# Fatal shooting - argument in parking lot



## applecruncher (Jul 22, 2018)

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

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

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

The agency will forward the case to the State Attorney’s Office for a final decision, Gualtieri said.
The confrontation between Michael Drejka, 47, and Markeis McGlockton, 28, took place in a convenience store parking lot Thursday afternoon. According to deputies, Drejka confronted McGlockton’s girlfriend, Britany Jacobs, about parking in a handicap space without a permit.

McGlockton went up to Drejka and "slammed him to the ground," the sheriff said. Drejka, seconds later while still on the ground, pulled out his handgun and shot McGlockton in the chest. The father of three was pronounced dead soon after.

(more and VIDEO)

https://www.tampabay.com/news/publi...rgument-over-handicap-parking-space_170174041


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 22, 2018)

A sad outcome, but the law is the law and the Sheriff is acting appropriately as far as I understand the situation.

The lesson is that the fatality might have been avoided with a little more civility and self control.


----------



## Buckeye (Jul 22, 2018)

The sheriff is not the final word on this, and if you watch the video, I don't see a need for the shooter to pull the trigger.  Once he pulled his weapon, the other man started backing away.  Tragic.  The shooter has had other similar confrontations, it seems


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jul 23, 2018)

Where I live I believe that the shooter would be in jail.

I'm not saying that is right or wrong just a different set of laws where I live.

I do believe that the shooter was wrong to engage the woman in the car about where she was parked.  Was he spoiling for a fight?

I also believe that the man was wrong to run up and knock the shooter to the ground.

_“Choose your battles wisely. After all, life isn't measured by how many times you stood up to fight. It's not winning battles that makes you happy, but it's how many times you turned away and chose to look into a better direction. Life is too short to spend it on warring. Fight only the most, most, most important ones, let the rest go.” - _C. JoyBell C.


----------



## Sunny (Jul 23, 2018)

> The law gives immunity to those in fear of their lives who use force to defend themselves.



Sounds to me like that's what is wrong with that law. Anybody can shoot anyone for any reason, and then claim they were in fear of their lives. Where do we draw the line? Talk about a slippery slope!


----------



## RadishRose (Jul 23, 2018)

Over a parking space!


----------



## DaveA (Jul 23, 2018)

Guy sounds like another "harda$$' with a gun.  According to the article he'd brandished it before. 

It's sad to see so many gun owners living in constant fear while many of us drive the same roads, walk the same streets, and live in the same areas without the NEED for a gun. I only speak for myself.  If I was constantly under threat from every yahoo on the street, I'd probably have to go "wild west' and start packing.  Hasn't happened yet but I'm fortunate enough not to be hit by lightning either.    I have thought of "packing"  a battery powered drill from time to time.  Over a lifetime I'd have had more need for it.  

And, yes, I do read the "Armed Citizen" every month when the magazine arrives.


----------



## rgp (Jul 23, 2018)

So much easier to analyze & judge...after the fact & on hearsay . Things are so much different in the heat of the moment....jmo


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 23, 2018)

Interesting that despite fearing for his life shooter was an expert marksman. One shot to victim's heart.

Saw an interview with store owner. He has had problems with shooter; had to call police in a previous incident.  Apparently shooter spends a lot of time in that parking.lot watching and confronting people.


----------



## Knight (Jul 23, 2018)

The article explains that the reason for parking in a handicapped spot was the parking spaces were full, clearly they were not. The boyfriend Markeis McGlockton [father] of the 3 children immediately attacked Michael Drejka. With no audio there is no way for anyone to know if verbal threat was made. Was there cause & did Michael Drejka truly fear for his life? Only he knows the answer to that. 


But for parking in handicapped parking this would not have happened.
But for immediately knocking Michael Drejka to the ground this might not have happened.


Would pulling out the gun and pointing it been enough to deter Markeis McGlockton? Probably. But there is no way to know as of now since the law favors Michael Drejka. Personally I think shooting and killing was wrong. A civil lawsuit may change how killing Markeis McGlockton affects Michael Drejka. 


Tossing in past history tends to sway thinking. If the only wording in the article stated that 48 yr. old Michael Drejka was confronting a person for illegally parking in a handicapped parking space when he was attacked which is clearly visible in the video. Would that make a difference in how we judge what took place?


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 23, 2018)

It's my understanding that stand your ground law protects shooter from civil lawsuit.

And yes, gf didn't tell truth about availability of parking. There were other spaces where she could have parked.


----------



## 911 (Jul 23, 2018)

It really irks me at times when I read these types of stories. How is it we all live in the U.S., but different states have different types of self protection laws? Did the shooter really have to shoot to destroy his target, or did he have the option of perhaps just shooting him in the thigh away from vital organs? I know the other side of the argument has usually been; what if the other person also has a weapon and just wounding him/her would allow that person the ability to draw and fire his weapon. 

Here in PA, the shooter would have been taken into custody and charged with one of the optional crimes that would have fit this circumstance. Then, after an investigation, including speaking with any witnesses, reviewing any video available, results of the autopsy and so on, the DA would have made the decision on whether to prosecute or pass on it. 

It's all but impossible to make a final determination on how this will play out from reading a newspaper article or an incident report, but my best guess is that had this shooting occurred here in PA, the shooter would have been charged with one of a few different crimes, even the lesser crime of assault. If the man who shoved the other man had simply walked away after shoving him to the ground, he would have been charged with assault. However, if he would have continued his assault, then perhaps his shooting may have been considered justifiable. 

It's a tough call without doing a full investigation. I'm a believer in allowing people to protect themselves, but where do we draw the line?


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 23, 2018)

No audio in any of the videos I've seen, but obviously the confrontation between shooter and gf was loud enough to get the attention of several people entering and exiting the store.  After the shooting I saw one onlooker scurrying...can't blame him.

While I'll admit to using handicapped stall in rest room, I've NEVER parked in handicapped spot, even back when I had an injury/leg brace.  The fine is quite stiff.  People think it's okay "just for a few minutes"...my advice is _don't do it_.


----------



## Knight (Jul 23, 2018)

I read the article and watched the video. What is factually known. A person was illegally parked, a concerned citizen confronted the person, the person doing the confronting was attacked, the attacker was shot and died, the law in Florida favors the shooter.


I might seem callous by not being swayed by the inclusion of the man shot was a father of 3, or that the shooter had other confrontations. Take the emotion out and it comes down to but for parking illegally and staying parked when during the confrontation pointing out that spaces were available this would not have happened. 

Root cause = not caring about handicapped people.


----------



## StarSong (Jul 23, 2018)

Knight said:


> I read the article and watched the video. What is factually known. A person was illegally parked, a concerned citizen confronted the person, the person doing the confronting was attacked, the attacker was shot and died, the law in Florida favors the shooter.
> 
> 
> I might seem callous by not being swayed by the inclusion of the man shot was a father of 3, or that the shooter had other confrontations. Take the emotion out and it comes down to but for parking illegally and staying parked when during the confrontation pointing out that spaces were available this would not have happened.
> ...



I see this as but for the shooter packing a deadly weapon this would have ended with a bloodied nose and wounded pride.


----------



## Falcon (Jul 23, 2018)

I think I better start  packin'.  This thing  just  sits here  gathering dust.  It's a brand new  S & W  stainless  steel  6   shot  revolver  (in  it's  holster).

I fired it  at the police  pistol  range  and  haven't   used  it since.


----------



## AprilT (Jul 23, 2018)

It's Florida, you'd be surprised how often such occurrences happen.  Stand you ground laws there encourage quite a few yahoos to instigate and often it's there word against the dead.
*Murders surge in Florida in decade after `Stand Your Ground’ law*



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ade-after-stand-your-ground-law-idUSKCN1AU1QL

"Florida’s `Stand Your Ground’ law goes further than laws in other states  in defining what can be considered self-defense. In Florida, for  example, people aren’t required to retreat when possible to avoid a  lethal conflict. A recent change to Florida law also requires  self-defense claims to be disproved by prosecutors, not proven by the  defenseaaaaaaa'. 


There were dozens of these videos and I remember when I lived in Florida hearing of a few of the incidents and others.  It's not an everyday thing, but, it happens more than it should and the way the law is written there it gives license for some real crazies to get  or at leash think they will get away with murder many times some do.


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 23, 2018)

Knight said:


> I read the article and watched the video. What is factually known. A person was illegally parked, a concerned citizen confronted the person, the person doing the confronting was attacked, the attacker was shot and died, the law in Florida favors the shooter.
> 
> 
> I might seem callous by not being swayed by the inclusion of the man shot was a father of 3, or that the shooter had other confrontations. Take the emotion out and it comes down to but for parking illegally and staying parked when during the confrontation pointing out that spaces were available this would not have happened.
> ...



Hmmm.  Somehow I don't see shooter as just a "concerned citizen caring about handicapped people".  If so he would have noticed the vehicle in passing and _maybe_ said "that's a handicapped spot" then moved on ...i.e., gone into the store and taken care of this business. He didn't do anything close to that; he was loudly and aggressively fronting off and in the woman's face for quite awhile, to the extent that people exiting and entering the store stopped and took notice.

I'm leaning towards him being one of the many who have a concealed carry permit and wake up thinking "I hope some SOB tries to mess with me today".


----------



## StarSong (Jul 24, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> Hmmm.  Somehow I don't see shooter as just a "concerned citizen caring about handicapped people".  If so he would have noticed the vehicle in passing and _maybe_ said "that's a handicapped spot" then moved on ...i.e., gone into the store and taken care of this business. He didn't do anything close to that; he was loudly and aggressively fronting off and in the woman's face for quite awhile, to the extent that people exiting and entering the store stopped and took notice.
> 
> I'm leaning towards him being one of the many who have a concealed carry permit and wake up thinking "I hope some SOB tries to mess with me today".



That's my take, too.  That he will apparently not be charged with a crime is bound to embolden others to start using deadly force over similarly minor issues.


----------



## rgp (Jul 24, 2018)

StarSong said:


> That's my take, too.  That he will apparently not be charged with a crime is bound to embolden others to start using deadly force over similarly minor issues.



Consider this........

 A person pulls into a handicapped parking space, they are not handicapped, no one in their vehicle is handicapped, and they have no handicapped credentials on their vehicle or their person. That person knows that they are wrong....period.

Along comes another citizen, and reminds them that they are wrong, and in violation. In their arrogance that driver defies this citizen....just as they did the law itself. The scene then escalates from there....and ends as it did in this case.

IMO , whom ever set the scenario in motion, is indeed responsible for the outcome of scenario.

As such, let us go back to the beginning , how could all this have been avoided? First & foremost the driver should have obeyed the law. Second , after breaking the law , and displaying absolute arrogance they should have at least recognized their error , when reminded of such by the citizen....and moved the vehicle . 

So again...exactly who is responsible for the outcome ?


----------



## Sunny (Jul 24, 2018)

So, which one exactly "set the scenario in motion?"  The guy who  committed a minor parking infraction, or the guy who started verbally abusing his girlfriend?

This is what happens when you have private citizens trying to enforce their version of the law.


----------



## StarSong (Jul 24, 2018)

rgp said:


> Consider this........
> 
> A person pulls into a handicapped parking space, they are not handicapped, no one in their vehicle is handicapped, and they have no handicapped credentials on their vehicle or their person. That person knows that they are wrong....period.
> 
> ...



Just to be clear, it sounds like you're ok with some pistol packing one-man vigilante shooting a grandchild of yours to death for the dastardly offense of parking in a handicap spot and not backing off when taken to task by someone who appointed himself sheriff of the parking lot?

For the record, I'm not ok with that for my grandchildren - or for yours, for that matter. 

Good grief, Florida.  Repeal this idiotic law already!


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jul 24, 2018)

IMO everyone involved acted badly.

It is interesting that the woman broke the law by parking in a handicapped parking space.

The nosy man with the gun didn't break the law by talking to the woman.

The boyfriend broke the law by assaulting the nosy man with the gun.

Yet the nosy man that didn't break the law by talking to the woman or defending himself from a physical assault is becoming the villain.

This whole story is very strange and very tragic.

It's also very interesting how we can all read the same story, see the same video and form such diverse opinions about who was right and who was wrong.

I don't hold out much hope for our country ever coming together and finding a peaceful way forward.

Very sad.


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 24, 2018)

The more that's revealed about Michael Drejka, the more I'm convinced this was not just an isolated incident with a tragic outcome. It's just a little tooooooo "convenient".

Drejka has quite a history of waiting in store parking lots then confronting people. When you spend  a lot of time lurking in parking lots, the chances of seeing someone wrongfully park in a handicapped space are high.

It's clear to me Drejka looks for fights.  He also got into a road rage incident and brandished his gun.

Advocate for the handicapped?  Um, no, I don't think so. 

He's a thug salivating and creating opportunities to use his gun.


----------



## StarSong (Jul 24, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> The more that's revealed about Michael Drejka, the more I'm convinced this was not just an isolated incident with a tragic outcome. It's just a little tooooooo "convenient".
> 
> Drejka has quite a history of waiting in store parking lots then confronting people. When you spend  a lot of time lurking in parking lots, the chances of seeing someone wrongfully park in a handicapped space are high.
> 
> ...



I completely agree.


----------



## rgp (Jul 24, 2018)

Sunny said:


> So, which one exactly "set the scenario in motion?"  The guy who  committed a minor parking infraction, or the guy who started verbally abusing his girlfriend?
> 
> This is what happens when you have private citizens trying to enforce their version of the law.



Very simple, who ever pulled the car into the handicapped parking spot.

"This is what happens when you have private citizens trying to enforce their version of the law."

There is no 'their version' of the law...the law as written, is the only version. Unless you were privy to all or part of the verbal exchange ? to which the rest of us are not.


----------



## rgp (Jul 24, 2018)

StarSong said:


> Just to be clear, it sounds like you're ok with some pistol packing one-man vigilante shooting a grandchild of yours to death for the dastardly offense of parking in a handicap spot and not backing off when taken to task by someone who appointed himself sheriff of the parking lot?
> 
> For the record, I'm not ok with that for my grandchildren - or for yours, for that matter.
> 
> Good grief, Florida.  Repeal this idiotic law already!




 I never said anything of the sort, or even, mentioned it...I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth, & or attempting to try and think for me...What I did say is, considering the sequence of events, as reported, the driver is the one that set the scenario in motion. Therefore the driver is ultimately responsible for the entire scenario to the end.


----------



## StarSong (Jul 24, 2018)

Bottom line for me is that as long as FL has this law on its books it won't be seeing any of my tourist dollars.


----------



## StarSong (Jul 24, 2018)

rgp said:


> I never said anything of the sort, or even, mentioned it...I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth, & or attempting to try and think for me...What I did say is, considering the sequence of events, as reported, the driver is the one that set the scenario in motion. Therefore the driver is ultimately responsible for the entire scenario to the end.



Why is that sentence ok for this driver and not one of your - or my - grandchildren?


----------



## rgp (Jul 24, 2018)

Aunt Bea said:


> IMO everyone involved acted badly.
> 
> It is interesting that the woman broke the law by parking in a handicapped parking space.
> 
> ...




I agree completely, and BTW well stated.


----------



## rgp (Jul 24, 2018)

StarSong said:


> Why is that sentence ok for this driver and not one of your - or my - grandchildren?



I don't understand the question?...please explain.


----------



## StarSong (Jul 24, 2018)

I'm referring to the death sentence that was enforced by a vigilante patrolling a parking lot.  No matter whose fault it was to start with, the legally permitted level of escalation is what is at issue.


----------



## Sunny (Jul 24, 2018)

Sounds to me like two macho jerks with an overload of adrenaline, both of them looking for a fight. But, as someone pointed out, without the presence of a gun, it would have resulted in a fistfight, instead of one of them dead at 28, and the other blowing smoke off the end of his gun, twirling it around and replacing it in its holster as he rides off into the sunset. 

Too bad he (probably) didn't arrive and leave on a horse; this would have been a perfect scenario for a John Wayne movie.

What is this country coming to.


----------



## rgp (Jul 24, 2018)

StarSong said:


> I'm referring to the death sentence that was enforced by a vigilante patrolling a parking lot.  No matter whose fault it was to start with, the legally permitted level of escalation is what is at issue.




Well then that is where we disagree...The 'issue' is , stand your ground is legal...parking in a handicapped parking place is not. The diver broke the parking law, & the citizen was within the stand your ground law, when assaulted physically and acted accordingly . 

You reject the stand your ground law, correct? OK, if so, I disagree with you...but of course support your right to that thought , and your right to oppose it legally, by your vote, if it applies to you.


----------



## rgp (Jul 24, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Sounds to me like two macho jerks with an overload of adrenaline, both of them looking for a fight. But, as someone pointed out, without the presence of a gun, it would have resulted in a fistfight, instead of one of them dead at 28, and the other blowing smoke off the end of his gun, twirling it around and replacing it in its holster as he rides off into the sunset.
> 
> Too bad he (probably) didn't arrive and leave on a horse; this would have been a perfect scenario for a John Wayne movie.
> 
> What is this country coming to.




   "instead of one of them dead at 28, and the other blowing smoke off the end of his gun, twirling it around and replacing it in its holster as he rides off into the sunset. "

 I don't recall reading anywhere , where that took place?....can you direct me toward that report?


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 24, 2018)

Sunny said:


> *Sounds to me like two macho jerks with an overload of adrenaline, both of them looking for a fight.* But, as someone pointed out, without the presence of a gun, it would have resulted in a fistfight, instead of one of them dead at 28, and the other blowing smoke off the end of his gun, twirling it around and replacing it in its holster as he rides off into the sunset.
> 
> Too bad he (probably) didn't arrive and leave on a horse; this would have been a perfect scenario for a John Wayne movie.
> 
> What is this country coming to.



Re bolded - I find your comment very strange.

Taking a 5 yo into a convenience store for snacks does not = " a jerk looking for a fight".

Staking out parking lots and confronting people with a gun in your pocket...well, yeah, that DOES fall into the category of being a jerk looking for a fight.

When victim pushed Drejka he simply wanted him to get away from his gf and kids.

That aside...

This...…….law needs to be amended to deprive the vigilantes and busybodies who provoke these situations from being able to use SYG as a defense.

This shooter has clearly been looking for someone to shoot for a while and now he's out on the streets _where he can do it again.
_
I hope after AG investigation he will be charged with some form of murder or manslaughter, but I'm not optimistic.  Hard to say.


----------



## AprilT (Jul 24, 2018)

This is why I wait till I have more informed details from those in the know before forming any type opinion.  The store owner and others who knew the shooter, say the guy typically harassed patrons and seemed to was looking for a fight.  From the original video, we don't know what the gunman said to the woman, we don't know why the woman parked in the space on that day or what made the man jump to defend the lady from a man who was approaching his gf as most any man might have done under the circumstances if he thought some man was threatening his lady.  People jump to a conclusion here without facts why is that?  

What if the woman had a gun and thought the shooter was a threat to her and her child's safety because the man appeared threatening and she was afraid for her life and pulled her trigger first.  Generally how many would feel often depends on race as well.  

Blaming the person who parked in a space is like blaming the children in those school shootings for not being nice to some delusional kid.  

I didn't know all the details before jumping on the bandwagon of knowing what threat who posed first, but, that we are ok with shoot first ask question later in this society, speaks volumes as to why we are were we are today.  We are regressing steadily.


----------



## AprilT (Jul 24, 2018)

http://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/ne...-spot-weeks-before-stand-your-ground-shooting


*CLEARWATER, Fla. --*  Weeks before Michael Drejka, 47, shot and killed Markeis McGlockton,  28, over a parking spot, he crossed paths with Richard Kelly.


*Protests ensued after Pinellas County Sheriff cited "Stand Your Ground"*
*NAACP hosted a vigil for McGlockton Sunday evening*
*Another Clearwater resident had heated confrontation with Drejka weeks earlier*
 Kelly, who drives a septic tank, briefly  parked his tanker in this handicapped spot outside the Circle A Food  Store before running inside this store for a beverage. When he came out,  he saw Drejka taking pictures of his vehicle.
 "He asked me (if) was I handicapped, and I  said, 'Obviously, I'm driving a tanker. I'm not handicapped.' And I  asked if was he handicapped and he stated 'No, my mom is,'" Kelly said.
 Kelly asked Drejka if his mom was nearby and offered to move his tanker. That’s when he says Drejka became furious.
 "He flipped out on me called me every n-word,  said he's going to shoot me," Kelly said. "He said he was going to kill  me, and he went back to his truck, got something out of his truck and  walked back up on me."
 Store owner Ali Salous came out and shut down the confrontation.
 "I didn't know this was going to happen two months later with another guy. It's really sad," he said.
 Salous says Drejka has a history of confrontations in and around his store.
 "He told me I can't help it. Every time I do this I get in trouble, and I can't help it. I keep doing it," Salous said. 
 Kelly said Drejka called his job and left a threatening voice mail on the answering service.
 Drejka has not been arrested for killing  McGlockton because according to the Pinellas County Sheriff Bob  Gualtieri, the shooting is covered under the "Stand Your Ground" law, a  measure that allows people to use deadly force if their lives are in  danger. 
 McGlockton shoved Drejka to the ground after  Drejka yelled at McGlockton's girlfriend for parking in a handicapped  parking spot July 26. Spectrum Bay News 9 went to Drejka's home for a  comment on this story, but no one came to the door.
 Kelly has given a statement about his run in  with Drejka to investigators and is trying not to think about what could  have happened to him.
 "I'm grieving for the family right now that lost someone," he said".



