Florida Parking Lot ‘Stand Your Ground’ Shooter Won’t Be Charged

Florida Parking Lot Shooting Stand Your Ground

courtesy WFLA and youtube.com

A shooting took place Thursday in a convenience store parking lot in Clearwater, Florida. The incident was caught by a security camera.

Michael Drejka, a store regular, was reportedly upset about a vehicle parked in a handicapped space and said something to the woman waiting in the car. He was talking to her when her boyfriend came out of the store.

Surveillance video shows Markeis McGlockton leave the store to defend his girlfriend and shove Drejka hard to the ground.

Drejka then pulls out a gun and shoots McGlockton in the chest.

McGlockton died right in front of his 5-year-old son.

In the video above, after pushing him to the ground, McGlockton backs away when he sees Drejka draw his firearm, a fact that will shed at least some doubt on the level of threat McGlockton presented.

As was endlessly written about during George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting (even though a “stand your ground” defense was never asserted), Florida’s Justifiable Use of Force law imposes no duty to retreat. It reads:

A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

In this case, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri has decided that he won’t be charging Drejka based on the evidence and the language of the “stand your ground” law. He has, however, forwarded the case to prosecutors for review.

Real-time action and reaction are easy to second-guess when reviewed in slow motion. But based on the video evidence, it’s not at all unreasonable to question Drejka’s use of deadly force in this case. Pressure on Bernie McCabe, the State Attorney for Pinellas County, to charge the shooter will be intense. Mr. Drejka will probably need a good attorney.

Is that how you see it?

 

 

comments

  1. avatar jwm says:

    Don’t introduce physical violence into a discussion. If you’re parked illegally and someone brings it to your attention do not get all ‘hoodrat’ on that person.

    You have to live in an isolation chamber to not know that folks are armed. Treat all folks with respect and civility on the street.

    This was a clear case of suicide.

    1. avatar John Boch says:

      I concur. Tough guy thought he could play the big bad wolf against the older, skinny guy. The recipient of his violent, unprovoked attack didn’t cotton to the assault and drew his Roscoe.

      When Mr. Tough guy failed to retreat, he caught a golden BB for his trouble.

      Frankly, we need more of these to let the bullies of the world know that actions can have consequences.

      John

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        I read somewhere the white man is in his forties and he was yelling at a black woman for not having a disability parking permit. People said he does that often.

      2. avatar Matt says:

        John Boch, your comment is off the mark and quite frankly, troublesome coming from a person who writes about and represents concealed carriers. We need more of these to ‘teach’ a lesson?!? We carry to defend our lives and the ones we love, not to teach lessons. I see two bullies in this video. And over a friggin parking spot!

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          NO a hood thug physically ATTACKED another man. Triggering the natural right to self defense and the bro got what he had coming. Stupidity may not be hereditary thought Darwin beat in this instance.

          “girlfriend” my ass – his tramp/shackup/baby momma.

      3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Except the bully did retreat upon presentation of the firearm. He disengaged from the fight and took several steps backward. I agree, but for that gun coming out, he was continuing his forward motion and proceeding to attack the victim further.

        That’s why the threat of lethal force, that is, pointing the firearm at the attacker, was justified. Had the defender fired at that exact moment, I would also agree that the use of lethal force was justified, too, because at that moment the attacker was continuing his attack.

        Instead, he paused and in that time the attacker retreated. Once the attacker retreated, the immediate threat was over and the victim lost the legal right to shoot.

        Note: there is another point I’m considering, though, which may change my mind. I’ll read through the comments and see if anyone has made it already before addressing it, myself.

        1. avatar Fred says:

          But remember WE have the benefit of an objective view that we can replay again and again. The Man who attacked and thrown to the ground had to act on the situation as they saw it. He was just assaulted and was being advanced on. Pretty clean shooting from my view. Sure the guy stepped back after the gun came out but that was too late. He was still advancing on the man until that moment.

        2. avatar doesky2 says:

          If I was on the jury I’d acquit because the violent action preciptated the whole series of events and I do not expect a perfect textbook response by the victim. If there would been another few seconds of backup by the dead dude then it gets dicier. for the shooter.

