.

But some groups subscribe to violence, have been known to sucker punch and curb stomp complete and innocent strangers.

So.......guy w gun proly did society a favor.

Not legal doesnt mean not beneficial.

Well as we have discovered..there are some very special stupid types on the CF as well...

Those who [when unarmed] will verbally confront unknown quantity petty offender strangers
but [when armed] will not verbally confront the same petty offending strangers.

absurd.

apparently they fear and avoid escalating confrontation when carrying their personal protection
but would willingly risk escalating confrontation when they don't have their personal protection.

what school is that taught in?

The one where your hero who's doing 20 years flunked out, apparently.

And any good CCW class....

He also could have been going for his own gun in the car. The thug who attacked Drejka should have said "Feets, do yo stuff," when the gun came out. He wouldn't have been shot if that's what he did.

Black thug was in fact high.

My assumption is that he didn't strap on a gun and go out looking for anything. He likely carried a gun routinely in life.

The bigger picture is lost.
Blacks by and large are waging an endless violent war against white western Christian civilization.
My little hillbilly town is going down hill.
Small insults and lewd provocations, then assaults gang robbery and drug shootouts.
I moved away from all that. We are going to move even further west over the next mountain range.
Cumberland MD is a prime example.
And the murder of Mr Weed in Frederick.
I regret to say, my soul is hard. I feel almost no empathy for black violent criminal assaulters.

Finally. We get to the point you guys were trying to push.

Took you long enough.

Actually most people would want to thump you because you are a mouthy A hole...on the internet. In reality you would probably not be in person and even then who cares. An adult can avoid confrontations w/ unknown entities if possible. Life is to short and too precious to react to every buttnugget in the world.


mike r

He didn't "fight over a handicapped parking space." He confronted someone (non-violently) about parking illegally in one, which at one time in our nation was generally considered praiseworthy, i.e., rather than taking the attitude that it's someone else's problem.

There was no fight here, at all. A man was violently assaulted, and the attacker showed every interest in continuing the assault till literally a split second after the gun was produced. The dazed victim only understood that he was violently attacked, and that his attacker was looming over him. The split second between the attacker looming over him while sprawled out on the concrete, and the attacker deciding he had more urgent business elsewhere, was when the shooting occurred.

Now, someone who wasn't stunned from being sprawled out on the concrete would likely have had the presence of mind to perceive that a split second before he pulled the trigger the attacker was starting to turn away. But that's not necessarily the case for a guy who was, just seconds before, knocked off his feet onto the pavement by a violent assault, and likely somewhat disoriented from the experience. To him, it likely appeared that he just shot in time to save himself from a sustained attack that could very well have ended his life, or at least put him in intensive care. And his disorientation is attributable not to having had a snoot full before heading out to the Jiffy Mart, but to having been illegally assaulted by the attacker, which means he's not responsible for his own disoriented state. The attacker, with the violent criminal record as long as his arm, is.

Good argument!
All the jury members and the judge, men and soccer mom's should be subjected to violent assault by a violent black criminal...
To get some honest peer perspective.

Make sure it was a violent Black criminal though.

Sheesh.

He said smugly from 103% white land Montana

Well...Billy Ray's white son should be afforded another chance if'n he pushes you down in a parking lot.

He just a little excitable ya know!

What a surprise.

Kneegrow phobia runs rampant among the old ladies. However they should be smited when they play that crappy music!


mike r

I agree.

Hippity Hoppity is terrible.

My assumption is, he had a chip on his shoulder.

And both of our assumptions are colored by our individual points of view.

So, Smokepole, it's your experience that most who routinely carry concealed are folks with chips on their shoulders looking for trouble??

No it's not and I never said anything that would lead any reasonable person to believe that. Why is it that you and starman feel the need to continually try to put words in other people's mouths, and mis-represent their positions?

It's dishonest. Can't you makeryour own arguments without making stuff up and mis-characterizing what other people say?

My assumption is based on the reports posted here that this individual had a personal pet peeve with people parking in handicapped spots and that he'd gotten into multiple altercations woth other "illegal parkers" and even gone as far as drawing his gun.

None of the CCW holders I know are people with "a chip on their shoulder." And none of 'em are in jail for the next 20 years either.

And the chkunt will continue to break the law and park in handicapped parking.

Life goes on... for her.

The BIG, unanswered question is would TRH still feel the same if the shooter was a Joo?