=========================================================
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/...-parking-spot-at-clearwater-convenience-store

"The store owner tells ABC Action News that Drejka has a history of  assaulting people in the very parking lot the shooting took place. A man  who frequents the store told ABC Action News he had a run-in with the  man who opened fire just one month ago.

Rich Kelly says the man  picked a fight with him over a parking spot, using racial slurs, and  even threatening to kill him. Now, a month later, a similar case, ending  with a father killed in front of his 5-year-old son".

Clearwater gunman confronted man over parking spot weeks before Stand Your Ground shooting


Clearwater gunman confronted man over parking spot weeks before Stand Your Ground shooting

Clearwater gunman confronted man over parking spot weeks before Stand Your Ground shooting


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 24, 2018)

In this case when Drejka was shouting/in the woman's face and SHE had pulled out a gun and shot HIM, I think opinions would be very different - although SYG would also apply to her actions.


----------



## Buckeye (Jul 24, 2018)

AFAIK, only 4 states follow a "duty to retreat" doctrine.  All the rest have some version of stand your ground/castle doctrine in place. I suspect Mr. Drejka will end up being brought to trial for this.


----------



## RadishRose (Jul 24, 2018)

Sounds like Drejka had been hoping and trying to instigate a situation where he could shoot somebody under the umbrella of that particular law.


----------



## rgp (Jul 24, 2018)

AprilT said:


> This is why I wait till I have more informed details from those in the know before forming any type opinion.  The store owner and others who knew the shooter, say the guy typically harassed patrons and seemed to was looking for a fight.  From the original video, we don't know what the gunman said to the woman, we don't know why the woman parked in the space on that day or what made the man jump to defend the lady from a man who was approaching his gf as most any man might have done under the circumstances if he thought some man was threatening his lady.  People jump to a conclusion here without facts why is that?
> 
> What if the woman had a gun and thought the shooter was a threat to her and her child's safety because the man appeared threatening and she was afraid for her life and pulled her trigger first.  Generally how many would feel often depends on race as well.
> 
> ...




   "Blaming the person who parked in a space is like blaming the children in those school shootings for not being nice to some delusional kid. "

 Incorrect...the school children were absolutely innocent . The driver in this case was indeed in violation of the law. She set the whole scenario in motion and is responsible for it, in it's entirety .


----------



## Knight (Jul 24, 2018)

A lot of what if's are posted, like what if the illegally parked mother had a gun and shot at  Michael Drejka? That could be extended to what if Michael Drejka was wounded then drew his gun in self defense shooting & killing the mother or missing and killing one of the children. Remember this was all caught on video.  


How about we skip the what if's & the past action's of Michael Drejka that are irrelavant since nothing happened and focus on the facts. The woman was parked illegally, Michael Drejka questioning her and pointing out open spaces were available is reasonable. Being attacked & immediately knocked to the ground took place. Michael Drejka didn't enact the SYG law but is covered under it due to the what is shown on the video. 


The cause goes back to being parked illegally not the gun. If what if's are still going to be used. What if the woman reparked her car?


----------



## AprilT (Jul 24, 2018)

Knight said:


> A lot of what if's are posted, like what if the illegally parked mother had a gun and shot at  Michael Drejka? *That could be extended to what if Michael Drejka was wounded then drew his gun in self defense shooting & killing the mother or missing and killing one of the children*. Remember this was all caught on video.
> 
> Were the words exchanged caught on video, were every frame for frame showed, Oh, wait sorry, I forget you were there.
> 
> ...



You were there so I guess you have all the facts in the case, so, thanks for letting us know exactly what happened.  Good to know you believe, it is justifiable to kill someone over being pushed away.  

Anytime I get pushed and fall to the ground, then I should automatically assume my life is in danger and it is fine to shoot to kill, I need not use common sense or hold life of another as value for even a second as value, just someone to kill because the law says I can.  Those  who think this way sicken me and I hope never to make your acquaintance.  There isn't any question that we are growing more and more a culture of the days of gutter people with less and less value for human life especially if they don't look like you.

Look, I know you just want to keep arguing how right it is to kill, kill, kill, I'm not interested, so save your breath, I'm not interested in debating the value of human life with someone who places so little value on it.  That goes for you too rg[, very scary to see both your thoughts in print.  best I just place you both on ignore, you two really are scary.


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 24, 2018)

Hoot N Annie said:


> AFAIK, only 4 states follow a "duty to retreat" doctrine.  All the rest have some version of stand your ground/castle doctrine in place. I suspect Mr. Drejka will end up being brought to trial for this.



33 states have stand your ground laws.


----------



## Sunny (Jul 24, 2018)

> A *stand-your-ground law* (sometimes called "*line in the sand*" or *"no duty to retreat" law*) is a justification  in a criminal case, whereby defendants can "stand their ground" and use  force without retreating, in order to protect and defend themselves or  others against threats or perceived threats.



It's those  last two words that make my blood run cold. "Perceived threats?"   Really?  How about all the paranoids out there who perceive a threat in  every casual glance in their direction?

Once again, without the  easy access to guns, this would be much less of a problem. Of course,  they could always use knives, etc. but it would be much harder to kill  people. If a knife had been used in this case, McGlockton could have just walked away.


----------



## rgp (Jul 24, 2018)

Sunny said:


> It's those  last two words that make my blood run cold. "Perceived threats?"   Really?  How about all the paranoids out there who perceive a threat in  every casual glance in their direction?
> 
> Once again, without the  easy access to guns, this would be much less of a problem. Of course,  they could always use knives, etc. but it would be much harder to kill  people. If a knife had been used in this case, McGlockton could have just walked away.




  "without the easy access to guns, this would be much less of a problem."

  And, had the driver obeyed the law in the first place .....there would have been no problem.


----------



## rgp (Jul 24, 2018)

AprilT said:


> You were there so I guess you have all the facts in the case, so, thanks for letting us know exactly what happened.  Good to know you believe, it is justifiable to kill someone over being pushed away.
> 
> Anytime I get pushed and fall to the ground, then I should automatically assume my life is in danger and it is fine to shoot to kill, I need not use common sense or hold life of another as value for even a second as value, just someone to kill because the law says I can.  Those  who think this way sicken me and I hope never to make your acquaintance.  There isn't any question that we are growing more and more a culture of the days of gutter people with less and less value for human life especially if they don't look like you.
> 
> Look, I know you just want to keep arguing how right it is to kill, kill, kill, I'm not interested, so save your breath, I'm not interested in debating the value of human life with someone who places so little value on it.  That goes for you too rg[, very scary to see both your thoughts in print.  best I just place you both on ignore, you two really are scary.




   "You were there so I guess you have all the facts in the case, so, thanks for letting us know exactly what happened"

  Please show me where anyone said such a thing.


   As for this........

 "Look, I know you just want to keep arguing how right it is to kill, kill, kill, I'm not interested, so save your breath, I'm not interested in debating the value of human life with someone who places so little value on it. That goes for you too rg[, very scary to see both your thoughts in print. best I just place you both on ignore, you two really are scary."

 So you're now a mind reader? You know my thoughts & wishes? The statement above displays only your ignorance, nothing remotely regarding fact.....


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 24, 2018)

I always thought that the idea behind being armed was for self defense.

So? Whose life was in danger?  The unarmed guy or the armed guy?

So if a handicap person parks in non handicap zone, should I get all upset.

I really don't get it with these handicap zones and the controversy they cause.

Is that much closer to the store that much difference?  Drop the handicapped person at the door.  Go park and then come back.

It's no big deal and that's what people who don't drive do if they get a ride.

Late at night and I pull up and park in a handicap zone.  No one else around.  Why do they make a big deal out of it.?


----------



## fmdog44 (Jul 24, 2018)

How about respect for the handicapped? If the lazy ass would have parked 8 feet further from the store this would never have happened. We see this every day.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 24, 2018)

fmdog44 said:


> How about respect for the handicapped? If the lazy ass would have parked 8 feet further from the store this would never have happened. We see this every day.



There are 'handic apped' and there are 'handicapped' .  I see all kinds of people who have a handicapped sticker on their vehicle and they walk better than I do. 

To me a handicapped person that needs a spot closer to the store would be one in a wheelchair or who can't walk without an aid.

People get their doctors to issue a handicapped sticker that are no more handicapped than me. I would be embarrassed.


----------



## rgp (Jul 24, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> There are 'handic apped' and there are 'handicapped' .  I see all kinds of people who have a handicapped sticker on their vehicle and they walk better than I do.
> 
> To me a handicapped person that needs a spot closer to the store would be one in a wheelchair or who can't walk without an aid.
> 
> People get their doctors to issue a handicapped sticker that are no more handicapped than me. I would be embarrassed.




 I understand your questions, and to a point somewhat agree. But I still believe they should be observed for their intended purpose.

 I myself may need one in the future. If it comes to using two aluminum crutches [you've seen the type] or a walker...to answer your earlier question...yes eight feet can make a huge difference. Right now I fight the need , that could end at any time.

Here in Ohio, extreme heat summers, extreme cold winters , Ice in the outer portion of the lot. Yes a parking space in the front, even eight feet can be a difference.


----------



## Knight (Jul 24, 2018)

Facts are facts. Feelings & what if's work for those that want to ignore facts. I wasn't there but watched the video the op presented. I read the article that went along with the video. Hopefully the poster with the ability to read minds didn't put me on ignore will factually. 


1.Dispute the fact the woman was parked illegally
2.Dispute the fact there were open legal spaces.
3.Dispute the fact the citizen had the right to question a driver with no handicapped license plate or card for the mirror.
4.Dispute the part of the article where the sheriff said the man shoved to the ground was within the bookends of the SYG law. 


As for past bad behavior. Is there an update to change this from a man legally within his right to defend himself to a criminal complaint? Other than to generate sympathy and boost media viewership past bad behavior isn't relevant. 


I am in general good health but do have a handicap placard for my mirror, my issue is of no concern to anyone here. People posting trying to justify  those that park illegally hopefully won't ever need the space taken up by an inconsiderate idiot.


----------



## peppermint (Jul 24, 2018)

OMG!!!   Over a handicap parking spot...!!!!!  ...I just mind my own business now a days....People are too trigger happy.... A while ago there was a food fight in the parking lot of a
Grocery Store....Cause someone bumped someone walking across to the car...the other person that was bumped started shouting to the bumper and food was flying everywhere....It was so juvenile to 
see too grown men fighting about stupid stuff....I was afraid someone was going to take a gun out....but cops came really fast and broke them up....No one got arrested....
You can't carry a gun in New Jersey!!!!   Not that people care!!!!!


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 24, 2018)

I don't think a wheelchair is the only indicator of needing handicapped parking.  A former coworker had cerebral palsy - he was an excellent driver but used arm braces and had mobility issues when walking. Also see people take a walker from back seat  as they get out of car.


----------



## DaveA (Jul 24, 2018)

I have a placard and use handi-cap spaces whenever I can.  I have a bum knee from my time in the military, many, many years ago. They fixed it up and it's served me well until I moved into my eighties. Now I have to use a cane for walking but grab a cart as soon as possible.  On the other side of this, if my wife or a grand-daughter is with me, I'll drop them at the door and pick them up when they leave.  Most people with half a brain will do the same thing. 

 In my younger days I never even considered taking one of these spaces.  They are there for a purpose and it's not just to save a few steps for some  healthy but lazy bum!!


----------



## Butterfly (Jul 25, 2018)

Hoot N Annie said:


> AFAIK, only 4 states follow a "duty to retreat" doctrine.  All the rest have some version of stand your ground/castle doctrine in place. I suspect Mr. Drejka will end up being brought to trial for this.



The so called "castle doctrine" only works in your house or on your own property (in some states in also works in your car), whereas the stand your ground thing works pretty much anywhere you are.  I'm strongly in favor of the castle doctrine (which we have in our state), but I think the stand your ground thing goes way further than it needs to.


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 25, 2018)

> "Perceived threats?" Really? How about all the paranoids out there who perceive a threat in every casual glance in their direction?



True.  A dirty look or rude remark could be interpreted as a "perceived threat".

Concerning the Drejka shooting:

A mentally unfit man, who has a history of hostility and instigating fights in that particular parking lot (and even using a racist slur against one guy), decides to play Charles Bronson and hassle a young woman in a car AFTER her boyfriend leaves the car to go into the store, like the coward he is. 

The hassling was bad enough that someone went into the store to alert the boyfriend.

If some parking space vigilante was hassling their wife/gf and trying to pick a fight with her, shoving him would be the least that some men would do.

This wasn't some random guy who was minding his business and then was brutally being assaulted and then defended himself. This was a coward who felt he was untouchable because he had a gun, and no doubt felt emboldened by it. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

This is hardly a textbook case of standing your ground or responsible gun ownership. No wonder our country is in so much trouble with such narrow minded viewpoints.


----------



## rgp (Jul 25, 2018)

"Why is that so hard for people to understand?"

 "No wonder our country is in so much trouble with such narrow minded viewpoints."


   Exactly...

 Why is it so hard for people to understand that handicapped parking places are for *handicapped* people? As long as narrow minded arrogant folks continue to ignore this fact these incidences will likely continue .


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 25, 2018)

rgp said:


> "Why is that so hard for people to understand?"
> 
> "No wonder our country is in so much trouble with such narrow minded viewpoints."
> 
> ...



What if you are not handicapped but driving a handicap with their car. Is it the car or the person that gets the space. Can I run into the store to get something without getting shot?


----------



## Knight (Jul 25, 2018)

This wasn't some random guy who was minding his business and then was brutally being assaulted and then defended himself. 

Another poster presented an article where he approached someone else for illegal parking. Why he felt the way he does and made it his business to confront people parking illegally in handicapped parking I don't know. We'll need April T the mind reader to tell us. At least you recognize he was, in your words.
"was brutally being assaulted and then defended himself."

This was a coward who felt he was untouchable because he had a gun, and no doubt felt emboldened by it. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

 Millions carry a gun, their reason? Self protection probably the main reason. Does that make every owner feel untouchable? I won't post an opinion about what he felt, we sure could use April T the mind reader to let us know what he felt. 

This is hardly a textbook case of standing your ground or responsible gun ownership. No wonder our country is in so much trouble with such narrow minded viewpoints.

I agree completely with hardly being a textbook case of SYG. That is why there is a lot of input. Unless & until that law is done away with or modified to address this kind of incident the facts favor the shooter. I don't agree with the law in this instance but I think it is reasonable to say none of this would have happened if the woman had parked in one of the open spaces. 

Posting about obeying the law yet recognizing that this instance is unique and could have been avoided is not narrow minded. Not popular but not narrow minded. I could look at  the agenda of defending the woman parked illegally & the boyfriend that attacked as being narrow minded but I don't,  I chalk it up to a different opinion.


----------



## Knight (Jul 25, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> What if you are not handicapped but driving a handicap with their car. Is it the car or the person that gets the space. Can I run into the store to get something without getting shot?


Another useless what if.


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 25, 2018)

*@ Knight*

"My words"...look again.
I said he wasn't (as in was NOT) some random guy minding his business who was brutally assaulted.

Nice try, but you failed.  :whome:


----------



## Knight (Jul 25, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> @ Knight
> 
> "My words"...look again.
> I said he wasn't (as in was NOT) some random guy minding his business who was brutally assaulted.
> ...


Exactly not some random guy. That doesn't negate your recognition that he was brutally assaulted. Unless you think anytime a person is shoved to the ground it's OK.


----------



## rgp (Jul 25, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> What if you are not handicapped but driving a handicap with their car. Is it the car or the person that gets the space. Can I run into the store to get something without getting shot?




Another nit-picking what-if.....

    Go ahead if you're really that lazy...roll the dice.


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 25, 2018)

Knight said:


> Exactly not some random guy. That doesn't negate your recognition that he was brutally assaulted. Unless you think anytime a person is shoved to the ground it's OK.



I didn't recognize diddly squat.

Reading comprehension issues on your part.

You are _really _reaching, which indicates you know you've lost.

I'm going to handle you the same way I handle others who like to bicker just for the sake of bickering.  You being such a deep thinker, maybe you can figure out what THAT means. :laugh:


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 25, 2018)

rgp said:


> Another nit-picking what-if.....
> 
> Go ahead if you're really that lazy...roll the dice.



Lazy has nothing to do with it.  I asked a question.  Is it the car or the person that gets the space?


----------



## StarSong (Jul 25, 2018)

What happened to the concept of the punishment fitting the crime?


----------



## Buckeye (Jul 25, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Lazy has nothing to do with it.  I asked a question.  Is it the car or the person that gets the space?



person


----------



## DaveA (Jul 25, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Lazy has nothing to do with it.  I asked a question.  Is it the car or the person that gets the space?



To answer your question (at least here in Mass.) the placard travels with the person not the car.  if I was to hop in your car and be driven to the store, I can hang the placard in the windshield and go into the store.  My photo (same as a license) is on the placard and it makes no difference who's vehicle I'm in.


----------



## rgp (Jul 25, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Lazy has nothing to do with it.  I asked a question.  Is it the car or the person that gets the space?






  "_Can I run into the store to get something without getting shot?"

_This is where lazy comes into it........


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 25, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Can I run into the store to get something without getting shot?



Depends on whether Drejka is lurking in the parking lot, salivating with his gun in his pocket.
btw he certainly has provided lots of PR/advertising for that store!!


----------



## StarSong (Jul 25, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> Depends on whether Drejka is lurking in the parking lot, salivating with his gun in his pocket.
> btw he certainly has provided lots of PR/advertising for that store!!



Or a clone of his.  I'm sincerely hoping that he does get charged and arrested, if only to discourage other would-be self-appointed sheriffs.


----------



## rgp (Jul 25, 2018)

StarSong said:


> Or a clone of his.  I'm sincerely hoping that he does get charged and arrested, if only to discourage other would-be self-appointed sheriffs.




 I agree in the rejection of self appointed sheriffs.....but since I do not know that he indeed was one. I refrain from making that assumption & accusation.


----------



## DaveA (Jul 25, 2018)

Didn't the store owner say that he regularly "patrolled' or lurked in the parking lot.  And I also thought that the article stated that he was charged with brandishing his weapon at another point but was found "not guilty".  As a gun owner myself, I can't find myself bending over backwards to somehow let this character off the hook.  IMHO, it's dim bulbs like this guy that brings disgust and distain on the rest of us gun owners who don't spend our time brandishing our weapons in public or looking for challenges that will allow us to "defend" ourselves.


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 25, 2018)

@ DaveA

Yes, I saw interview with store owner who said he called police on Drejka about a month ago.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 25, 2018)

StarSong said:


> What happened to the concept of the punishment fitting the crime?



My thinking too. Parking in a handicapped space is not a criminal offence - it is a parking offence, a misdemeanor. The appropriate penalty would be at best a fine.

A street brawl, and pushing someone roughly to the ground is quite a bit short of a brawl, would probably be considered a summary offence that would land the offender an appearance in a local court on a charge of common assault. The sentence would depend on whether or not the man on the ground had been injured.

Shooting someone in the chest however …

If the law in Florida means that no charge and no court appearance will happen, then I am guessing that the Sheriff has his hands tied.


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 25, 2018)

The Sheriff is not the ultimate authority, he simply made the decision not to arrest at the time of the incident. The matter has been passed to the Attorney General and is under investigation.

And Warrigal, you're not qualified to be giving legal opinions about offenses here in the United States.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 25, 2018)

Thanks Applecruncher. I am unfamiliar with the authority/responsibility of the different levels of law enforcement in US.

In reality, I'm not 100% sure what happens over here but for something involving a death it would be handled by the State Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The New South Wales Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) is an independent prosecuting service and government agency within the portfolio of the Attorney General of New South Wales. They would usually wait for the Coroner's report before charging someone.


----------



## Butterfly (Jul 25, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> What if you are not handicapped but driving a handicap with their car. Is it the car or the person that gets the space. Can I run into the store to get something without getting shot?



In this state, the handicap placard belongs to the handicapped person.  My sister is handicapped  and she has a valid handicap placard, which we hang over the rearview mirror of my car when I take her shopping or wherever.  Here you legally have no right to park in a handicap space if you do not have that placard displayed (even if you are in a bodycast  but don't have a placard).  

We made the mistake once of forgetting to hang the placard in a parking lot and came back to the car to see a police officer getting ready to write up a citation.  We showed him the placard and he took pity on us (me -- since it's the car that gets the big fat ticket, and here it is about $350).  If we hadn't had that placard we would have gotten the citation even though my sister is visibly handicapped.  I did get a big lecture about how the law required that placard to be displayed or else, etc.  As that officer pointed out to me, fair or not, it's the law, and if you are in one of those spaces, even if the parking lot is empty except for your car, if you don't have a placard hanging you can get that big fat ticket.