          A cop would not get thrown in jail for this and that’s now my benchmark. If a cop ain’t gonna get jail time then joe public isn’t either.

        3. avatar Andy says:

          What video are you watching?
          Several steps back?
          Bullshit!
          He got what he deserved for being a Thug!
          If you don’t want to be shot, dont push people around.

        4. avatar Alan Wayne Rose says:

          The shooter may not have perceived the short and aborted retreat. Two steps back and still facing off. My ass would have been making dust. I think the guy was trying to process how to do a run around and continue the assault. And who knows what was being said.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Hardly a case of ‘suicide.’ If everyone that shoved someone got shot, we’d have no overpopulation problems anywhere in the world.

      It would have been suicide if he’d charged at the guy after the gun was presented. That doesn’t appear to be the case.

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        Hardly a case of ‘suicide.’ If everyone that shoved someone got shot, we’d have no overpopulation problems anywhere in the world.

        Either that or a lot less needless shoving people around.

    3. avatar LJPII says:

      I used to be a security guard, and Ive seen many folks become angry at those that park in the handicap spot because THEY think the individual shouldn’t be there, regardless of a tag or not. I don’t know about you, but if I’m parked legally and some weird dude starts screaming at my wife, I’m going to see that as a threat. No reasonable man will confront a woman over something so trivial. My protective instincts would kick in and I would try to end the threat. You claim the “hoodrat” was the threat, but I see some confrontational big mouth who would yell at my wife as the threat. I think this man died for no reason.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        I implied he was acting ‘hoodrat’, not that he was one.

        If someone is yelling at your wife and you physically attack them….. the law is going to cuff you up if you’re still alive when they get there.

        1. avatar What Tripe says:

          Actually, there have been several cases determining that a person is justified in using force where a “reasonable person” would be compelled to a state of extreme anger by the actions of another. These scenarios are very rare, but they have included things like screaming at or threatening children or threatening wives. All that is beside the matter, though. This guy who shot a father of many children is not a hero. Far from it – he is a gigantic p*ssy who is going to meet the long arm of the law before this is over. Oh, you were pushed to the ground. It used to be in the old days that you stood back up and fought like a man, not that you weaseled around on your golf-shorts rear-end and then drew a pistol on an unarmed man. It is shameful to watch people in the concealed carry community defending this. Have we become such a group of pants-filling wimps that we think pistols are needed for everything? This is like that kid on the playground when you are little who brings a knife because everyone is bullying him. Instead of standing up, he resorts to disparate force because inside he is such a weakling. The guy shoved him because his old-man busy-body California-style self-righteousness was out of line. You don’t like them parking there? Call the cops. Tell the store. Screaming at a woman is about the whiniest hipster thing a grown man could do. And then he shot a father over it because he thought he was going to get an *ss-whipping which he needed. What is with a society where everyone thinks it’s their job to ninny-poo over everything? He will catch the law hard over this before it is over. Watch. And they won’t be pushing him down in prison. I mean, without climbing on top of him afterward…

        2. avatar Jeff Hunt says:

          I agree with What Tripe Says wrote. It sppears the man saw the guy threatening his wife. Who wouldn’t step in? The real issue is the concealed carrier shouldn’t carry at all if he’s easily agitated. He instigated the whole situation, and now a man is dead.

        3. avatar DaveL says:

          Actually, there have been several cases determining that a person is justified in using force where a “reasonable person” would be compelled to a state of extreme anger by the actions of another.

          Were any of the in Florida since 2001? Because Florida case laws provides that “provocation”, as it relates to self-defense, explicitly does not include “mere words or conduct without force or the threat of force” (Gibbs v. State, 2001).

        4. avatar Scoutino says:

          @What a Tripe
          I strongly disagree with you. Your moral compass is broken.

        5. avatar MrBwithaMK18 says:

          @What Tripe
          “It used to be in the old days that you stood back up and fought like a man”

          That is what I used to do to until I had to go to court for self defense and almost was charged for a felony which would have costs me a job and the right to carry.

          Other notes include

          1. At the moment telling someone they are a peice of garbage is still legal however assaulting someone is not. The person gave no warning before the assault took place to de-escalate the situation.