----------



## justfred (Jul 26, 2018)

Forgive me but reading some posts on 'protecting' oneself I cannot believe that it is quite legal to shoot and kill someone for almost anything with the excuse "I am protecting myself" Someone gets to the remaining car parking space before you so your law says you can shoot and kill him/her for doing this. I just cannot understand. Killing anyone by any means in this country is a criminal offence and can lead to a life sentence. In this country one has to have a special license and a very good reason to carry a gun. I have read of a land owner in the US shooting and killing someone just for trespassing on his land and not being charged with murder. I have never been to your country and would be very frightened to do so if I thought I could be shot and killed for some minor offence like parking in a no parking area, accidently straying onto someones property, or any other minor error.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 26, 2018)

> I have never been to your country and would be very frightened to do so if I thought I could be shot and killed for some minor offence like parking in a no parking area, accidently straying onto someone's property, or any other minor error.



Or for calling the police to a lane behind your house because you thought you heard a rape taking place. Middle aged women in their PJs and slippers are such a threat to armed police officers in their patrol car ???

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ustine-damond-lawsuit-20180723-story,amp.html


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jul 26, 2018)

IMO we each have the ability to control the majority of these situations.

By complying with the law and the instructions/commands of law enforcement.

By not engaging strangers that confront us or challenge us including those behind the wheel of a car.

By treating everyone we encounter with respect.

I'm not saying that I agree with the outcome of this parking lot incident or that I agree with the stand your ground laws as written. I am saying that this parking lot incident appears, to me, to fit within the existing laws and if we are disgusted by that we should work to change the laws.


----------



## rgp (Jul 26, 2018)

Aunt Bea said:


> IMO we each have the ability to control the majority of these situations.
> 
> By complying with the law and the instructions/commands of law enforcement.
> 
> ...




Once again, very well said Aunt Bea.....


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 26, 2018)

I was shopping in Safeway yesterday when I thought of this thread.  Right as I was leaving, there was an older man in the store saying something to customer service, he said he already called police and then the worker announced a car description over the intercom and asked that the owner come to the service desk.  The older man walked out ahead of me.

When I started walking to my car, I saw the man sitting in his vehicle, blocking a car from leaving a handicap spot. He had a handicap plate. As I passed him, I looked at the car in the spot and didn't see any handicap plate or placard.  The man asked me if that was my car, and I told him no, I don't park in handicap spaces.  I left and there was still no sign of any police entering the parking lot.


----------



## StarSong (Jul 26, 2018)

SeaBreeze said:


> I was shopping in Safeway yesterday when I thought of this thread.  Right as I was leaving, there was an older man in the store saying something to customer service, he said he already called police and then the worker announced a car description over the intercom and asked that the owner come to the service desk.  The older man walked out ahead of me.
> 
> When I started walking to my car, I saw the man sitting in his vehicle, blocking a car from leaving a handicap spot. He had a handicap plate. As I passed him, I looked at the car in the spot and didn't see any handicap plate or placard.  The man asked me if that was my car, and I told him no, I don't park in handicap spaces.  I left and there was still no sign of any police entering the parking lot.



I'm sorry for the older man who presumably is handicapped and therefore entitled to the space.  I would think this would be an exceptionally low priority for the police and am wondering if the older gent could get into legal trouble of his own for false imprisonment by illegally blocking the car.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  

The man's actions are understandable but nevertheless fall under the category of vigilante justice.  Suppose he and the car owner got into a scuffle - as per this thread - and the car owner shot him because of feeling threatened and therefore decided to "stand his ground?"


----------



## RadishRose (Jul 26, 2018)

"_Someone gets to the remaining car parking space before you so your law says you can shoot and kill him/her for doing this_."

Fred, this is not true.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 26, 2018)

StarSong said:


> I'm sorry for the older man who presumably is handicapped and therefore entitled to the space.  I would think this would be an exceptionally low priority for the police and am wondering if the older gent could get into legal trouble of his own for false imprisonment by illegally blocking the car.  Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> The man's actions are understandable but nevertheless fall under the category of vigilante justice.  Suppose he and the car owner got into a scuffle - as per this thread - and the car owner shot him because of feeling threatened and therefore decided to "stand his ground?"



I agree, he shouldn't have blocked him.  I personally have never confronted someone using a handicap spot with no validation.  I figure that's the police's business to do such things, not mine.  There's sometimes a sign warning of a $500 fine for such an action, we have one by our post office like that.  I don't know what happened when the owner of the car came out, but I suspect it might have at least lead to an oral argument.  I have no idea if calling 911 is a valid reason for illegal parking...something else I wouldn't have done.   Maybe just take a picture of the offending car and license plate in that spot and turn it in to the local police station?  At least the guy might get a follow-up warning.


----------



## AprilT (Jul 26, 2018)

Aunt Bea said:


> IMO we each have the ability to control the majority of these situations.
> 
> By complying with the law and the instructions/commands of law enforcement.
> 
> ...



Could you elaborate?  

So the shooter gets to confront a stranger and control the outcome I gather, he has no bearing on what took place, he gets a free ride just because the law says it's okay it sounds like that's what you're saying.

Not one person is saying it's okay to park illegally, NO ONE, not I or anyone else, but, I also wouldn't go around making it my business to sit in parking lots waiting to confront people who do just so I can get into an argument or fight.  The right thing to do one is feels the need to be protective of parking spaces would be to call the police, take a pic include license plate and report it.  Why put oneself in a dangerous situation.  Why, because he knew he was packing.  

We that feel disgust are right to feel so and are always doing what we can in our own ways to fight these ridiculous laws.  Again, those who think so little of human life as to feel so blase about it to turn the situation around on a person taking a bullet over, be it illegally, parking in a space SMH.  How very callous to be able to shift blame so easily, is it always so cut in dry in life to place human beings in this kind of a vacuum wear killing them just comes down to one wrong justifies another. 

A law to park and a law to kill, never thought to equate them, only in America; _justfred_, yes, you should be afraid to visit, your feelings are very justified, especially after reading what's been posted in this thread.  You are getting a good look into the minds and souls of a good portion of quite a few Americans, scary isn't it.  Frightens me too.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 26, 2018)

I once had to confront a couple of young women who had just parked in a disabled space outside a hearing clinic. I needed it because I was taking my quite crippled auntie in for a hearing test. The nearest big multi-storey carpark was around the corner and there was no lift to take you up or down the three levels and Auntie could not have managed that. Also, she couldn't really be left on the footpath while I drove away to find a place to leave the car.

I pulled up behind the young women and said firmly "I need that space". They tried to say that they were just going into the bank but I cut them off in a stern voice, repeating "I NEED that space" and they decided to drive off and let me have it. If they hadn't I suppose I might have noted their number and made a complaint but I'll never know how that would have turned out.

My husband has a disability sticker and it is always on display in our only car but if I am on my own I never take a disabled space because I can walk the necessary 100 metres unaided. I did use a disabled/mothers' nappy change toilet yesterday at a shopping centre because there was a queue out the door for the ladies and I was having a weak bladder day.

I don't know what will happen in the case of the car park vigilante but it is a very tragic outcome that could have been avoided at a number of points if the people concerned had been a little more considerate of others. Shouting rarely helps anyone.


----------



## AprilT (Jul 26, 2018)

Warrigal, in your situation that's differen't, the guy in the situation wasn't requesting use of the space, as a matter of fact, when he confronted another driver in such a situation that driver asked if he needed the space for his handicapped mother and the gun carrying guy became more enraged and wanted to fight even more.

Sure, we should all be more considerate of those who need the spaces, this incident had nothing to do with that.  Apples and oranges.


----------



## StarSong (Jul 26, 2018)

SeaBreeze said:


> I agree, he shouldn't have blocked him.  I personally have never confronted someone using a handicap spot with no validation.  I figure that's the police's business to do such things, not mine.  There's sometimes a sign warning of a $500 fine for such an action, we have one by our post office like that.  I don't know what happened when the owner of the car came out, but I suspect it might have at least lead to an oral argument.  I have no idea if calling 911 is a valid reason for illegal parking...something else I wouldn't have done.   Maybe just take a picture of the offending car and license plate in that spot and turn it in to the local police station?  At least the guy might get a follow-up warning.



I am a big believer that the justice system eventually catches up with scofflaws, as does karma.  Personally, I try to not add to people's misery index by turning them in even when I see them committing a minor legal infraction.  I may tut-tut, but otherwise move on with my day.  (People endangering themselves or others are another matter entirely.)    

The old man in your story was likely fuming over this, raising his BP and stress to unhealthy levels before he even had a confrontation with the offending car owner.  He wasted his time, his peace of mind, and possibly his health.  And for what?  The possible satisfaction of having a tattle-tale "gotcha" moment?


----------



## Knight (Jul 26, 2018)

justfred said:


> Forgive me but reading some posts on 'protecting' oneself I cannot believe that it is quite legal to shoot and kill someone for almost anything with the excuse "I am protecting myself" Someone gets to the remaining car parking space before you so your law says you can shoot and kill him/her for doing this. I just cannot understand. Killing anyone by any means in this country is a criminal offence and can lead to a life sentence. In this country one has to have a special license and a very good reason to carry a gun. I have read of a land owner in the US shooting and killing someone just for trespassing on his land and not being charged with murder. I have never been to your country and would be very frightened to do so if I thought I could be shot and killed for some minor offence like parking in a no parking area, accidently straying onto someones property, or any other minor error.



Would you park in a space set aside for handicapped? What would your response be?  If you were told you are on private property. What would your response be?? If you haven't already, go back to the ops 1st. post & watch the video, then read the article that goes along with the video. 

I'm glad there is a video. Seeing the older man check the car both front & back for a plate & the windshied for a placard is clear. Seeing him point to open legal spaces is clear. Seeing the man stand about two feet away from the car never touching the car or reaching in to touch the driver is clear. Seeing the boyfriend approach, the driver [a woman] get out of the car and appear to reach out to touch the man not so clear. Really clear is the immediate violent shove, hard enough to knock the man to the ground. Last is the man that was shot still facing the man on the ground turning when shot then running into the store. 




The stand your ground law is about self protection. There is no audio, so the actions that are clear on the video will most likely determine if any criminal charges are filed.  Only mind readers know what was thought/said or felt by the 3 people in the video. I'll go by what was visible.


----------



## rgp (Jul 26, 2018)

AprilT said:


> Warrigal, in your situation that's differen't, the guy in the situation wasn't requesting use of the space, as a matter of fact, when he confronted another driver in such a situation that driver asked if he needed the space for his handicapped mother and the gun carrying guy became more enraged and wanted to fight even more.
> 
> Sure, we should all be more considerate of those who need the spaces, this incident had nothing to do with that.  Apples and oranges.





 "when he confronted another driver in such a situation that driver asked if he needed the space for his handicapped mother and the gun carrying guy became more enraged and wanted to fight even more."

  So....you were there ? Heard it all, first hand?....

  Please elaborate...


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jul 26, 2018)

AprilT said:


> Could you elaborate?



_"he gets a free ride just because the law says it's okay" 

_Isn't that what the law is intended to do? 

IMO a law has no value if we are unwilling to apply it equally to everyone. 

If we can't in good conscience apply it equally then IMO it is a bad law and it needs to be amended/rewritten or struck down.

Personally, I think that Drejka is a jerk but it appears that he did everything right in acquiring his gun and his carry permit. 

It also appears that he stayed within the limits of the stand your ground law.

The problem is that my personal opinion of Drejka has no value when it comes to the law and that's the way it should be in a free society.


----------



## AprilT (Jul 26, 2018)

Aunt Bea said:


> _"he gets a free ride just because the law says it's okay"
> 
> _Isn't that what the law is intended to do?
> 
> ...



Yes, it is good one person's opinion isn't the deciding factor and reason can be the deciding factor in a court of law where people can decide if the law at hand is indeed sensible and is truly applicable as meant to be in each case instead of just chucking off people's lives as nothing more than a case of convenience to the law at hand.   

This is why we have courts and why people take their cases to court to fight a law where they see it being misapplied in any given case.  Stand your ground doesn't mean you get to be trigger happy, it means you stand and the other person has the  space to retreat, now if they keep coming at you in a way that you feel you or others feel threaten of great harm, then you have that right to take whatever course you deem necessary.  You don't get to provoke, or shoot someone when they are backing away as more reasonable people hopefully will have a chance to decide as they have done so in other cases.


----------



## rgp (Jul 26, 2018)

AprilT said:


> Yes, it is good one person's opinion isn't the deciding factor and reason can be the deciding factor in a court of law where people can decide if the law at hand is indeed sensible and is truly applicable as meant to be in each case instead of just chucking off people's lives as nothing more than a case of convenience to the law at hand.
> 
> This is why we have courts and why people take their cases to court to fight a law where they see it being misapplied in any given case.  Stand your ground doesn't mean you get to be trigger happy, it means you stand and the other person has the  space to retreat, now if they keep coming at you in a way that you feel you or others feel threaten of great harm, then you have that right to take whatever course you deem necessary.  You don't get to provoke, or shoot someone when they are backing away as more reasonable people hopefully will have a chance to decide as they have done so in other cases.




 So.....you were there, in that mans mind?...And knew exactly the threat he felt?...and when he felt it? And of course you know exactly what he should have done? And he did not do as you approve?


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jul 26, 2018)

rgp said:


> So.....you were there, in that mans mind?...*And** knew exactly the threat he felt?*...and when he felt it? And of course you know exactly what he should have done? And he did not do as you approve?



I think that's the key.

After Drejka was assaulted by McGlockton he may have been so severely shaken and his adrenaline could have been pumping to the point where he fired automatically or he may, in fact, be a stone cold killer. I believe that the chain of events is on Drejka's side and we will never know any more than we can see in the video.


----------



## Falcon (Jul 26, 2018)

Britany  Jacobs  should have had  her  a$$   SPANKED   good and hard !


----------



## StarSong (Jul 26, 2018)

Falcon said:


> Britany  Jacobs  should have had  her  a$$   SPANKED   good and hard !



This comment nauseates me.


----------



## rgp (Jul 26, 2018)

StarSong said:


> The shooter is white, the victim black.  Many of us cannot help but wonder how quickly "stand your ground" would have been applied to the situation if the shooter been a middle aged black man vs. a young white man whose white GF and two small white children were present.
> 
> That's what race has to do with this.




So again, a what-if. ?

If we cannot stick to the facts...it is no wonder that we cannot come to a collective opinion. If we cannot stick to the facts...then really there is no reason to debate it.......jmo

So if we're going to explore 'what-if's' ? What if it was as you describe above ? Would then be OK with the outcome?............just curious.

See why what-if's should not be an issue?


----------



## StarSong (Jul 26, 2018)

You asked what race had to do with it.  I answered.


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 26, 2018)

StarSong said:


> This comment nauseates me.


Moi, aussi.


----------



## Falcon (Jul 26, 2018)

Star Song  &  Shali,   Sorry this made you sick.  Guess  I'll have to go back and read to see  who I could have sworn that ACTUALLY  instigated  the

scenario  and who  is therefore  guilty  of a poor man's  death.  Ms. Jacobs  is the one who was parked  illegally.


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 26, 2018)

I feel bad for the 5 yr old; he will have nightmares and remember the incident for the rest of his life.


----------



## Buckeye (Jul 26, 2018)

I was going to stay out of this but, what the hell...  First, we could all have predicted which posters would take the side of the shooter.  All the usual suspects showed up and are accounted for.  Secondly, the statement that the incident started when the woman parked improperly is totally incorrect.  It started when the shooter decided to be a self-appointed vigilante, complete with his side arm (also known as a "penis stretcher", btw), just waiting in the park lot for an excuse to be outraged.  He was actively looking for a confrontation.  

Whether he walks or is prosecuted is up to the authorities, of course, but he should pray he is taken into protective custody.  Some folks don't take kindly to killing folks in cold blood.


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 26, 2018)

> All the usual suspects showed up and are accounted for



:laugh:

:whome:


----------



## Gary O' (Jul 26, 2018)

Hoot N Annie said:


> I was going to stay out of this but, what the hell...  First, we could all have predicted which posters would take the side of the shooter.  All the usual suspects showed up and are accounted for.  Secondly, the statement that the incident started when the woman parked improperly is totally incorrect.  It started when the shooter decided to be a self-appointed vigilante, complete with his side arm (also known as a "penis stretcher", btw), just waiting in the park lot for an excuse to be outraged.  He was actively looking for a confrontation.
> 
> Whether he walks or is prosecuted is up to the authorities, of course, but he should pray he is taken into protective custody.  Some folks don't take kindly to killing folks in cold blood.



_*'...we could all have predicted which posters would take the side of the shooter.  All the usual suspects showed up and are accounted for.'*_

I'm late!!

However, I concur with this synopsis 

especially this part;

*'Whether he walks or is prosecuted is up to the authorities, of course, but he should pray he is taken into protective custody.  Some folks don't take kindly to killing folks in cold blood'
*


----------



## justfred (Jul 27, 2018)

After reading all these posts I,m glad I live in a country where I will not be shot for parking in the 'wrong' place, Where I will not be shot for accidentally staying onto someone else,s property, where I will not be shot for looking at someone in a threatening manner. Yes we have a surge of knife crime over here but this is mostly gang versus gang and not because someone has taken a dislike to someone over a petty argument.


----------



## fmdog44 (Jul 27, 2018)

When you *initiate *violence then don't be upset when it bounces right back in your face.


----------



## StarSong (Jul 27, 2018)

Hoot N Annie said:


> *Whether he walks or is prosecuted is up to the authorities, of course, but he should pray he is taken into protective custody.  Some folks don't take kindly to killing folks in cold blood.*



Very true.  Just like Drejka appointed himself judge and jury, lots of other people aren't shy about administering punishment when they believe the law has failed them.  Prison inmates are well known for doing exactly this.    
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/n...7/25/larry-nassar-assaulted-prison/833106002/ 

Not saying I approve in all cases, but sometimes poetic justice and karma mangage to sort things out.


----------



## rgp (Jul 27, 2018)

Hoot N Annie said:


> I was going to stay out of this but, what the hell...  First, we could all have predicted which posters would take the side of the shooter.  All the usual suspects showed up and are accounted for.  Secondly, the statement that the incident started when the woman parked improperly is totally incorrect.  It started when the shooter decided to be a self-appointed vigilante, complete with his side arm (also known as a "penis stretcher", btw), just waiting in the park lot for an excuse to be outraged.  He was actively looking for a confrontation.
> 
> Whether he walks or is prosecuted is up to the authorities, of course, but he should pray he is taken into protective custody.  Some folks don't take kindly to killing folks in cold blood.






"Secondly, the statement that the incident started when the woman parked improperly is totally incorrect. It started when the shooter decided to be a self-appointed vigilante, complete with his side arm (also known as a "penis stretcher", btw), just waiting in the park lot for an excuse to be outraged."


Wrong....had she not parked where she parked , or had not been so arrogant to refuse to move....the confrontation would have never escalated to the point it did. Resulting in him being assaulted then his "penis-stretcher" would have stayed in his pocket.​


----------



## Falcon (Jul 27, 2018)

EXACTLY   rgp.    Just like  I've  been saying  !!!


----------



## Knight (Jul 27, 2018)

Hoot N Annie said:


> I was going to stay out of this but, what the hell... First, we could all have predicted which posters would take the side of the shooter. All the usual suspects showed up and are accounted for. Secondly, the statement that the incident started when the woman parked improperly is totally incorrect. It started when the shooter decided to be a self-appointed vigilante, complete with his side arm (also known as a "penis stretcher", btw), just waiting in the park lot for an excuse to be outraged. He was actively looking for a confrontation.
> 
> 
> Whether he walks or is prosecuted is up to the authorities, of course, but he should pray he is taken into protective custody. Some folks don't take kindly to killing folks in cold blood.




Watched the video, obviously you didn't. The video I saw a car parked at the end of the building. Later a concerned citizen not vigilante pulled in. After parking he walked over & checked the car for a plate or placard. At that point according to the article it is known the driver was parked illegally.  Standing back from the vehicle he pointed out open spaces. Why he cares about handicapped people having a space to park only he can answer that. 


Between the what if's, the mind readers and this post of yours condemning a man that cared enough to speak up for handicapped people then get violently shoved to the ground it's no wonder violence has increased to the point where people are buying guns for self defense is becoming the norm.


----------



## rgp (Jul 27, 2018)

Knight said:


> Watched the video, obviously you didn't. The video I saw a car parked at the end of the building. Later a concerned citizen not vigilante pulled in. After parking he walked over & checked the car for a plate or placard. At that point according to the article it is known the driver was parked illegally.  Standing back from the vehicle he pointed out open spaces. Why he cares about handicapped people having a space to park only he can answer that.
> 
> 
> Between the what if's, the mind readers and this post of yours condemning a man that cared enough to speak up for handicapped people then get violently shoved to the ground it's no wonder violence has increased to the point where people are buying guns for self defense is becoming the norm.





+1.... Another commentary well said.


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 27, 2018)

fmdog44 said:


> When you *initiate *violence then don't be upset when it bounces right back in your face.



Uh, yeah.

Drejka *initiated *violence when he sat in his car and _waited for _  _McGlockton to go into the store, _ THEN got in McGlockton's girlfriend's face and told her to "move her f'kin car". His rant was so loud and belligerent that several customers noticed and one of them went into the store and alerted McGlockton.


----------



## AprilT (Jul 27, 2018)

Gary O' said:


> _*'...we could all have predicted which posters would take the side of the shooter.  All the usual suspects showed up and are accounted for.'*_
> 
> I'm late!!
> 
> ...




:thumbsup1:  No doubt, I've been around a long time, I know the feelings of the people here, so no surprise indeed when it comes to their reasoning.

Again take a look at this video, shooter was all up on the woman; imagine had she pulled a gun since he was all up in her face.  What would you do after, if true as reported, someone came into the store and told you some man was up in your lady's face.  You see McGlockton, backing up and crazy town takes a shot anyway.  

It doesn't matter what anyone has to say, those who feel a certain way about people will continue to see it only one way, no matter what.  You and others are wasting your breath; put them on ignore, it makes life more palatable as they aren't looking for and exchange of ideas, just more space to hammer in their prejudices.


----------



## Knight (Jul 27, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> Uh, yeah.
> 
> Drejka *initiated *violence when he sat in his car and _waited for _  _McGlockton to go into the store, _ THEN got in McGlockton's girlfriend's face and told her to "move her f'kin car". His rant was so loud and belligerent that several customers noticed and one of them went into the store and alerted McGlockton.


You need to watch the video you posted. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad that making the sequence of events to suit your thinking is so wrong.


----------



## AprilT (Jul 27, 2018)

What an attorney viewing the video sees that others can't see, why so many others see it clearly yet certain people of a particular mindset continue to on one frame of mind.  It isn't us folks it really is them.  It's not just about whether the guy had the law on his side, this goes beyond that even, people here who seem okay to just dismiss it all do so for ulterior motives and we know what those are.  He killed him, that's fine, the law says it was okay, lets just move along now and get some more of them out of the way.  It's funny how none commented on the videos where the the white men shot other white men not even a whimper about those incidents.


----------



## Knight (Jul 27, 2018)

post 117
You see McGlockton, backing up and crazy town takes a shot anyway. 


No audio so the video is all there is to go by. Backing up but still facing him & close enough to do more harm. 


The Tueller Drill is a self-defense training exercise to prepare against a short-range knife attack when armed only with a holstered handgun.


MythBusters covered the drill in the 2012 episode "Duel Dilemmas". At 20 ft (6.1 m), the gun-wielder was able to shoot the charging knife attacker just as he reached the shooter. At shorter distances the knife wielder was always able to stab prior to being shot.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill




No there is no indication of a knife but the physical strength of McGlockton is apparent. I wasn't there and won't do a what if, always pointed out the immediate violent way McGlockton attacked. Shooting towards center mass doesn't mean intent to kill. Shooting to prevent further harm I think is reasonable. 


Presenting this as a race issue is lame. It's about a citizen that cares enough about ignornant people parking illegally & took the time to say something. Then was attacked.


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 27, 2018)

Drejka doesn't give a flying fig about the handicapped.

He waited... pounced...shot.

Might have also threatened to kill, like he did a month ago. We haven't heard from witnesses...yet.


----------



## fmdog44 (Jul 27, 2018)

Hoot N Annie said:


> I was going to stay out of this but, what the hell...  First, we could all have predicted which posters would take the side of the shooter.  All the usual suspects showed up and are accounted for.  Secondly, the statement that the incident started when the woman parked improperly is totally incorrect.  It started when the shooter decided to be a self-appointed vigilante, complete with his side arm (also known as a "penis stretcher", btw), just waiting in the park lot for an excuse to be outraged.  He was actively looking for a confrontation.
> 
> Whether he walks or is prosecuted is up to the authorities, of course, but he should pray he is taken into protective custody.  Some folks don't take kindly to killing folks in cold blood.



You don't know he was looking for a confrontation.  BTW, some folks don't take kindly to revenge killing as it brings more killing. And the beat goes on.


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 27, 2018)

fmdog44 said:


> *You don't know he was looking for a confrontation*.  BTW, some folks don't take kindly to revenge killing as it brings more killing. And the beat goes on.



When someone gets in another person's face shouting and cursing, that's usually the case.

No, I don't have audio but gf said Drejka was yelling and cursing...we can see his demeanor and gesturing. And if he hadn't been creating a scene one of the witnesses would not have quickly gone into store to alert McGlockton.


----------



## Butterfly (Jul 27, 2018)

I think the shooter was way out of line by accosting the driver in the first place.  If he's not law enforcement or the business owner, or a handicapped person who can't find another place to park, I don't see where it is any of his business to police who parks where.  Regardless of the legality of the car being parked there, it seems to me that the shooter provoked the incident which ultimately resulted in the death.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 27, 2018)

Butterfly said:


> I think the shooter was way out of line by accosting the driver in the first place.  If he's not law enforcement or the business owner, or a handicapped person who can't find another place to park, I don't see where it is any of his business to police who parks where.  Regardless of the legality of the car being parked there, it seems to me that the shooter provoked the incident which ultimately resulted in the death.



I agree. It seems to me that this was the pivotal point that initiated the tragedy.

No-one seems to have recognised that the dead man was defending his family from an abusive man but without deadly force.


----------



## fmdog44 (Jul 28, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> I agree. It seems to me that this was the pivotal point that initiated the tragedy.
> 
> No-one seems to have recognised that the dead man was defending his family from an abusive man but without deadly force.



By assaulting him for talking? Why not simply address him face to face? If he had done that he would be alive today.


----------



## AprilT (Jul 28, 2018)

Butterfly said:


> I think the shooter was way out of line by accosting the driver in the first place.  If he's not law enforcement or the business owner, or a handicapped person who can't find another place to park, I don't see where it is any of his business to police who parks where.  Regardless of the legality of the car being parked there, it seems to me that the shooter provoked the incident which ultimately resulted in the death.



Very true.



Warrigal said:


> I agree. It seems to me that this was the pivotal point that initiated the tragedy.
> 
> No-one seems to have recognised that the dead man was defending his family from an abusive man but without deadly force.



Warri, I think most of us here do recognize this distinction, but then there are those who are just to callous to care.  This is just how it is in our country, life of others for some, has limited value, not something I'm making up, I'm sure you can tell since you are aware of a lot of what takes place via news reports of what takes place in the USA.  Some are hankering for an all out war and stock pile guns, it's what they're waiting in the winds for.


----------



## rgp (Jul 28, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> I agree. It seems to me that this was the pivotal point that initiated the tragedy.
> 
> No-one seems to have recognised that the dead man was defending his family from an abusive man but without deadly force.




The pivotal point was when the driver so arrogantly parked in the space that was provided for the handicapped.....not her.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jul 28, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> I agree. It seems to me that this was the pivotal point that initiated the tragedy.
> 
> *No-one seems to have **recognised** that the dead man was defending his family from an abusive man but without deadly force.*



No one seems to have recognized that Mr. McGlocton had no need to attack Mr. Drejka and throw him to the ground.

IMO it was all just a case of sticks and stones until that happened.

It also has occurred to me that we could be having a much different conversation if Mr. McGlocton's attack had resulted in Mr. Drejka's death from a head injury, heart attack, etc...


----------



## Knight (Jul 28, 2018)

Aunt Bea said:


> No one seems to have recognized that Mr. McGlocton had no need to attack Mr. Drejka and throw him to the ground.
> 
> 
> IMO it was all just a case of sticks and stones until that happened.
> ...




A few of us recognize that fact. But WOW you are getting dangerously close to being one of the usual suspects here that recognize the difference between verbal and physical. 


Defending an ignorant driver that could easily have legally parked or moved is lost on those intent on finding fault with a citizen that has a right to verbally point out illegal parking. 


The cause. Ignorant unmarried mother of 3 parking illegally that doesn't give a fig about laws or handicapped people.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 28, 2018)

Knight said:


> A few of us recognize that fact. But WOW you are getting dangerously close to being one of the usual suspects here that recognize the difference between verbal and physical.
> 
> 
> Defending an ignorant driver that could easily have legally parked or moved is lost on those intent on finding fault with a citizen that has a right to verbally point out illegal parking.
> ...



And that's going to be listed as the cause of death?


----------



## Sunny (Jul 28, 2018)

> The pivotal point was when the driver so arrogantly parked in the space that was provided for the handicapped.....not her.



So then, we are living in a savage jungle without any legal jurisdiction over misdemeanors, such as illegal parking?  There are no traffic courts, no parking tickets, no fines?  Someone parks illegally, so it's perfectly fine for a guy with anger issues, packing a gun, to go up to their car and start yelling at the driver?  

Why was it even his business?  No one was in any physical danger (until he came along). Why did he care so much?

Another thought: was she even "parked?"  If McGlockton had just run into the store for a brief errand, and she remained behind the wheel, I wonder if the car could even be legally considered parked.
There actually is a legal distinction between "parking" and "standing."


----------



## Knight (Jul 28, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> And that's going to be listed as the cause of death?


I'm certain you understand the English language

But just in case you don't.
cause
[kawz]
SynonymsExamplesWord Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/cause

Had she not parked illegally this whole series of events would not have happened.


----------



## rgp (Jul 28, 2018)

Sunny said:


> So then, we are living in a savage jungle without any legal jurisdiction over misdemeanors, such as illegal parking?  There are no traffic courts, no parking tickets, no fines?  Someone parks illegally, so it's perfectly fine for a guy with anger issues, packing a gun, to go up to their car and start yelling at the driver?
> 
> Why was it even his business?  No one was in any physical danger (until he came along). Why did he care so much?
> 
> ...



Regardless, the space provided for the *handicapped* , _*not her*_, was indeed blocked.


----------



## AprilT (Jul 28, 2018)

Sunny said:


> So then, we are living in a savage jungle without any legal jurisdiction over misdemeanors, such as illegal parking?  There are no traffic courts, no parking tickets, no fines?  Someone parks illegally, so it's perfectly fine for a guy with anger issues, packing a gun, to go up to their car and start yelling at the driver?
> 
> Why was it even his business?  No one was in any physical danger (until he came along). Why did he care so much?
> 
> ...



All very good points, but, hadn't even thought of the bolded excellent observation.


----------



## Buckeye (Jul 28, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> And that's going to be listed as the cause of death?



Cause of death will be the gunshot wound.  Cause is a medical definition.  Manner of death will probably be "pending" or "homicide".


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 28, 2018)

One point which interested me, a poster felt it necessary (while castigating the woman who parked in handicapped spot) to mention she was “an unmarried mother of three.” What on earth does her marital status have to do with anything? Surely this cannot be a criticism of her morality? I am also an unmarried mother.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 28, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> One point which interested me, a poster felt it necessary (while castigating the woman who parked in handicapped spot) to mention she was “an unmarried mother of three.” What on earth does her marital status have to do with anything? Surely this cannot be a criticism of her morality? I am also an unmarried mother.



Like it or not that was the intent .


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 28, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Like it or not that was the intent .


Apparently so.


----------



## Olivia (Jul 28, 2018)

> "FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) — An attorney for the family of an unarmed black man fatally shot by a white man in a Florida parking lot said Thursday that race is the reason no charges have been filed after the videotaped altercation."
> 
> https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/florida/articles/2018-07-26/attorney-white-man-must-be-charged-in-killing-of-black-man



I totally believe that it was not deemed murder was racist.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 28, 2018)

fmdog44 said:


> By assaulting him for talking? Why not simply address him face to face? If he had done that he would be alive today.



You weren't there and neither was I. You assume that he was "just talking" but in my experience that wouldn't trigger an assault. I suspect, but do not know, that he was being aggressively abusive. Didn't someone go into the store to alert the husband? Why would they do that if he was just talking?

There were witnesses so I assume that the details will be made known soon enough. Until then there is no point in rushing to judgement. That does not mean that we will not have opinions on the matter. You have yours, I have mine.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 28, 2018)

rgp said:


> The pivotal point was when the driver so arrogantly parked in the space that was provided for the handicapped.....not her.



Arrogance abounds. It is not something that should be punished by death.


----------



## Buckeye (Jul 28, 2018)

What is disturbing is the fact that we have a few otherwise good men on here (and on other forums) that are defending the cowardly actions of hostile men with a gun.  Effectively, they are strengthening the argument FOR increased gun control by their insistence that it is appropriate to murder someone for a parking lot scuffle or throwing popcorn in a movie theatre.  If they constantly fear for their life, these shooters should never have a gun.  Cowards.


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 28, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> Arrogance abounds. It is not something that should be punished by death.


Qft. Life is not so cheap.


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 28, 2018)

Hoot N Annie said:


> What is disturbing is the fact that we have a few otherwise good men on here (and on other forums) that are defending the cowardly actions of hostile men with a gun.  Effectively, they are strengthening the argument FOR increased gun control by their insistence that it is appropriate to murder someone for a parking lot scuffle or throwing popcorn in a movie theatre.  If they constantly fear for their life, these shooters should never have a gun.  Cowards.


Thank you for your insight.


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 28, 2018)

The gf said in an interview that Drejka was yelling, cursing, and told her to "move her f'ing car".
The video shows several people going in/out of the store looking at the scene.  If he had just been "talking" a witness would not have gone into the store to alert McGlockton.

Something else...Yes, I _KNOW _handicapped spaces are for handicapped drivers, no...I've never parked in a handicapped spot,  and yes, there were empty spaces where victim & gf could have parked, but if a handicapped person had pulled up they could also have used one of those empty spaces.  The store parking lot wasn't busy. Did Drejka had a handicapped passenger or was he disabled himself?  NO. He could have taken a photo of vehicle & plates and reported to police...but then he wouldn't haven been able to shout, curse, and use his gun. :whome:


----------



## rgp (Jul 28, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> Arrogance abounds. It is not something that should be punished by death.




Exactly right....and it wasn't . Death was the end result of an assault . Arrogance was the state of mind that set the scenario in motion, that lead the scenario to assault .....ending in death.


----------



## rgp (Jul 28, 2018)

Hoot N Annie said:


> What is disturbing is the fact that we have a few otherwise good men on here (and on other forums) that are defending the cowardly actions of hostile men with a gun.  Effectively, they are strengthening the argument FOR increased gun control by their insistence that it is appropriate to murder someone for a parking lot scuffle or throwing popcorn in a movie theatre.  If they constantly fear for their life, these shooters should never have a gun.  Cowards.




  "Effectively, they are strengthening the argument FOR increased gun control by their insistence that it is appropriate to murder someone for a parking lot scuffle or throwing popcorn in a movie theatre."

 To equate the two , is woefully irresponsible & just plain wrong. 

 The parking lot scenario was not a 'scuffle' ending in murder. It was a physical assault ending in self defense , and tragically a death.


----------



## Sunny (Jul 28, 2018)

So, let me get this straight...  if a bully with a gun goes up to an unarmed person and verbally attacks him (or his girlfriend), and that unarmed person has an arrogant attitude, that justifies murdering him? The murder victim" set the scenario in motion"  so it was all his fault?


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 28, 2018)

rgp said:


> "Effectively, they are strengthening the argument FOR increased gun control by their insistence that it is appropriate to murder someone for a parking lot scuffle or throwing popcorn in a movie theatre."
> 
> To equate the two , is woefully irresponsible & just plain wrong.
> 
> The parking lot scenario was not a 'scuffle' ending in murder. It was a physical assault ending in self defense , and tragically a death.



Self defense?  I will never buy that argument.  One guy with a gun and the other one unarmed? Surely you jest.


----------



## Buckeye (Jul 28, 2018)

rgp said:


> "Effectively, they are strengthening the argument FOR increased gun control by their insistence that it is appropriate to murder someone for a parking lot scuffle or throwing popcorn in a movie theatre."
> 
> To equate the two , is woefully irresponsible & just plain wrong.
> 
> The parking lot scenario was not a 'scuffle' ending in murder. It was a physical assault ending in self defense , and tragically a death.



The two incidents are alike  - coward with a gun initiates a confrontation, gets into a scuffle, shoots an innocent man.  Claims "I feared for my life".  Coward.   And there's no need for you to keep proving my point.  We all know you support the coward who shot a man who was just protecting his girlfriend from a bully.


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 28, 2018)

I think the silence among some re the intimidation factor around an irate male yelling and swearing at a woman is quite telling. I am sure she was frightened. Who wouldn’t be given the level of often lethal violence towards women? Nothing she did merited those tactics. Any man worth his salt would wish to protect his girlfriend from such, my fiancé certainly would, particularly if he believed my life was in jeopardy.


----------



## Knight (Jul 28, 2018)

There has been a variety of derogatory posts about Mr.Michael Drejka ignored by those favoring excusing the violent attack on Mr. Michael Drejka.  Race was brought in at one time as a motive for what took place. No proof of that just speculation. But posting that the driver is an unmarried mother of 3 did which is fact, not derogatory has some exposing their own feelings about un married mothers as something immoral.


Cause or root cause another point that is easy to understand but isn't by those that want to excuse ignorant people that don't care about the reason for handicapped parking. 


Simply stated, RCA is a tool designed to help identify not only what and how an event occurred, but also why it happened. Only when investigators are able to determine why an event or failure occurred will they be able to specify workable corrective measures that prevent future events of the type observed. 
https://www.env.nm.gov/aqb/Proposed...ibit_18-Root_Cause_Analysis_for_Beginners.pdf


The video in the ops post #1. is pretty clear about how verbal went to a violent physical attack. Protecting could have taken the form of telling the mother of the 3 kids to stay in the car while he QUESTIONED what was going on. Didn't happen and the video is clear on that. 


RGP emotions rather than facts rule here but it's good to know there are others like you that like facts. Use of a gun to defend doesn't automatically mean intent to kill as far to many seem to think. Pointing and shooting towards center mass to prevent further harm makes sense to me.


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 28, 2018)

The renowned psychiatrist R.D. Laing wrote a marvelous book, “Knots,” detailing the convoluted  thought processes  human beings often utilise while interacting with each other. This thread stands as a fine example of such.


----------



## Buckeye (Jul 28, 2018)

Knight said:


> There has been a variety of derogatory posts about Mr.Michael Drejka ignored by those favoring excusing the violent attack on Mr. Michael Drejka.  Race was brought in at one time as a motive for what took place. No proof of that just speculation. But posting that the driver is an unmarried mother of 3 did which is fact, not derogatory has some exposing their own feelings about un married mothers as something immoral.
> 
> 
> Cause or root cause another point that is easy to understand but isn't by those that want to excuse ignorant people that don't care about the reason for handicapped parking.
> ...



Well, it's late and I have had enough wine to waste my time responding to this nonsensical post.  Yes, we all understand that you too are defending the murder of an unarmed man over a parking lot scuffle. You're with the coward.  We get it.  

"Violent attack"?  lol - I had two older brothers and I got beat up every day far worse than the shooter did as per the video, but I never shot either one of them.  Root cause?  Simple, it was the shooter who was looking for a confrontation, as is his wont.  I suppose you would be okay with someone verbally assaulting your wife over a parking issue.  As for the unwed mother of three reference, it was clearly not meant as a compliment.   As for your RCP link, I doubt it was meant to be used as a tool for criminal investigation and is utterly meaningless as such.  And as for facts vs emotion, the facts are NOT on your side.  The shooter took aim and killed a man, who was backing away, in cold blood.  The shooter may or may not be prosecuted given it took place in Florida.  But, go ahead, continue to spout off on here, supporting the coward who pulled the trigger. 

p.s. - and for the record, handicapped parking is not holy, sacred ground.  It's just a parking spot.  Using it improperly is not a capital offense.


----------



## StarSong (Jul 29, 2018)

Hoot N Annie said:


> Well, it's late and I have had enough wine to waste my time responding to this nonsensical post.  Yes, we all understand that you too are defending the murder of an unarmed man over a parking lot scuffle. You're with the coward.  We get it.
> 
> "Violent attack"?  lol - I had two older brothers and I got beat up every day far worse than the shooter did as per the video, but I never shot either one of them. * Root cause?  Simple, it was the shooter who was looking for a confrontation, as is his wont*.  I suppose you would be okay with someone verbally assaulting your wife over a parking issue.  As for the unwed mother of three reference, it was clearly not meant as a compliment.   As for your RCP link, I doubt it was meant to be used as a tool for criminal investigation and is utterly meaningless as such.  And as for facts vs emotion, the facts are NOT on your side.  The shooter took aim and killed a man, who was backing away, in cold blood.  The shooter may or may not be prosecuted given it took place in Florida.  But, go ahead, continue to spout off on here, supporting the coward who pulled the trigger.
> 
> p.s. - *and for the record, handicapped parking is not holy, sacred ground.  It's just a parking spot.  Using it improperly is not a capital offense.*



Exactly.  The elephant in the room is that the shooter is white and the victim (and his family), black.  Not saying race was the shooter's prime motivation nor that it necessarily influenced whether to arrest the shooter, but this would likely have spun out far differently (at least by the news and in the public eye) had the unarmed family been white and the pistol-packing shooter been black, Hispanic or Muslim.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 29, 2018)

Notice that's it's always two men and a woman is involved in this type of violent settings over a trivial matter.


----------



## Sunny (Jul 29, 2018)

rgp, listen to yourself!  "Arrogance was the state of mind that set the scenario in motion"... "It was a physical assault ending in self defense , and tragically a death."

Can you possibly really believe all this nonsense?  An armed man with an itchy trigger finger needlessly goes up to a car and starts screaming at the woman behind the wheel, possibly threatening her (someone went into the store and apparently told her boyfriend that she was in danger, so he came running out, as most people would do), and HE set the scenario in motion by having an arrogant attitude? Why was this even Drejka's business?  Was someone's life being threatened, or someone being physically abused?  It was a parking violation!

About your "self defense" comment, that is so absurd that it is actually funny.  Drajka initiated the whole thing by needlessly going up to a car and interfering in a matter that did not concern him.
He was probably threatening the woman; I can't imagine that his words were issued in a quiet, reasonable manner. So the boyfriend comes to her defense, hits him, and Drajka kills him in "self defense?"  Wow.

Years ago in a sociology class, I remember we read about a study dealing with crime victims. It was a large, broad-range study of all sorts of crime. It found that crimes against white people were prosecuted much more often than crimes against black people. It didn't matter what part of the U.S. it was in; this applied all over the country. The race of the perpetrator didn't matter so much; it was the race of the victim.  This was probably about 50 years ago. Some things never change.


----------



## rgp (Jul 29, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Self defense?  I will never buy that argument.  One guy with a gun and the other one unarmed? Surely you jest.



No, no jest....it was self defense , after he was thrown to the ground.

Unlike others I don not claim to know his state of mind / emotion @ that time . Apparently he felt threatened enough to shoot. 

And so far the investigation seems to support him........


----------



## rgp (Jul 29, 2018)

Sunny said:


> So, let me get this straight...  if a bully with a gun goes up to an unarmed person and verbally attacks him (or his girlfriend), and that unarmed person has an arrogant attitude, that justifies murdering him? The murder victim" set the scenario in motion"  so it was all his fault?



No the arrogant driver set the whole scenario in motion. It escalated fro there .

Had she not shown total disregard fro the law, displayed absolute arrogance in her refusal to move , quite likely none of this would have happened .


----------



## rgp (Jul 29, 2018)

Hoot N Annie said:


> The two incidents are alike  - coward with a gun initiates a confrontation, gets into a scuffle, shoots an innocent man.  Claims "I feared for my life".  Coward.   And there's no need for you to keep proving my point.  We all know you support the coward who shot a man who was just protecting his girlfriend from a bully.



  Wrong...he shot a person in self defense , *protecting himself *, after that very person attacked him.


----------



## Sunny (Jul 29, 2018)

This is Twilight Zone-ish, but a couple of hours after I wrote my note #158, mentioning the disparity in presecuting crimes with black vs. white victims, I picked up today's paper, and there it was, on page 1 ... it hasn't changed at all!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...ack-homicides-arrests/?utm_term=.7f11e47f1c2e


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 29, 2018)

*Florida man charged with murder after another handicapped parking dispute*

https://www.nbc4i.com/news/state-ne...icapped-parking-space-turns-deadly/1331019067

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL (AP) - A South Florida man has been charged with murder after being accused of stabbing another man during a dispute over a handicapped parking spot.

Oswald Zambrano died Thursday, more than 10 days after the confrontation.
The South Florida Sun Sentinel reports that Zambrano was parked in a handicapped spot outside a daycare when Julio Ramos berated him for illegally using the parking spot.

Authorities say Ramos stabbed Zambrano as the argument escalated.
Ramos is charged with second-degree murder.

Another death from a dispute over a handicapped parking spot across the state has put a renewed focus on Florida's "stand your ground law."

In Clearwater Florida, a white man who shot an unarmed black man has not been arrested as authorities determine whether the self-defense law gives him immunity from prosecution.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 29, 2018)

rgp said:


> No, no jest....it was self defense , after he was thrown to the ground.
> 
> Unlike others I don not claim to know his state of mind / emotion @ that time . Apparently he felt threatened enough to shoot.
> 
> And so far the investigation seems to support him........



I know but you have no right to shoot someone if he is not attacking you.  Where was the threat.  Did the guy back off or did he keep coming at him?

So far.  There was a case in Canada that escalated into a confrontation.  The guy kept coming after his neighbor even though the guy pulled a weapon and fired it into the air. Then he fired past him.  The guy kept coming and it was not his property line.  Then he tried to hit him in the arm or the shoulder and the guy was hit in the chest.  

He went to court and the jury decided to drop the charge of first degree murder.  See the difference?

Once again two guys and a female.


----------



## rgp (Jul 29, 2018)

Sunny said:


> rgp, listen to yourself!  "Arrogance was the state of mind that set the scenario in motion"... "It was a physical assault ending in self defense , and tragically a death."
> 
> Can you possibly really believe all this nonsense?  An armed man with an itchy trigger finger needlessly goes up to a car and starts screaming at the woman behind the wheel, possibly threatening her (someone went into the store and apparently told her boyfriend that she was in danger, so he came running out, as most people would do), and HE set the scenario in motion by having an arrogant attitude? Why was this even Drejka's business?  Was someone's life being threatened, or someone being physically abused?  It was a parking violation!
> 
> ...




   " An armed man with an itchy trigger "....so your using your mind reading skills once again?

   "needlessly goes up to a car and starts screaming at the woman behind the wheel,"..........So *you* decide need ? is that in every issue? or just this one ?

"possibly threatening her"........So you assume the worse was said?


  "So the boyfriend comes to her defense, hits him, and Drajka kills him in "self defense?" Wow."

  Yes when someone hit you , it is time to defend yourself...Mr, Drajka did just that.


IMO, your last paragraph has no bearing on this case.

Is this an attempt by *you* to turn this into a racial issue?


----------



## rgp (Jul 29, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> I know but you have no right to shoot someone if he is not attacking you.  Where was the threat.  Did the guy back off or did he keep coming at him?
> 
> So far.  There was a case in Canada that escalated into a confrontation.  The guy kept coming after his neighbor even though the guy pulled a weapon and fired it into the air. Then he fired past him.  The guy kept coming and it was not his property line.  Then he tried to hit him in the arm or the shoulder and the guy was hit in the chest.
> 
> ...



"I know but you have no right to shoot someone if he is not attacking you."

  He was attacking Drajka , he threw him to the ground...and in states where SYG prevails , one does have a right to shoot. 

 I can't read that man's [Drajka] mind...I do not know when or to what degree he felt threatened. But it appears the investigation by the authorities supports his action. 

We live under our state of law, not under the state of my opinion. But in this case they seem to be one in the same.


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 29, 2018)

> Where was the threat. Did the guy back off or did he keep coming at him?



McGlockton backed up - it's right there on the video.  Then, Drejka shot him.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 29, 2018)

rgp said:


> "I know but you have no right to shoot someone if he is not attacking you."
> 
> He was attacking Drajka , he threw him to the ground...and in states where SYG prevails , one does have a right to shoot.
> 
> ...



No he did not continue attacking. That's the difference you don't understand. There was no threat to his life. Has there been an investigation ?


----------



## applecruncher (Jul 29, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> No he did not continue attacking. That's the difference you don't understand. There was no threat to his life.* Has there been an investigation* ?



Investigation is currently going on.


----------



## AprilT (Jul 29, 2018)

Again, shooter, threatened,  Rich Kelly, I believe his name is say, store owner says he did the displayed same thing, guy in video says shooter even called this guys job threatening to kill him, hopefully they can verify that call and if true, that's just more proof of intent.  In the frame in the video you can see McGlockton stop and turning away.  You can slow down the video with the button on the bottom right left of the youtube words.  better video in the second link.






Funny how legal minds can see who was in the wrong at the final moments.  Again, go to the button and where it says settings you can slow the video down.


----------



## Butterfly (Jul 29, 2018)

Well, from watching the video it appears to me that the victim was backing  up and heg begun to turn away when he was shot.  In my mind that should negate the protection of SYG.  In my state we don't have SYG, but we do have healthy self-defense laws and here self-defense doesn't fly if the victim is retreating.  Here there was a fairly recent case on that very issue and the appellate courts so ruled.


----------



## rgp (Jul 29, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> No he did not continue attacking. That's the difference you don't understand. There was no threat to his life. Has there been an investigation ?




No, you apparently do not understand...I never said he [continued] to attack...I said Drajka was attacked. 

    "There was no threat to his life."

 Now you're a mind reader as well?.........If he felt his life was threatened ? It doesn't matter what you & or I think. The stand your ground component in the law says he had a right to shoot. Don't like that ? Work to change the law...for the next incident. 

This case has been & is being investigated . So far the investigation supports Drajka's action.


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Jul 29, 2018)

Knight said:


> I read the article and watched the video. What is factually known. A person was illegally parked, a concerned citizen confronted the person, the person doing the confronting was attacked, the attacker was shot and died, the law in Florida favors the shooter.
> 
> 
> I might seem callous by not being swayed by the inclusion of the man shot was a father of 3, or that the shooter had other confrontations. Take the emotion out and it comes down to but for parking illegally and staying parked when during the confrontation pointing out that spaces were available this would not have happened.
> ...


The "attacker" as you call him was walking away when he was shot...so HOW was he a threat?!! That's some BS!!


----------



## rgp (Jul 29, 2018)

OneEyedDiva said:


> The "attacker" as you call him was walking away when he was shot...so HOW was he a threat?!! That's some BS!!




   Monday morning quarterbacking is so easy.....

  So you have a better perception of the threat from where you are?...days later, than he did, in the heat of the moment, in the moment. ?


----------



## Knight (Jul 30, 2018)

U.S.
Minneapolis police shooting: No charges to be filed against officers in death of Thurman Blevins
No charges are expected to be filed against the officers involved in a fatal police shooting in Minneapolis, according to a statement from the county attorney.


According to the statement, Thurman Blevins allegedly ignored multiple commands to show his hands, took a gun out of his pocket and turned toward the officers in the June incident.
"Mr. Blevins represented a danger to the lives of" the officers, thereby making the shooting "authorized" under state law, Hennepin County attorney Mike Freeman said in a statement.A longer statement put out by the county attorney's office stated that witness testimony, body camera footage and forensic testing proved that Blevins had a gun in his hand.


The two officers fired a total of 14 shots, with four hitting Blevins, according to authorities.
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/minneapol...black-man-070108023--abc-news-topstories.html 

How could this be  relevant to the shooting in the parking lot in Florida? 

The video has no audio so no way to know what was said if anything by Markeis McGlockton while Michael Drejka, was on the ground. Still close enough even if backing up to re position to do something is possible, but not a fact. Adrenaline and the heat of the moment are part of this. I'm not a mind reader so if Michael Drejka believed McGlockton was still a threat it's up to the state to prove that isn't true. 

What is interesting to me  "two officers fired a total of 14 shots, with four hitting Blevins"

14 shots from trained police officers and 4 hitting Blevins. The state will have to prove intent to kill or some lesser charge which could be difficult. Shooting once towards center mass doesn't translate to Michael Drejka, wanting to kill. Would Michael Drejka, claiming he shot to deter being attacked again and killed  be unreasonable  to claim ?
It will be interesting to find out what the state determines. Hopefully the op will follow up.

The sequence of events has a start point, that point was parking illegally. Tragic for sure over an ignorant driver setting in motion the series of events, that escalated to Markeis McGlockton ending up dead.


----------



## RadishRose (Aug 13, 2018)

[h=1]Florida 'stand your ground' shooter Michael Drejka charged with manslaughter[/h]
https://abcnews.go.com/US/shooter-florida-stand-ground-case-charged-manslaughter/story?id=57151343

Michael Drejka, 48, was arrested Monday morning in the fatal shooting in  July of Markeis McGlockton in Clearwater, Florida -- an incident that  was caught on video which sparked an uproar after its release.


----------



## StarSong (Aug 13, 2018)

RadishRose said:


> *Florida 'stand your ground' shooter Michael Drejka charged with manslaughter*
> 
> 
> https://abcnews.go.com/US/shooter-florida-stand-ground-case-charged-manslaughter/story?id=57151343
> ...



Yay!  Thank you for the update!


----------



## rgp (Aug 13, 2018)

StarSong said:


> Yay!  Thank you for the update!




Boo!...hope he is cleared of all charges!


----------



## Sunny (Aug 13, 2018)

Sounds an awful lot like the case where George Zimmerman was "threatened" by an unarmed black kid, Trayvon Martin, who had the nerve to be walking in his neighborhood, so he shot and killed him.  He got off, too. And later got in more trouble with the law. I think this loose cannon is still roaming free.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 13, 2018)

:applause2:

(CNN)Michael Drejka, who fatally shot Markeis McGlockton after McGlockton shoved him in a Clearwater, Florida, convenience store parking lot, has been charged with manslaughter, the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office said Monday.

"Consistent with the decision-making process established under Florida law in this case, the State Attorney conducted his review and decided to charge Drejka with manslaughter," Sheriff Bob Gualtieri said in a news release.

Drejka, 47, was arrested Monday morning and booked into Pinellas County Jail. His bail is set at $100,000, the sheriff's office said.

His first court appearance is set for Tuesday afternoon.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/13/us/stand-your-ground-florida-shooting-charges/index.html


----------



## Camper6 (Aug 13, 2018)

rgp said:


> "I know but you have no right to shoot someone if he is not attacking you."
> 
> He was attacking Drajka , he threw him to the ground...and in states where SYG prevails , one does have a right to shoot.
> 
> ...



The guy was backing away when he was shot.


----------



## Camper6 (Aug 13, 2018)

rgp said:


> Boo!...hope he is cleared of all charges!



Let justice be served.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 13, 2018)

Michael Drejka


----------



## rgp (Aug 13, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Let justice be served.




Indeed, by clearing him of all charges..


----------



## AprilT (Aug 13, 2018)

Let's just hope he will be sentence to sit in prison.


----------



## fmdog44 (Aug 13, 2018)

What does this have to do with anything? He got assaulted and shot the gangster to save his own life. NOT GUILTY


----------



## fmdog44 (Aug 13, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> The guy was backing away when he was shot.



So what? He got what he deserved.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 13, 2018)

Drejka is the poster child for stand-your-ground gone bad. He literally spends his spare time stalking handicapped spots, while armed, hoping for a confrontation. He's a danger to society and needs to be off the streets. Relentlessly berating people while armed is the height of irresponsibility. He was actively looking to shoot someone, and his quick draw shows he wasn't injured or stunned by the shove.  McGlockton retreated and backed up but Drejka choose to shoot him, and he shot to kill not wound.


----------



## StarSong (Aug 13, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> Drejka is the poster child for stand-your-ground gone bad. He literally spends his spare time stalking handicapped spots, while armed, hoping for a confrontation. He's a danger to society and needs to be off the streets. Relentlessly berating people while armed is the height of irresponsibility. He was actively looking to shoot someone, and his quick draw shows he wasn't injured or stunned by the shove.  McGlockton retreated and backed up but Drejka choose to shoot him, and he shot to kill not wound.



Precisely.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 14, 2018)

Drejka threatened people 3 different times before shooting incident

_(CNN)The man charged with manslaughter after shooting another man in a Clearwater, Florida, convenience store parking lot has a history of threatening drivers, according to documents from the Pinellas County Circuit Court.......................

Court documents show that the July incident wasn't the first time Drejka aggressively confronted drivers over parking spots or what he perceived to be traffic infractions. In one incident, he caused a traffic accident by "brake checking" a car behind him, according to reports._

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/14/us/florida-stand-your-ground-previous-incidents/index.html


----------



## Camper6 (Aug 14, 2018)

fmdog44 said:


> So what? He got what he deserved.



I think he 'deserved' a lot less than death.


----------



## rgp (Aug 14, 2018)

If you're going to shoot?...You do not shoot to wound...you shoot to kill. 

It is taught in the military, in police work, and every shooting class I'm aware of.


----------



## Camper6 (Aug 14, 2018)

rgp said:


> If you're going to shoot?...You do not shoot to wound...you shoot to kill.
> 
> It is taught in the military, in police work, and every shooting class I'm aware of.



That's bad advice for civilians. It can cost you a stay in jail.


----------



## Knight (Aug 14, 2018)

The justice system is working the way it is supposed to. I'm curious about what others think about why so much national attention is being paid to this case. 


Are the 346 homicides so far this year in Chicago so common place it's not newsworthy. 


A really good web site that has a list of names, gender, age, & race of the homicides in Chicago. 
https://graphics.suntimes.com/homicides/


Why are those lives lost not as important? 


I'll probably get flak for this but here goes anyway.
If the verdict comes back not guilty will history repeat by riots & looting?


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 14, 2018)

Kind of a silly question...

Cyrstal ball or ouija board?  :yawning:


----------



## RadishRose (Aug 14, 2018)

Hopefully not.   I don't see this as a race issue at all. I think Drejka is guilty so far.


----------



## RadishRose (Aug 14, 2018)

Knight said:


> The justice system is working the way it is supposed to. I'm curious about what others think about why so much national attention is being paid to this case.
> 
> 
> Are the 346 homicides so far this year in Chicago so common place it's not newsworthy.
> ...



Omg, the list of the murdered victims is overwhelmingly black! They're killing each other; so terrible.
Why?


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 14, 2018)

Radish Rose, please stick to topic.
If you want to discuss killings in Chicago within races you need to start another thread.
And good luck with that.

Knight's post has no relevance whatsoever to the topic.  NONE.

This thread is about the Drejka shooting in Florida.


----------



## rgp (Aug 14, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> That's bad advice for civilians. It can cost you a stay in jail.




I didn't note it as advise...I said it is what is taught.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 14, 2018)

Back to topic...

I'm guessing one reason for the manslaughter charge is that it's much easier to make a case for manslaughter than for murder.  Maybe they learned something from the Zimmerman fiasco.

Also interesting how lots of SYG supporters are backpedaling.

Weeks ago when this was initially discussed, many SYG people made the key issue that SYG simply has to do with any time you feel endangered - regardless of who starts the confrontation (Drejka). They even turned a blind eye to the obvious evidence that McGlockton was backing up when he was shot. The threat of bodily harm to the shooter was over before Drejka pulled the trigger. 

But now that he is being charged, they change their tune to "well, the ACTUAL confrontation is between McGlockton and Drejka, therefore McGlockton started the confrontation." Got to love it. Really. You know what Drejka could have done? He had MANY times when he could have taken a path that did not involve killing a man:


----------



## rgp (Aug 14, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> Radish Rose, please stick to topic.
> If you want to discuss killings in Chicago within races you need to start another thread.
> And good luck with that.
> 
> ...





The news media & a few folks on certain forums made it about race. So IMO R/R is right on point. Only the location differs. 

It's always a big deal / news story, when a white guy or a cop shoots a black guy. But barely a whisper when black guys shoot other black guys. {_Example last weekend in Chicago}....60+ _​such shootings occurred!


----------



## Knight (Aug 14, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> Radish Rose, please stick to topic.
> If you want to discuss killings in Chicago within races you need to start another thread.
> And good luck with that.
> 
> ...


 I did ask why this particular death was more important than the massive amount of deaths in Chicago. No opinion on why this death is more important?


----------



## RadishRose (Aug 14, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> Radish Rose, please stick to topic.
> If you want to discuss killings in Chicago within races you need to start another thread.
> And good luck with that.
> 
> ...



No, I don't really care to start a topic on that at this time, but maybe later.. I know what this this thread is about, Boss! My post to Knights link was my gut reaction as I guess you have figured.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 14, 2018)

Hmmm.

Maybe a couple people are upset about Drejka being arrested and charged, so they're tossing in some racial flames to try to get the thread locked.

:whome:


----------



## RadishRose (Aug 14, 2018)

Knight, to answer your question- it's not more important. ALL wrongful deaths are important. There's lots of press on others. There are just so many, sadly.


----------



## rgp (Aug 14, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> Maybe a couple people are upset about Drejka being arrested and charged, so they're tossing in some racial flames to try to get the thread locked.
> 
> :whome:




 The racial component was introduced long before his arrest...And it was the old _& getting very tired ,_white guy shoots black guy angle.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 14, 2018)

Drejka initiated the confrontation by approaching gf sitting in her car and screaming so loudly that a witness alerted McGlockton. In the video Drejka can be seen waving his hand making a gesture at the woman.

Some want to start the clock with the shove but they can't do that. The clock for this episode starts earlier...and for the perps actions starts weeks and months beforehand with violent threats, brandishing his gun, etc.


----------



## rgp (Aug 14, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> Drejka initiated bthe confrontation by approaching gf sitting in her car and screaming so loudly that a witness alerted McGlockton.
> 
> You can't start the clock at the shove. The clock for this episode starts earlier...and for the perps actions starts weeks and months beforehand with violent threats, etc.




Exactly correct....the clock started when the self serving, arrogant driver parked in the *handicapped *parking space!


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 14, 2018)

Bail remains at $100,000.
Drejka says he can't afford his own attorney.
Judge sets conditions.

http://www.wsaz.com/content/news/Ba...-man-charged-in-fatal-shooting-490847821.html


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 14, 2018)

I think this trial will be interesting, to say the least.

I'd like to hear what the witnesses said, since we don't know from the video.  Obviously their statements were taken into account when the decision was made to arrest and charge Drejka.

And, in the article I posted earlier (#190) he pulled a gun on a woman with children in her car in a school zone! He pulled a gun on teenagers for stopping at a yellow light!  A month prior to the incident he threatened ti kill another guy in that same parking lot,  Drejka was a powder keg waiting to go off.

"Concern for the handicapped"?     Riiiiight.


----------



## rgp (Aug 14, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> I think this trial will be interesting, to say the least.
> 
> I'd like to hear what the witnesses said, since we don't know from the video.  Obviously their statements were taken into account when the decision was made to arrest and charge Drejka.
> 
> ...




   You post this ...........


_Radish Rose, please stick to topic._
_If you want to discuss killings in Chicago within races you need to start another thread._
_And good luck with that.

_Then you post this...

And, in the article I posted earlier (#190) he pulled a gun on a woman with children in her car in a school zone! He pulled a gun on teenagers for stopping at a yellow light! A month prior to the incident he threatened ti kill another guy in that same parking lot, Drejka was a powder keg waiting to go off.

_This thread is about the Drejka shooting in Florida.

_So....it's OK for you to go off topic?...But no one else?


----------



## Butterfly (Aug 14, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> Drejka initiated the confrontation by approaching gf sitting in her car and screaming so loudly that a witness alerted McGlockton. In the video Drejka can be seen waving his hand making a gesture at the woman.
> 
> Some want to start the clock with the shove but they can't do that. The clock for this episode starts earlier...and for the perps actions starts weeks and months beforehand with violent threats, brandishing his gun, etc.



I agree with you April.  The incident started with Drejka verbally attacking the woman over a parking place, which was none of his business in the first place.  Private citizens do not have the right to patrol parking lots berating others over their parking, whether in a legal space or not.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 14, 2018)

@ Butterfly
I'm applecruncher.


----------



## Knight (Aug 14, 2018)

A





RadishRose said:


> Knight, to answer your question- it's not more important. ALL wrongful deaths are important. There's lots of press on others. There are just so many, sadly.


The judicial system will sort this out. Will the SYG defense work to aquit him? We'll have to wait. 

The video shows a driver being approached in a car. The person approaching for whatever reason has a dislike of people parking in a handicapped space when they don't have a legal reason to. The 1st. few seconds the person approaching checks for a valid plate or placard. Next is pointing out open spaces for non handicapped. How it got to shouting only mind readers know.  I am not a mind reader, wasn't there, didn't hear the driver apologize for being ignorant. 
Next is the driver getting out of the car and some man approaching and attacking the man concerned with illegal parking. It's all downhill from there. 

From the video point & shoot towards center mass is what I see. Taking time to position to aim isn't there for me. Shooting towards center mass doesn't automatically mean death. will be the result. Stopping the threat to additional harm is the reason for shooting towards the large part of the body. Was there additional threat? Could a verbal threat & backing up to reposition to cause further harm be the reason? I don't know because I wasn't there & there was no sound on the video. What I do know is instead of standing between the girfriend & asking what the problem was, an immediate physical assault took place. 
As you pointed out 

there's lots of press on others. 
I condensed the article. 
U.S.
Fla. Mom-of-3 Fatally Shot While Ordering Breakfast at Drive-Thru — and Suspect Is on the Loose
A Florida mom of three young sons was fatally shot while ordering breakfast at a McDonald’s drive-thru Friday, PEOPLE confirms.
Jamie Marie Roque, of Jacksonville, was fatally shot Friday morning, a Jacksonville County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson tells PEOPLE.

Roque was the mother of three boys, two of whom had autism, a relative told the Florida Times-Union.
The gunman, described by witnesses as a heavyset African American man, fled the scene in a white four-door vehicle heading east on Baymeadows Road.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fla-mom-3-fatally-shot-212833825.html

Is this less because the SYG defense isn't part of the crime? 

IMO SYG is national news because SYG is controversial. This & another case may have an effect on the Florida SYG law.


----------



## RadishRose (Aug 14, 2018)

Knight, I see what you mean, but I really don't know, myself.


----------



## StarSong (Aug 15, 2018)

Unfortunately, people being shot and killed in the US is so commonplace that it's a borderline cliche.  Only distinguishing circumstances (like SYG) now make a gun killing newsworthy in this country.
What a sad statement.


----------



## Sunny (Aug 15, 2018)

Unfortunately true StarSong.  Here's the latest doozy of a story:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/649ecc97-8eb5-3caa-94e2-75907e07e436/arizona-dad-‘killed-man-who.html


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 15, 2018)

Someone started a GoFundMe for Drejka's bail - it collected *$236* _before it was taken down._

But...GoFundMe for McGlockton family is currently at *$7,500.*

https://www.wfla.com/news/pinellas-...arts-go-fund-me-for-michael-drejka/1369304792


----------



## RadishRose (Aug 15, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Unfortunately true StarSong.  Here's the latest doozy of a story:
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/649ecc97-8eb5-3caa-94e2-75907e07e436/arizona-dad-‘killed-man-who.html



Oh, it' a doozy alright.  But it doesn't seem like a SYG type crime. Wasn't it after the fact?


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 15, 2018)

RR is right - not a SYG issue.
How does it relate to the Drejka case?


----------



## Sunny (Aug 15, 2018)

It relates to StarSong's comment about how commonplace shootings have become in the U.S.

Yesterday's paper had an article about charges being brought in the Drejka shooting. It pinpointed the SYG law as being a large cause of the trouble, and talked about how the Drajka case had revived debate about SYG.


----------



## StarSong (Aug 15, 2018)

Far too many Americans live their daily lives half a step away from full blown rage.  And a whole lot of them feel entitled to be armed to the teeth 24-7.  What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## AprilT (Aug 15, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> RR is right - not a SYG issue.
> How does it relate to the Drejka case?



Maybe it's he's black man committing a crime?  Otherwise, I don't get it either or I could pull up tons of shooting cases that really match the actual subject matter without quesion.  I'm as confused.

Better yet, I can post any random thing that could have ended up applying


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 15, 2018)

@ AprilT

Yes, that's my point.

There's a lot of anger & rage, and too many people are getting killed.  I think we all know that.
But, while I realize some people make understandable observations about guns, rage, race, etc. I just prefer not to have this discussion wander into a general discussion about killings. This discussion is supposed to be about the Drejka/McGlockton shooting. There are plenty of things to say about that specific incident.


----------



## Butterfly (Aug 15, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> @ Butterfly
> I'm applecruncher.



I'm sorry -- I guess I wasn't watching what I was doing.    Anyway, I agree strongly with you.


----------



## Butterfly (Aug 15, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> Someone started a GoFundMe for Drejka's bail - it collected *$236* _before it was taken down._
> 
> But...GoFundMe for McGlockton family is currently at *$7,500.*
> 
> https://www.wfla.com/news/pinellas-...arts-go-fund-me-for-michael-drejka/1369304792



IMHO Drejka doesn't deserve to be out on bail.  He is a danger to the public.


----------



## StarSong (Aug 15, 2018)

My apologies.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 15, 2018)

Butterfly said:


> IMHO Drejka doesn't deserve to be out on bail.  He is a danger to the public.



He's still in jail, which is exactly where he needs to be.
Obviously neither he nor anyone he's related to/associated with can come up with $10k in cash or assets.  His supporters (online and offline) have given new meaning to the phrase "Talk is cheap".

Hmmm  :whome:


----------



## Knight (Aug 16, 2018)

Confusing wanting the legal system to perform the way it is supposed to with support for  Drejka.


This began with a video of a man confronting a driver that was illegally parked. It ended with that man being attacked and shooting towards his attacker. The real crux of this is is the SYG law as his defense. Is that law going to be what acquits him or will the state prove he wasn't in fear of his life?  We'll have to wait for that answer.


Would this have happened if the driver apologized for parking illegally and moved the car to one of the open spaces that were pointed out? Or is ignorance and no respect for the needs of the handicapped excuseable?


----------



## Camper6 (Aug 16, 2018)

Since the spot was taken while the man went into the store what is the point.

For the point to sink in all that has to be done is take the license number and report it.

A fine might help in the future.  

But in any case it's not worth a life.


----------



## Sunny (Aug 16, 2018)

True, but I very much doubt that Drejka was really all that concerned with the parking problems of the handicapped. That was his excuse; he was clearly looking for a fight.


----------



## Sunny (Aug 16, 2018)

> There's a lot of anger & rage, and too many people are getting killed.  I think we all know that.
> But, while I realize some people make understandable observations about  guns, rage, race, etc. I just prefer not to have this discussion wander  into a general discussion about killings. This discussion is supposed to  be about the Drejka/McGlockton shooting. There are plenty of things to say about that specific incident.



Applecruncher, so you really believe you can keep any discussion strictly on the topic that you prefer?  Lots of luck with that!


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 16, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Applecruncher, so you really believe you can keep any discussion strictly on the topic that you prefer?  Lots of luck with that!



I don't see it as an issue.of my beliefs and preferences. Anybody can talk about anything.  However, since the forum is organized so that members can start a discussion by giving a thread a title, most people respect that by posting thoughts, opinions, and information relating to the subject. It's not that complicated, Sunny, and I'm not going to bat the issue back and forth ad nauseum.


----------



## Knight (Aug 16, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Applecruncher, so you really believe you can keep any discussion strictly on the topic that you prefer? Lots of luck with that!




Sunny you rightly point out any topic is about expression of opinions. Not everyone bobs their head up & down in agreement. Adding information in their own way opens the door for more input. Ignoring input that doesn't conform to a persons way of thinking says more about that person than it does about the poster that doesn't toe the line of thinking. The popular line of thinking in this thread is confronting a person parked illegally was wrong for standing up for the handicapped. That kind of thinking can be extended to ignoring a child being abducted and ignoring it. Or any number of sceanarios that involve  a citizen getting involved. 


A decent caring person would not park in a handicapped spot. A decent person would apologize and move their car to an open space when confronted about why they parked in a space set aside for the handicapped.  I'll ask again.
Would this death have happened if the driver had parked legally? Or moved when it was pointed out that legal spaces were available? 


Definitely unfortunate that death resulted from ignorance on the part of the driver.


Now it's up to the state to prove that the SYG law was not a valid reason to shoot to stop an aggressor that attacked. The state has to weigh the emotional aggression [verbal confrontation] against the [impulsive aggression] that was the attack. Then prove that under the SYG law there was no fear that further harm wasn't possible.


----------



## Sunny (Aug 16, 2018)

Here's part of Wikipedia's description of the STG law:



> In Dawkins v. State  the court describes "[T]he 'stand your ground' law... provide that a  person has a right to expect absolute safety in a place they have a  right to be, and may use deadly force to repel an intruder... for a  person to be justified in using deadly force, the person must not be  'engaged in unlawful activity".[SUP][1][/SUP]




So the emphasis seems to be on the place, rather than the situation. Clearly, it was designed to protect people from intruders in their own home, and it completely ignores the reason or justification for using deadly force. So this ridiculous law protects loose cannons like Drejka, who go around clearly looking for excuses for a fight, and are the initiators of the trouble, just because they are in a place where they have a legal right to be?  Makes no sense!

Maybe the law could be amended to protect people only in their own homes.


----------



## rgp (Aug 16, 2018)

Knight said:


> Confusing wanting the legal system to perform the way it is supposed to with support for  Drejka.
> 
> 
> This began with a video of a man confronting a driver that was illegally parked. It ended with that man being attacked and shooting towards his attacker. The real crux of this is is the SYG law as his defense. Is that law going to be what acquits him or will the state prove he wasn't in fear of his life?  We'll have to wait for that answer.
> ...




   Exactly, and I'll note a fine point you presented.

    "will the state prove he wasn't in fear of his life?"

 How in the world can we the people or the state 'prove' anyone's emotional state? IMO it is impossible . He reacted to the threat, under the states SYG law, and was a licensed CCW holder. Did he 'over-react' ? I do not know...I wasn't there. And again, who is qualified to & how do we determine such a thing? 

 As for....

 "Would this have happened if the driver apologized for parking illegally and moved the car to one of the open spaces that were pointed out?"

 Not likely.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 16, 2018)

Drejka's court appointed lawyer says it's too early to decide if they're going to use SYG defense.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna901136 ok


----------



## rgp (Aug 16, 2018)

Sounds allot like a local case , where a 13 yr/old black kid, shot & killed a 14 yr/old black kid... This too happened in a parking lot. Something about one kid taking the other kid's drug dealing space. Stared with an argument, and then escalated from there.


----------



## rgp (Aug 16, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> @ AprilT
> 
> Yes, that's my point.
> 
> ...



The thread title mentions no names, or a particular state. 

 It merely says....

 "Fatal shooting-argument in parking lot"


----------



## Knight (Aug 16, 2018)

rgp said:


> The thread title mentions no names, or a particular state.
> 
> It merely says....
> 
> "Fatal shooting-argument in parking lot"



Geeze rgp citing facts again  LOL

Emotions rule for some, not facts


----------



## rgp (Aug 16, 2018)

Knight said:


> Geeze rgp citing facts again  LOL
> 
> Emotions rule for some, not facts




   <grin>


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 16, 2018)

I haven't seen any mention of Drejka having a wife/gf/kids.  One would think supportive relatives and friends would be helping him make bail or at least speaking out - if they exist.

Also nothing about a job/career or income.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 16, 2018)

error


----------



## Sunny (Aug 16, 2018)

> How in the world can we the people or the state 'prove' anyone's emotional state? IMO it is impossible.



I agree, rgp. And therein lies the problem.  Anyone shooting anyone else for whatever reason can always say they feared for their life. And how can anyone argue with that?

Someone who is armed, and who initiated the conflict in the first place, should not have any reason to fear for his life against an unarmed man, even if he comes on swinging with both fists. That's why I think
SYG is a terrible law.


----------



## Camper6 (Aug 16, 2018)

Sunny said:


> I agree, rgp. And therein lies the problem.  Anyone shooting anyone else for whatever reason can always say they feared for their life. And how can anyone argue with that?
> 
> Someone who is armed, and who initiated the conflict in the first place, should not have any reason to fear for his life against an unarmed man, even if he comes on swinging with both fists. That's why I think
> SYG is a terrible law.



I think concealed carry is a terrible law.  If the gun was exposed I doubt there would have been any kind of argument.

How can you argue that he feared for his life?

You can't.  The jury will determine whether they believe you or not after reviewing the evidence.

So before you start shooting be prepared for a day in court.


----------



## StarSong (Aug 16, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> *I think concealed carry is a terrible law.  If the gun was exposed I doubt there would have been any kind of argument.
> *
> How can you argue that he feared for his life?
> 
> ...



I completely agree, Camper.


----------



## rgp (Aug 16, 2018)

Sunny said:


> I agree, rgp. And therein lies the problem.  Anyone shooting anyone else for whatever reason can always say they feared for their life. And how can anyone argue with that?
> 
> Someone who is armed, and who initiated the conflict in the first place, should not have any reason to fear for his life against an unarmed man, even if he comes on swinging with both fists. That's why I think
> SYG is a terrible law.




Well, I do agree with the first part, yes of course they could be lying, but again how do we know?

Here I disagree........."and who initiated the conflict in the first place,"

He didn't initiate the conflict, the driver did...then the BF escalated it, then etc,etc.


----------



## rgp (Aug 16, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> I think concealed carry is a terrible law.  If the gun was exposed I doubt there would have been any kind of argument.
> 
> How can you argue that he feared for his life?
> 
> ...




I actually in large part agree here. 

I think if we are going to 'carry'? Have them right on our hip for the world to see.

But then there is the hassle problem from ?? Like the lady in a local restaurant , who called the police because this guy was carrying open. Yes I was there, heard every word. It all checked out, he was legal, etc...but still....hassle.


----------



## Knight (Aug 16, 2018)

Sunny said:


> I agree, rgp. And therein lies the problem. Anyone shooting anyone else for whatever reason can always say they feared for their life. And how can anyone argue with that?
> 
> 
> Someone who is armed, and who initiated the conflict in the first place, should not have any reason to fear for his life against an unarmed man, even if he comes on swinging with both fists. That's why I think
> SYG is a terrible law.




What conflict? Pointing out open parking spaces after checking both front & rear for a plate and checking the mirror & dash board for a placard IMO doesn't constitute initiating a conflict. Being ignorant and not moving & without audio it's not possible to know what was said by the driver. 


For sure the video depicts battery. Intent for further harm? Again no audio so no way to know. I have admitted I like the thought a citizen would speak up and say something to ignorant people about parking in spaces set aside for handicapped people. Minor as this  was the intent to have ignorant people be aware their actions are wrong is the right thing to do. 
Zero doubt the SYG law is not perfect. This incident may be the catalyst for review & change.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 16, 2018)

Knight said:


> What conflict? Pointing out open parking spaces after checking both front & rear for a plate and checking the mirror & dash board for a placard IMO doesn't constitute initiating a conflict. Being ignorant and not moving & without audio *it's not possible to know what was said by the driver. *
> 
> 
> For sure the video depicts battery. Intent for further harm? Again no audio so no way to know. I have admitted I like the thought a citizen would speak up and say something to ignorant people about parking in spaces set aside for handicapped people. Minor as this  was the intent to have ignorant people be aware their actions are wrong is the right thing to do.
> Zero doubt the SYG law is not perfect. This incident may be the catalyst for review & change.



Wrong.

Drejka was yelling and cursing, told the woman to move her f'kin car...this is backed up by witnesses, one of whom went to get McGlockton. Drejka can be seen on the video gesturing.

I know you want to paint Drejka as a polite citizen who cares about the handicapped , but it's not gonna fly.  Not here, and not in court.


----------



## rgp (Aug 16, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Drejka was yelling and cursing, told the woman to move her f'kin car...this is backed up by witnesses, one of whom went to get McGlockton. Drejka can be seen on the video gesturing.
> 
> I know you want to paint Drejka as a polite citizen who cares about the handicapped , but it's not gonna fly.  Not here, and not in court.



Wrong!....every police officer / investigator will tell you , an eye witness is just about the most unreliable evidence there is.

In a criminal case, if I didn't see it, or hear it, it didn't happen.


----------



## StarSong (Aug 16, 2018)

rgp said:


> Wrong!....every police officer / investigator will tell you , an eye witness is just about the most unreliable evidence there is.
> 
> In a criminal case, if I didn't see it, or hear it, it didn't happen.



The video feed shows him to be making such a spectacle of himself that people entering and exiting the store were clearly stopping to take notice of him.  It appears that the cameras corroborate the witness statements.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 16, 2018)

rgp said:


> Exactly, and I'll note a fine point you presented.
> 
> "will the state prove he wasn't in fear of his life?"
> 
> How in the world can we the people or the state 'prove' anyone's emotional state? IMO it is impossible . He reacted to the threat, under the states SYG law, and was a licensed CCW holder. Did he 'over-react' ? I do not know...I wasn't there. And again, who is qualified to & how do we determine such a thing?



If any law stands or falls on something that cannot be proved nor disproved, then it is surely bad law because it is meaningless.


----------



## hearlady (Aug 16, 2018)

I just watched the video on youtube. 
This case will be debated and tried and settled however I can't get past the fact that that little boy watched his dad die in front of him in that store. My heart is broken for him.


----------



## rgp (Aug 16, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> If any law stands or falls on something that cannot be proved nor disproved, then it is surely bad law because it is meaningless.




OK, that's your opinion, But!...the law was in place at the time of the incident. If you or others oppose the law?...Then there is a system in place to set about changing it. We cannot just ignore it, or set it aside because we 'wish' it didn't apply....In this case it surely is meaningful.


----------



## rgp (Aug 16, 2018)

hearlady said:


> I just watched the video on youtube.
> This case will be debated and tried and settled however I can't get past the fact that that little boy watched his dad die in front of him in that store. My heart is broken for him.




Tragic for sure. Let me ask this, how do you feel about him being 'brought-up' by parents that display ignorance, arrogance, & no respect for the law? Not to mention a total disregard for the special needs of those so, so, less fortunate ?


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 16, 2018)

*CLEARWATER, Fla. --* Officials, in court documents, have cited three other drivers who said Michael Drejka threatened them during confrontations that preceded his parking lot run-in with Markeis McGlockton -- a case that revived debate over Florida's "stand-your-ground" law. Two of them said he displayed a gun. 

A black man who drives a septic truck told Pinellas Sheriff's Detective George Moffett that he parked in the same handicapped-accessible spot three months before McGlockton's July 19 videotaped shooting, the court documents show. The man said Drejka, 48, began yelling at him and said he would shoot him. 

The driver said he left, but as he pulled away, Drejka shouted racial slurs. The man's boss told Detective Moffett that Drejka later called, telling him "that he was lucky he didn't blow his employee's head off." 

In separate 2012 cases, drivers reported that Drejka waved a gun at them during road rage confrontations. In both cases, officers stopped Drejka and found a gun in his car, but he denied showing it to the other drivers. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stand-...say-michael-drejka-had-confrontations-before/


----------



## rgp (Aug 16, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> *CLEARWATER, Fla. --* Officials, in court documents, have cited three other drivers who said Michael Drejka threatened them during confrontations that preceded his parking lot run-in with Markeis McGlockton -- a case that revived debate over Florida's "stand-your-ground" law. Two of them said he displayed a gun.
> 
> A black man who drives a septic truck told Pinellas Sheriff's Detective George Moffett that he parked in the same handicapped-accessible spot three months before McGlockton's July 19 videotaped shooting, the court documents show. The man said Drejka, 48, began yelling at him and said he would shoot him.
> 
> ...




   All hearsay...why were  these incidences not reported at the time they reportedly happened ?

 Besides, they have no baring on this case.

 Perhaps we should stick to the facts surrounding this case.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 16, 2018)

^^Haha!
Perhaps you should read the parts that say all incidents WERE reported at the time they happened and police became involved.

They do have a "bearing" on the current case.

Nice try.  :whome:


----------



## rgp (Aug 17, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> ^^Haha!
> Perhaps you should read the parts that say all incidents WERE reported at the time they happened and police became involved.
> 
> They do have a "bearing" on the current case.
> ...





  Really?...how did they know it was Drejka ? Did he announce his name as he was doing this? I doubt it. Is it on video? Just because someone says it was the same man , doesn't make it so. Again, eye witness unreliability .


----------



## Sunny (Aug 17, 2018)

The police reports say that it was Drejka. Without sufficient evidence, the prosecution would never bring manslaughter charges.  Or do you believe that there is a worldwide conspiracy against Michael Drejka, who shot and killed an unarmed man in full public view, captured on video for all to see?  There really were lots of other people who looked exactly like Drejka, creating nearly identical incidents? Or all those other people who witnessed him creating similar incidents prior to this one, are simply lying?

If you really believe this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn... but I have a feeling you just like to argue.


----------



## rgp (Aug 17, 2018)

Sunny said:


> The police reports say that it was Drejka. Without sufficient evidence, the prosecution would never bring manslaughter charges.  Or do you believe that there is a worldwide conspiracy against Michael Drejka, who shot and killed an unarmed man in full public view, captured on video for all to see?  There really were lots of other people who looked exactly like Drejka, creating nearly identical incidents? Or all those other people who witnessed him creating similar incidents prior to this one, are simply lying?
> 
> If you really believe this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn... but I have a feeling you just like to argue.




The police reports say it was Drejka in *this incident*........

 Who says it was him in the others  that were noted? Where is the proof in those cases? Without it, it is hearsay.


----------



## hearlady (Aug 17, 2018)

Rpg, I don't feel good about any of it and like I said it's hard to get past that picture of a kid watching his dad die. That doesn't mean I think it's ok to park in handicapped spots.


----------



## rgp (Aug 17, 2018)

hearlady said:


> Rpg, I don't feel good about any of it and like I said it's hard to get past that picture of a kid watching his dad die. That doesn't mean I think it's ok to park in handicapped spots.




LOL!!...here we go again...it's RGP......

Anyway once again, tragic as that is!...that does not make him guilty under the laws in place & on the book, at the time of the incident.

From here it is just a matter of opinion, as to what [say] a juror will see on that video. And how said juror interpret's it.

We here on S/F are divided on whether he should have been arrested & charged. Well the same is true @ the professional level. At the beginning the Sheriff decided not to arrest, after sometime, the local prosecutor decided he should be arrested. That is why I say it is so important to take / keep emotion out of it, and stick to the facts , provided by proof .

Frankly, I'm not real pleased with the conflict between the sheriff & the prosecutor. In our system, the arresting authority is supposed to be law enforcement, [the police] then they build a case & present it to the prosecutor, the prosecutor ponders the evidence then decides whether to continue to charges & arraignment . 

In this case it sounds too me like the prosecutor may have overstepped his position, bowing to public pressure. 

Would you want to be prosecuted on _my_ emotion / opinion? 

What's next, a prosecutor handing out tickets for traffic offences ?


----------



## Knight (Aug 17, 2018)

A couple of points. 


For hearlady. McGlockton didn't die in front of his son. He ran into the store,collapsed and died later in the hospital. That doesn't diminish the fact the child lost his father, only makes a factual correction. 

Two road incidents that happened in 2012, no charges filed & nothing since doesn't suggest a pattern of violence. 3 months before this. A black man according to the article was approached and drove away. Nothing but words no violence. That man drove away unlike the driver that didn't move to the open spaces that were clearly visible. 

Manslaughter is the charge. In the video McGlockton came out and immediately assaulted Drejka, McGlockton didn't stop to question what was going on. 
From the web site applecruncher provided.
Video of the July incident showed McGlockton leaving the store and shoving Drejka to the ground. Seconds later, Drejka pulled a handgun and shot McGlockton as he backed away. McGlockton then ran back into the store clutching his chest. Witnesses said he collapsed in front of young Markeis, who was waiting inside. McGlockton later died at a nearby hospital.
the lawyer added a racial element.
Quote
"All of America is watching Clearwater, Florida to see if there will be equal justice for Markeis McGlockton ... If the facts were in reverse, nobody would doubt what the outcome would be." 
True America is watching but poorly informed on what a charge of manslaughter involves. I think the family lawer understands the unprovoked assault by McGlockton weighs in favor of Drejka.


Quote
"They understand when you look at the history of the state of Florida and stand your ground that this doesn't equal a conviction."
Provocation is a key element.
 McGlockton was told apart from what was taking place he wasn't directly provoked by Drejka. 

IMO it's cases like this where a law is put in place with good intent. Tweeking it as unforseen situations arise are why America is watching.


----------



## Falcon (Aug 17, 2018)

Hey  Gang.                          Facts=Things that have happened.

Lets  face it..........If that  stupid  driver  hadn't  parked  illegally,  None of this other stuff  wouldn't  have  taken  place !  I'm  referring to the woman driver.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 17, 2018)

“Woman driver?”


----------



## Falcon (Aug 17, 2018)

Yes,  The  WOMAN  who was parked  illegally.  She's the one to which  I'm referring.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 17, 2018)

Prosecutors say Drejka initiated the confrontation.  They're right.

Some people are tripping all over themselves looking for someone to blame other than Michael Drejka.

_Blame the woman who parked in handicap spot.
Blame the owners of the store for having a business in that location.
Blame it on the Bossa Nova.

_One person is to blame for the death of McGlockton:  *Michael Drejka.*  He shot him.


----------



## rgp (Aug 17, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> Prosecutors say Drejka initiated the confrontation.  They're right.
> 
> Some people are tripping all over themselves looking for someone other to blame than Michael Drejka.
> 
> ...




  Wrong!....it all started with the woman parking in the handicapped spot....That cannot be denied , I don't care what the prosecutor says.

 As Falcon already noted , it started there, had she not, none of this would even be, being discussed.


----------



## Knight (Aug 17, 2018)

rgp said:


> Wrong!....it all started with the woman parking in the handicapped spot....That cannot be denied , I don't care what the prosecutor says.
> 
> As Falcon already noted , it started there, had she not, none of this would even be, being discussed.


Remember wayyyyy back when I brought up root cause.?
The most basic reason this all would have not happened. 
If the woman driver had parked in one of the open spaces none of what took place would have taken place. 
Those hell bent on making this about what took place and ending in the death of McGlockton can't deny that. Or maybe they would and be wrong, but they have the right to deny reality.


----------



## rgp (Aug 17, 2018)

Knight said:


> Remember wayyyyy back when I brought up root cause.?
> The most basic reason this all would have not happened.
> If the woman driver had parked in one of the open spaces none of what took place would have taken place.
> Those hell bent on making this about what took place and ending in the death of McGlockton can't deny that. Or maybe they would and be wrong, but they have the right to deny reality.




 Agreed....Most deniers are operating on emotion only. Anyone that denies reality should really be a concern to all.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 17, 2018)

There is a long chain of events here. Plenty of sliding doors to consider.

Had not the car been parked in a disabled space, the outcome would have been different
Had not Drejka decided to berate the driver, had he minded his own business, the outcome would have been different.
Had the bystander not decided to alert McGlockton of the situation in the car park, the outcome could have been different.
Had McGlockton not rushed outside to defend his family, the outcome could have been different.
Had he not shoved Dreika, the outcome could have been different.
Has Dreika not fallen to the ground, the outcome could have been different.
Had Dreika not been armed, the outcome could have been different.
Had McGlockton been armed, the outcome could have been different.

All of the above are hypotheticals. They did not happen.

What did happen is that an argument about misuse of a parking space set aside for handicapped drivers led to the death of a man.
The shooter is relying on the SYG statute. He may be right, but the matter must be tested in court, otherwise there will be many more deaths like this by people who choose to provoke arguments with intent to shoot someone.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Aug 17, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> What did happen is that an argument about misuse of a parking space set aside for handicapped drivers led to the death of a man.
> The shooter is relying on the SYG statute. He may be right, but the matter must be tested in court, otherwise there will be many more deaths like this* by people who choose to provoke arguments with intent to shoot someone.*



IMO it is an inflammatory stretch of what took place to say that there was ever an intent to shoot someone.

The fact is that Drejka did not pull out a weapon until he was assaulted by McGlockton.

IMO McGlockton had no right to put his hands on Drejka during what was up to that point a petty verbal confrontation.

This incident more than any other makes me think of this quote:

_"Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."_ - Malcolm X


----------



## hearlady (Aug 17, 2018)

Sorry rgp. Such little letters, such bad eyes.

Yes, knight, I saw that after the fact that McGlocktin died at the hospital. Thank you for correcting.

I


----------



## hearlady (Aug 17, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> There is a long chain of events here. Plenty of sliding doors to consider.
> 
> Had not the car been parked in a disabled space, the outcome would have been different
> Had not Drejka decided to berate the driver, had he minded his own business, the outcome would have been different.
> ...


Well said, Warrigal.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 17, 2018)

> _"Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."_ - Malcolm X



Since I was a child I was taught to scream my lungs out if anyone attempted to grab me off the street.  And run away.
At no time was I taught to return violence with more violence.

I did once shriek loudly when a pick pocket team stole my wallet in Paris. 
People came to my aid and I got my wallet back. 
No-one died. Not even the would-be thieves.

All I am trying to say is that it is possible to go about daily activities without resorting to dealing death.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Aug 17, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> All I am trying to say is that it is possible to go about daily activities without resorting to dealing death.



I agree with you 100% but I also believe that if you put your hands on another person you have to be ready for whatever comes your way.


----------



## AprilT (Aug 17, 2018)

Aunt Bea said:


> IMO it is an inflammatory stretch of what took place to say that there was ever an intent to shoot someone.
> 
> The fact is that Drejka did not pull out a weapon until he was assaulted by McGlockton.
> 
> ...


 
Are you seriously using the quote of Malcolm X whom at the time was a radical thinking Muslim who believed whites were genetically engineered devils.  We have really started to start reaching deep to find quotes from black people to support this racist killer.  

Malcolm was one of my heroes, not due to his radical thinking, he went through a transformation from hate speech and the like of which I'm sure many don't have a clue about. The changes were part of the reason for his assassination and that quote would not be something he would want referenced to him in this abdominal situation.   Very shameful to use this man like this.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Aug 17, 2018)

AprilT said:


> Are you seriously using the quote of Malcolm X whom at the time was a radical thinking Muslim who believed whites were genetically engineered devils. We have really started to start reaching deep to find quotes from black people to support this racist killer.
> 
> Malcolm was one of my heroes, not due to his radical thinking, he went through a transformation from hate speech and the like of which I'm sure many don't have a clue about. The changes were part of the reason for his assassination and that quote would not be something he would want referenced to him in this abdominal situation. Very shameful to use this man like this.



I don't understand why different ideas and opinions are so threatening to you, go ahead attack me if it makes you feel better.


----------



## RadishRose (Aug 17, 2018)

Why does Drejka have to be a racist because he shot McGlockton? Why can't he just be a crackpot without racist dragged in?

*That never entered my mind* until reading here. Is there something I don't know that proves he's a racist?

Otherwise I'm sick of this constant form of thinking and starting to wonder who all the racists are getting to be.

Blast away, I'm done.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 17, 2018)

Aunt Bea said:


> I agree with you 100% but I also believe that if you put your hands on another person you have to be ready for whatever comes your way.


As a Canuck, I find this way of thinking extremely foreign. No disrespect intended.


----------



## AprilT (Aug 17, 2018)

Aunt Bea said:


> I don't understand why different ideas and opinions are so threatening to you, go ahead attack me if it makes you feel better.



Nothing threatening nor unique in the way the ideas are being used here.  Call it an attack if you like, just pointing the ridiculousness of the guise.  Call it what you wish though, I'm use to the mentality floating about here.


----------



## AprilT (Aug 17, 2018)

RadishRose said:


> Why does Drejka have to be a racist because he shot McGlockton? Why can't he just be a crackpot without racist dragged in?
> 
> *That never entered my mind* until reading here. Is there something I don't know that proves he's a racist?
> 
> ...



Probably because in many of the news articles it was reported he used the N word and tended to stalk black to make threats against.  I don't know, that seems to have a lot to do with it.  But it's fine if people want to ignore this.  It's easy to dismiss when you grow up in a world that doesn't constantly use your race against you for various reasons.  I'm sure it's nice.  
From one of many stories 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stand-...say-michael-drejka-had-confrontations-before/

"A black man who drives a septic truck told Pinellas Sheriff's  Detective George Moffett that he parked in the same  handicapped-accessible spot three months before McGlockton's July 19  videotaped shooting, the court documents show. The man said Drejka, 48,  began yelling at him and said he would shoot him. 

T*he driver said  he left, but as he pulled away, Drejka shouted racial slurs*. *The man's  boss told Detective Moffett that Drejka later called, telling him "that  he was lucky he didn't blow his employee's head off*." 

In separate  2012 cases, drivers reported that Drejka waved a gun at them during  road rage confrontations. In both cases, officers stopped Drejka and  found a gun in his car, but he denied showing it to the other drivers. "

==================================================================

As long as we don't have to think about those people alls good in the  neighborhood is the feeling I get from so many.  I'm remembering why I  stopped hanging around here.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Aug 17, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> As a Canuck, I find this way of thinking extremely foreign. No disrespect intended.



None taken.


----------



## rgp (Aug 17, 2018)

AprilT said:


> Are you seriously using the quote of Malcolm X whom at the time was a radical thinking Muslim who believed whites were genetically engineered devils.  We have really started to start reaching deep to find quotes from black people to support this racist killer.
> 
> Malcolm was one of my heroes, not due to his radical thinking, he went through a transformation from hate speech and the like of which I'm sure many don't have a clue about. The changes were part of the reason for his assassination and that quote would not be something he would want referenced to him in this abdominal situation.   Very shameful to use this man like this.




   So you are the one that chooses who get's quoted & by whom? And in what scenario it is used ?

  "that quote would not be something he would want referenced to him in this abdominal situation." 

  He as well doesn't get to choose which statement of his is quoted or under what situation it is used. Do not want to be quoted?....remain silent.

  "abdominal situation." 

 This caused an upset stomach?


----------



## Butterfly (Aug 18, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> Prosecutors say Drejka initiated the confrontation.  They're right.
> 
> Some people are tripping all over themselves looking for someone to blame other than Michael Drejka.
> 
> ...



I strongly agree.  

Where the car was parked was none of Dreka's business -- he was not law enforcement, or the landowner, or a handicapped person needing the space.  He imagined himself as some sort of self-appointed parking vigilante, and probably was (I'm not sure how Florida would see it) trespassing -- I believe I read that Drejka had made trouble in the same parking lot before and the store owner had chased him off.

As private citizens we don't have the right to go around trying to make others conform to the law.  If the parking problem annoyed Drejka, the proper thing for him to do would have been to report it to the authorities and let them rightfully deal with it.  He had no authority whatsoever over the parking lot or people in it and had no business berating that woman about her parking.  The fact that she was parked in a handicap spot didn't make it his business.


----------



## hearlady (Aug 18, 2018)

Although I don't blame the woman for her boyfriend's death her parking illegally set off a chain of events that led to his death. Actions have consequences.  You can't ignore that.
She made it her business to park illegally. The consequences of that action were tragic. Should her boyfriend have died. No but based on that chain if events he did.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 18, 2018)

Butterfly said:


> I strongly agree.
> 
> Where the car was parked was none of Dreka's business -- he was not law enforcement, or the landowner, or a handicapped person needing the space.  He imagined himself as some sort of self-appointed parking vigilante, and probably was (I'm not sure how Florida would see it) trespassing -- I believe I read that Drejka had made trouble in the same parking lot before and the store owner had chased him off.
> 
> As private citizens we don't have the right to go around trying to make others conform to the law.  If the parking problem annoyed Drejka, the proper thing for him to do would have been to report it to the authorities and let them rightfully deal with it.  He had no authority whatsoever over the parking lot or people in it and had no business berating that woman about her parking.  The fact that she was parked in a handicap spot didn't make it his business.


I concur.


----------



## Gary O' (Aug 18, 2018)

Butterfly said:


> I strongly agree.
> 
> Where the car was parked was none of Dreka's business -- he was not law enforcement, or the landowner, or a handicapped person needing the space.  He imagined himself as some sort of self-appointed parking vigilante, and probably was (I'm not sure how Florida would see it) trespassing -- I believe I read that Drejka had made trouble in the same parking lot before and the store owner had chased him off.
> 
> As private citizens we don't have the right to go around trying to make others conform to the law.  If the parking problem annoyed Drejka, the proper thing for him to do would have been to report it to the authorities and let them rightfully deal with it.  He had no authority whatsoever over the parking lot or people in it and had no business berating that woman about her parking.  The fact that she was parked in a handicap spot didn't make it his business.



Yep
He's a loaded gun all my himself, whether he is carrying or not


----------



## IKE (Aug 18, 2018)

Mistakes were made on both sides.......Drejka had no business acting like the "handicapped parking lot police" but by the same token McGlockton had no reason to storm up like a thug and push him to the pavement when all he had to do was walk up to Drejka and yell, "hey man WTF is the problem ?" and try to solve the problem verbally.

When away from home *I always, always* carry a concealed gun and I'll be totally up front......if I'm having a verbal altercation with someone and a person comes charging out of nowhere, blindsides me and knocks me to the pavement I'm definitely pulling my weapon to avoid any further physical harm.

After I pull my weapon and I see the unarmed threat retreating (like in this case) would I fire ?.......no.


----------



## Gary O' (Aug 18, 2018)

IKE said:


> Mistakes were made on both sides.......Drejka had no business acting like the "handicapped parking lot police" but by the same token McGlockton had no reason to storm up like a thug and push him to the pavement when all he had to do was walk up to Drejka and yell, "hey man WTF is the problem ?" and try to solve the problem verbally.
> 
> When away from home *I always, always* carry a concealed gun and I'll be totally up front......if I'm having a verbal altercation with someone and a person comes charging out of nowhere, blindsides me and knocks me to the pavement I'm definitely pulling my weapon to avoid any further physical harm.
> 
> *After I pull my weapon and I see the unarmed threat retreating (like in this case) would I fire ?.......no*.


and there it is


----------



## StarSong (Aug 18, 2018)

IKE said:


> Mistakes were made on both sides.......Drejka had no business acting like the "handicapped parking lot police" but by the same token McGlockton had no reason to storm up like a thug and push him to the pavement when all he had to do was walk up to Drejka and yell, "hey man WTF is the problem ?" and try to solve the problem verbally.
> 
> When away from home *I always, always* carry a concealed gun and I'll be totally up front......if I'm having a verbal altercation with someone and a person comes charging out of nowhere, blindsides me and knocks me to the pavement I'm definitely pulling my weapon to avoid any further physical harm.
> 
> After I pull my weapon and I see the unarmed threat retreating (like in this case) would I fire ?.......no.



It seems to me that when someone is carrying a concealed lethal weapon it is incumbent on that person to deescalate a situation rather than ratchet it up.  Drejka was the only one in this situation who KNEW the stakes were life-or-death; McGlockton certainly did not.  

I agree with Butterfly's comments.^^^  The US needs gun-toting self-appointed parking enforcement sheriffs like it needs a flu pandemic.


----------



## hearlady (Aug 18, 2018)

Gary O' said:


> and there it is


Yes. I understand pulling the weapon but saw no reason to fire at that point.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 18, 2018)

Apologies for being off topic, but would gun carrying Americans feel unsafe in Canadian cities where such is prohibited? I was reluctant to post a whole thread on this in case it appeared inflammatory. I am not attempting to debate relative merits of differing laws in our two countries, just curious if some might feel vulnerable.


----------



## IKE (Aug 18, 2018)

If I was in Canada (or anywhere else) and it was legal for me to carry a weapon I would.

Just because guns are supposedly illegal in Canada it doesn't mean that bad guys still don't have access to guns as well as knives, screwdrivers, bats etc......it makes no difference to me if a bad guy is attempting to shoot, stab or club me to death I want to be protected.

Gun crimes still happen in Canada (see link)


https://nationalpost.com/news/as-to...-canadian-gun-crime-spiralling-out-of-control


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 18, 2018)

I think I was not clear re the point of my post. Very difficult to get a concealed handgun permit in Canada unless one is in law enforcement, military, etc. That pertains to my question re possible feelings of vulnerability.


----------



## rgp (Aug 18, 2018)

hearlady said:


> Yes. I understand pulling the weapon but saw no reason to fire at that point.




  Problem is....you weren't there, you weren't under the threat, perceived or real, none of us felt what Drejka did. There is no way in hell we can assess Drejka's emotion/fear in that moment.

And in that moment he responded to the threat in a manner permitted under the laws of the state in place at that time.


----------



## Sunny (Aug 18, 2018)

> There is no way in hell we can assess Drejka's emotion/fear in that moment.
> 
> And in that moment he responded to the threat in a manner permitted under the laws of the state in place at that time.



Yes, and that's exactly the trouble. If his response to being pushed was permitted by the laws of the state at that time, to begin with.

Of course, no one can assess anyone else's emotion/fear about anything.  That's why there is something very, very wrong about permitting people to shoot other people because they felt "afraid."  There are
some people who walk around in a state of panic all the time. Would you want one of those people armed, and standing near you or one of your loved ones?  They might decide that you have a scary face, or
looked at them in a threatening way, even though your thoughts were a thousand miles away and you didn't even notice them.


----------



## Camper6 (Aug 18, 2018)

IKE said:


> If I was in Canada (or anywhere else) and it was legal for me to carry a weapon I would.
> 
> Just because guns are supposedly illegal in Canada it doesn't mean that bad guys still don't have access to guns as well as knives, screwdrivers, bats etc......it makes no difference to me if a bad guy is attempting to shoot, stab or club me to death I want to be protected.
> 
> ...



I will take my chances against knives, screwdrivers, bats, etc.

I can outrun all of those but I can't outrun a bullet.

Biggest threat to Canadians and makes them feel unsafe?

Crossing the street as a pedestrian.

We do have some terrible drivers always in a hurry.  The worst are those making a right hand turn .  They aren't looking for pedestrians, they are looking for oncoming cars.


----------



## rgp (Aug 18, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Yes, and that's exactly the trouble. If his response to being pushed was permitted by the laws of the state at that time, to begin with.
> 
> Of course, no one can assess anyone else's emotion/fear about anything.  That's why there is something very, very wrong about permitting people to shoot other people because they felt "afraid."  There are
> some people who walk around in a state of panic all the time. Would you want one of those people armed, and standing near you or one of your loved ones?  They might decide that you have a scary face, or
> looked at them in a threatening way, even though your thoughts were a thousand miles away and you didn't even notice them.



 So if you are dismayed by it, as it appears , set about changing the law for the future. Attempting to change the rules in the middle of the game is not the way to go.

In a nutshell, the law was in Drejka's favor when the incident took place. 
Had the law been structured as it seems you favor, then there is reason to believe that he may have not carried at all. And perhaps ignored the situation entirely? Again, something we will never know.

   "That's why there is something very, very wrong about permitting people to shoot other people because they felt "afraid." 

   Really?..............you're in say a parking garage, just finished shopping. It's dark/getting dark. The stores are closing, the parking garage is near empty. Just as you finish placing your packages in the car, at close proximity you see two thugs coming toward you, you just know , you just know !...they are up to no good, and mean you harm.
You start to tremble , you fear assault , you fear rape , words are exchanged , they keep coming, you pull your weapon , they stop. Then one & or both of them flinch/move, in your mind, it is starting all over again.......you shoot!


----------



## Sunny (Aug 18, 2018)

Hey, rgp, you've got to stop living in a B movie!

How do you "just know" they are thugs, and they mean you harm?  Your scenario makes my point perfectly. They could be totally innocent men, returning to their own car after doing their own shopping. And now, one of them is dead. (Just like Treyvon Martin.)  And this is justified, because YOU felt afraid?

About changing the law for the future, I am happy to say that I live in a state that does not have that insane SYG law.  I do not have the power to change laws in other states.


----------



## rgp (Aug 18, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Hey, rgp, you've got to stop living in a B movie!
> 
> How do you "just know" they are thugs, and they mean you harm?  Your scenario makes my point perfectly. They could be totally innocent men, returning to their own car after doing their own shopping. And now, one of them is dead. (Just like Treyvon Martin.)  And this is justified, because YOU felt afraid?
> 
> About changing the law for the future, I am happy to say that I live in a state that does not have that insane SYG law.  I do not have the power to change laws in other states.



   You say I don't know, Drejka didn't know, when to be afraid. Yet YOU know these guys are just returning to their car...Interesting. 

   Call it a "B" movie if you like......It happened to someone I know.

 She now carries a weapon....I'm sure if it happens again?....who ever it is will die before he ever touches her. And I will be among the first to contribute to her defense fund should she need it.


BTW....are you always so condescending ?


----------



## rgp (Aug 18, 2018)

Sunny said......

  "About changing the law for the future, I am happy to say that I live in a state that does not have that insane SYG law. I do not have the power to change laws in other states."

   You talk about Drejka minding his own business!?

 The incident happened in Florida, under Florida law .....so how is that any of your business?

 A bit hypocritical don't ya think?... to say he should mind his own business , yet you are sticking your nose in his , from a different state.


----------



## Knight (Aug 18, 2018)

Interesting posts
Camper6 can out run a person with a knife.
Proven that a person with a knife can close a 20ft. space before a person can draw a gun. Given that 20ft. closing, how is turning away a few feet from Drejka a guarantee that repositioning to cause further harm wouldn't have happened. 


Warrigal.
Had not  decided to berate the driver, had he minded his own business, the outcome would have been different.
You posted that in Paris people got involved to help you. You were happy they did. Why is wanting handicapped spaces kept open for handicapped different.


Butterfly
Where the car was parked was none of Dreka's business -- he was not law enforcement, or the landowner, or a handicapped person needing the space. He imagined himself as some sort of self-appointed parking vigilante, and probably was. 
The mind reader at it with knowing what Drejka imagined. Ignoring a wrong works against the common good. I hope the logic of deciding it was none of Dreka's business never extends to people not wanting to get involved when it comes to "see something say something". 


The SYG law favors Drejka. The video posted in #1 favors Drejka. Look up simple assault and what it says about provocation. Words between the driver, no gun, no physical contact, didn't even touch the car. Look at the instant assault on Drejka.


Emotion will be part of what takes place in the courtroom, so will explanation of the law and the facts that are visible.


----------



## Sunny (Aug 18, 2018)

rgp, your last two notes make no sense at all! 

In note #301 YOU suggested that if I don't like the SYG law, I should change it for the future. I was replying to that. I have no power to change any laws that are passed by another state. So, by yelling at me that I am sticking my nose in another state's business, you are arguing with yourself, and agreeing with me. That was exactly my point!

In note #303, you are quoting me as saying something that I never said, then arguing with it. I never said that in your B movie scenario, I would KNOW that those guys were just returning from a shopping trip. Those are your words, not mine. What I said was that they COULD BE returning from a shopping trip. Big difference!

I have to wonder, on what basis do you know they are "thugs" who mean you harm?  Because of race, or some ethnicity you don't like?  Maybe they are wearing clothes that you have decided are offensive, such as a dark-colored hoodie, or a backward baseball cap? Or maybe a t-shirt with a slogan that you find offensive?  Do all those things provide definite proof to you that they are planning to attack you?  Are you really that fearful about other people?

I am a smallish white woman, very much in my "senior years."  I have lived in or near cities most of my life. I have spent plenty of hours in cities at night, usually walking from one place to another. Yet, I have never been robbed, assaulted, or in any way threatened. I cannot imagine having such feelings of fear and hatred toward other people as what you are describing.

Frankly, that SYG law sounds a lot like thinly disguised racism to me. Or maybe it's a syndrome caused by having watched too many John Wayne movies in your youth. Yes, sometimes there are criminal assaults on people. But it sounds to me like an awful lot of these assaults are being committed by the self-appointed vigilantes who, ironically, are using the "fearful" card.


----------



## rgp (Aug 18, 2018)

Sunny said:


> rgp, your last two notes make no sense at all!
> 
> In note #301 YOU suggested that if I don't like the SYG law, I should change it for the future. I was replying to that. I have no power to change any laws that are passed by another state. So, by yelling at me that I am sticking my nose in another state's business, you are arguing with yourself, and agreeing with me. That was exactly my point!
> 
> ...




   "having watched too many John Wayne movies in your youth. Yes, sometimes there are criminal assaults on people. "

   So now you propose to know my TV habits when I was young,  & how it may or my not have effected me?...and of course again there is the condensation...

  "So, by yelling at me that I am sticking my nose in another state's business, "

 I didn't yell at you at all...I merely compared your chastising Drejaka for not minding his business , when you seem perfectly comfortable sticking your nose in his.

 "I would KNOW that those guys were just returning from a shopping trip. Those are your words,"

   You are quite naive....I hope your luck continues to hold.


----------



## fmdog44 (Aug 18, 2018)

Shalimar said:


> I think I was not clear re the point of my post. Very difficult to get a concealed handgun permit in Canada unless one is in law enforcement, military, etc. That pertains to my question re possible feelings of vulnerability.



Just curious, we wake up to the morning news of neighborhood shootings almost every day in big cities. Here's my question to a Canadian, how often are murders reported on your local news? By the way, way back when I worked in your beautiful country on several occasions.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 18, 2018)

Does anyone know what Drejka's job/career is (or was)?
Does he have or ever had a family? Friends?

Seems he doesn't have a pot or window to throw it out of.


----------



## fmdog44 (Aug 18, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> Does anyone know what Drejka's job/career is (or was)?
> Does he have or ever had a family? Friends?
> 
> Seems he doesn't have a pot or window to throw it out of.



It always amazes me how much people know about the lives of complete strangers. "_oh, but I read it on the internet!_"
If that asshole was coming at me I would have shot him* before* he touched me and then we would have an entirely different discussion.


----------



## Knight (Aug 18, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> Does anyone know what Drejka's job/career is (or was)?
> Does he have or ever had a family? Friends?
> 
> Seems he doesn't have a pot or window to throw it out of.


I don't know and don't care.

His personal life has nothing to do with what took place.

But if personal life is of interest.
Why was the mother of 3 children not married to McGlocklun? What kind of job did she or he have? Was that unmarried couple drawing on any form of tax paid assistance? 

How about we all wait until the justice system completes what it is in place to do? They are charged with dealing with the facts not the emotional peripheral issues


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 18, 2018)

fmdog44 said:


> It always amazes me how much people know about the lives of complete strangers. "_oh, but I read it on the internet!_"
> If that asshole was coming at me I would have shot him* before* he touched me and then we would have an entirely different discussion.



Sidestepping...

And what does that have to do with what I asked?
I didn't ask what YOU would do it what amazes you; I couldn't care less.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 18, 2018)

Knight said:


> I don't know and don't care.
> 
> His personal life has nothing to do with what took place.
> 
> ...



Some human beings are of the opinion that shooting an unarmed man is emotional.

Strange that right off the bat you question if McGlockton gf was getting public assistance. Hmmm. If you did some minimal basic research about who gets public assistance you'd be surprised.

Which leads back to the question ... how was Drejka supporting himself?


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 18, 2018)

fmdog44 said:


> Just curious, we wake up to the morning news of neighborhood shootings almost every day in big cities. Here's my question to a Canadian, how often are murders reported on your local news? By the way, way back when I
> 
> worked in your beautiful country on several occasions.



Thanks so much for the compliment. Murders are reported on our local news as soon as information is given to the press. We had 611 murders in Canada in 2016, latest stats I could find, so at present, insufficient killings, 

shootings, or otherwise, to require almost daily reporting. (I was amazed to discover most of our murders take place in prairie cities, not in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, as I expected.)


----------



## AprilT (Aug 18, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> Does anyone know what Drejka's job/career is (or was)?
> Does he have or ever had a family? Friends?
> 
> Seems he doesn't have a pot or window to throw it out of.



I think his job was parking lot monitor and if he didn't have any friends, hopefully he'll soon have some that will be living, dining, showering keeping company day and night.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 18, 2018)

Knight said:


> Warrigal.
> Had not  decided to berate the driver, had he minded his own business, the outcome would have been different.
> You posted that in Paris people got involved to help you. You were happy they did. Why is wanting handicapped spaces kept open for handicapped different.



You have chosen just one of the points I made to postulate that there were many ways that have a better outcome than a man's death. I suggest you reread my entire post to understand my drift.

With regard to my Paris experience, there is a lot of difference. Number one, the theft of my wallet by a couple of pickpockets was a crime. Parking offences, especially in a shopping complex, is a much lower offence. Neither offence is worth anyone being shot to death. 

My husband has a disability sticker and is entitled to part in handicapped spaces. I do not. When I am driving the car the sticker is still displayed but I never take advantage of it for myself because I do appreciate the need to reserve such spaces for the truly disabled. 

Years ago I did have a confrontation with a couple of young women who pulled into a handicapped parking place that I needed for my very disabled, elderly aunt (who had her own sticker). I approached them firmly, stating that I needed the space for my aunt. They demurred saying that they were just ducking into the bank and wouldn't be there very long but I was not put off. Even more insistently I repeated that "I NEED THAT SPACE". They then drove off and I had the space. My point is that a lot depends on how you speak to people. There is no need to be abusive. There is no need to make or imply threats.

Drejka had no valid reason for his verbal abuse. He had no official capacity and did not need the space for himself.
It looks like he was hyped up and looking for a confrontation, knowing that he held an ace in his pocket.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 18, 2018)

If Drejka owned a home or had any assets or decent credit he could have been out of jail relatively quickly. If he had relatives of friends who cared about him, coming up with the bail would not have been a problem, AND those relatives/friends would be speaking out supporting him.

But instead......._crickets.
_
:whome:


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 18, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> If Drejka owned a home or had any assets or decent credit he could have been out of jail relatively quickly. If he had relatives of friends who cared about him, coming up with the bail would not have been a problem, AND those relatives/friends would be speaking out supporting him.
> 
> But instead......._crickets.
> _
> :whome:


Interesting. Usually, there would be support from people close to defendant.


----------



## Butterfly (Aug 18, 2018)

Knight said:


> Interesting posts
> Camper6 can out run a person with a knife.
> Proven that a person with a knife can close a 20ft. space before a person can draw a gun. Given that 20ft. closing, how is turning away a few feet from Drejka a guarantee that repositioning to cause further harm wouldn't have happened.
> 
> ...



We DO know that Drejka wasn't law enforcement, etc., and I do not think what he "imagined" is pertinent.  The fact is that the woman's parking in a parking lot that was not his to control was none of his business.  

As to your "see something, say something" comment -- yes, we are supposed to "say something" to authorities, not take on wrongdoers ourselves.  This was a man verbally taking on a woman over a parking space, not someone trying to intervene in a situation to help someone else being attacked by bad guys.  

The victim pushed Drejka because he believed (others had gone into the store and told him so) that Drejka was acting in a threatening manner towards his girlfriend, who had their children in the car. If anything, the victim had a fear that his family was under threat from Drejka.

No matter had you try to spin it:

     1.  Drejka had no legal right to enforce parking restrictions in that parking lot.

     2.  Drejka verbally assaulted the woman in the car (someone even went in the store to tell the victim that).

     3.  The unarmed victim came out and pushed Drejka away from the car containing his family, either knocking him down or causing him to fall.

     4.  Drejka pulled a weapon.

     5.  The victim was backing away and was not further threatening Drejka as Drejka fatally shot him.


----------



## Butterfly (Aug 18, 2018)

Knight said:


> I don't know and don't care.
> 
> His personal life has nothing to do with what took place.
> 
> ...



I strongly  hope you are not implying that the marital or employment status or whether or not they were receiving government benefits has any bearing on the right or wrong of Drejka's actions.


----------



## Gary O' (Aug 18, 2018)

IKE said:


> After I pull my weapon *and I see the unarmed threat retreating (like in this case) *would I fire ?.......no.



Can we set aside the personal quibbling for a moment and address Ike’s statement?

I haven’t studied the videos/pics

So please help here;
If what Ike sez is true…._*the guy was shot while retreating*_

The shooter is in no way under the umbrella of SYG


It’s murder

Gotta haul his hind end off to his new home


----------



## Knight (Aug 18, 2018)

applecruncher said:


> Some human beings are of the opinion that shooting an unarmed man is emotional.
> 
> Strange that right off the bat you question if McGlockton gf was getting public assistance. Hmmm. If you did some minimal basic research about who gets public assistance you'd be surprised.
> 
> Which leads back to the question ... how was Drejka supporting himself?


To use your lame line. Nice try

The point was personal info has nothing to do with how this will be resolved in the legal system. Do you think the state will bring Drejka's personal life into the procedings?


----------



## n_brown (Aug 18, 2018)

> Drejka is scheduled to make his first court appearance on Tuesday, at which time a judge will review his bond status and decide whether to appoint an attorney for Drejka, or if the defendant can afford to hire his own lawyer.
> 
> 
> If convicted, Drejka faces up to 30 years in prison.



No sympathy for Drejka on my account, he was spoiling for a fight...over a handicap parking spot...give me a break.     some kind of wannabe parking lot cop or???

He made his bed, let him sleep in it.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 18, 2018)

Knight said:


> To use your lame line. Nice try
> 
> The point was personal info has nothing to do with how this will be resolved in the legal system. Do you think the state will bring Drejka's personal life into the procedings?



If you don't know or are embarrassed to answer the question about Drejka's income, it's okay. Don't worry - inability to focus is not a crime.

As far as what will happen at trial, go into your closet and get your crystal ball.


----------



## IKE (Aug 19, 2018)

Gary O' said:


> Can we set aside the personal quibbling for a moment and address Ike’s statement?
> 
> I haven’t studied the videos/pics
> 
> ...




Gary the video plainly shows;

1. McGlockton push Drejka violently to the ground.

2. Drejka pulling and aiming his weapon at McGlockton.

3. McGlockton after seeing the weapon being aimed at him starts backing away.

4. Drejka firing.


----------



## Gary O' (Aug 19, 2018)

Gary O' said:


> Can we set aside the personal quibbling for a moment and address Ike’s statement?
> 
> I haven’t studied the videos/pics
> 
> ...








IKE said:


> Gary the video plainly shows;
> 
> 1. McGlockton push Drejka violently to the ground.
> 
> ...



Well, sir, *that*....should be end of discussion

However

other (personal) agendas seem to have now taken precedence


----------



## Sunny (Aug 19, 2018)

There does seem to be a certain mentality in this country, nearly always among men, who engage in fantasies about themselves as being big, tough heroes protecting the world against the "bad guys."  Actually, they are not heroes at all, they are schoolyard bullies who should have outgrown that nonsense long ago.  And when the bullies are armed and only too eager to start shooting, we have tragedies.

If there are no actual bad guys around, they are happy to make bad guys out of anyone whom they find even mildly annoying: a woman in a car parked in the wrong space... a teenager wearing a hoodie and walking down the street in a neighborhood where he does not live... a teacher he once had who was "mean" to him... the list goes on and on.

The problem with the SYG law is that it enables this sick mentality. Anyone who starts shooting for any reason can wiggle out of criminal responsibility by saying he felt "scared."  If I lived in one of the states with that insane law, I'd be working day and night to try to get it repealed.


----------



## rgp (Aug 19, 2018)

Sunny said....

  "There does seem to be a certain mentality in this country, nearly always among men, who engage in fantasies about themselves as being big, tough heroes protecting the world against the "bad guys." Actually, they are not heroes at all, they are schoolyard bullies who should have outgrown that nonsense long ago. And when the bullies are armed and only too eager to start shooting, we have tragedies."


  Well, since you opened the 'gender-bashing' door..let me add my observances regarding woman.

  They are the ones strolling through life seeing the world through rose colored glasses, due to ignorance unable to see the actual world around them.

 But when life does offer a threat, these are also the folks ready & willing to run to a man to deal with the threat.

 These are also the folks willing & ready to use what ever ****** wares they may possess to get what they can from men, so as to ease their waltz through life.

 So now....since we have , due to *your* lead, completely strayed from the topic & facts of the thread....what's next?


----------