          Now as a concealed carrier when I am in a similar situation and see a conflict arising I … as you say “act like a man,” and get the heck out of there so I don’t have to worry about dealing with the cops over a dead hoodlum.

          2. Often I have seen situations like this where things escalate, the person has a weapon, or a group of friends, or pretends to back off only to take a cheap shot…get a nice kick to the head and then tell me how good you are with shot placement. Waiting until you are beaten till near death before drawing your weapon defeats the purpose and is dangerous to those around.

          3. The attacker could have gotten in the car and left. The shooter would just be some angry dude being as and the story is over and everyone alive.

          That is the problem, buttholes exist and laws are pushed to the limit creating more laws that are pushed to the limit. Much like the new trend of mainly young adults understanding physical violence can get them shot so now they get in your face yelling with their hands behind their back. Non violent and super annoying and damn it to hell, you want to punch them in the face but you won’t. Someone will and then will have more legislation and rinse and repeat.

      2. avatar Azics says:

        Disappointed that I had to scroll this far down to see this sort of response. I think most everybody here understands that as a concealed (or open) carrier, we cannot provoke anything or even give the appearance of provoking something. Someone bothers you, you walk away. “An armed society is a polite society”. The times that doesn’t apply is when the armed thug is counting on the other guy not being armed. Just like the shooter here. Doubtful he would be so bold to yell at anyone over their parking if he wasn’t armed.

        If I came out of a store and see some guy yelling at my wife right outside her window, I can’t say how I would react. Likely not as aggressively as this guy, but it would depend on the situation and we can’t see what he saw based on the video footage.

        Being armed doesn’t mean you get to go around berating anyone who does something you disagree with. In fact, it practically demands that you don’t.

        Guilty of manslaughter, at least, if I were on that jury.

        1. avatar Joe Nieters says:

          In a polite society, everyone would treat everyone as if they were armed.

    4. avatar testing says:

      testing My post are blocked, testing

    5. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

      testing again

    6. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

      Mental Health!
      ‘My’ common-sense take on this …

      The supposed DGUser allowed the fact that he has a weapon on his person go to his head; I.E. he was looking for a reason to justifiably (at the very least) present his weapon.

      When you legally carry a weapon, particularly a type weapon that can cause damage over a large distance and to multiple objects in one go, you make it a point to steer clear of possible friction\trouble. Enter in a ‘convenience store’; the location in this instance clearly qualifies.

      Factor in a ‘convenience store’ parking lot (any public parking lot/garage), then engaging in a conversation with a stranger about illegal off-street parking, and you have just saturated yourself with a few gallons of some highly flammable liquid, then asked (or dared) someone to strike an entire book of matches and throw it at you.

      What kind of brain-dead, numb nut/clit-less person, legally carrying a firearm, would have a discussion with a stranger about a ‘convenience store’ handicap parking space?

      1) Park in another spot, until the offending driver/person leaves.
      2) Park somewhere else and call a LEO.

      I’m almost sure while the DGUser was engaged in the discussion, before hitting the ground; he had noticed a child in the vehicle.

      Mental Health!
      Any valid feedback on this? I am all ears.

      PS. Dan Zimmerman, the IT department is using a domain name filter/trigger. If the TLD is not in the database they use to match, regardless that the server see’s the post, it will not post it for public viewing.

  2. avatar BHG says:

    I’ve watched it. I carry. I do not think the situation met the standard of stand your ground. He shouldn’t have been pushed the ground, but he was in no imminent danger and it was not reasonable for him to think he was. Any lawful carrier should be glad to see him prosecuted. Having this fit under SYG would be a disservice to legitimate applications of that law.

    1. avatar LD says:

      It doesn’t. Gualtieri is notoriously anti gun and personal protection and is just sending this up the chain to try to get SYG weakened.

      1. avatar Rdog says:

        That is exactly what is happening here. Use this unjustified scenario to create outrage against SYG and weaken it or get it repealed.

      2. avatar Free Texas says:

        That’s my take on this too. It’s an attempt by this sheriff to weaken or abolish the law. The shooting appeared to me like revenge, but the fact that I’m an armchair observer gives me pause. Maybe a jury of peers should decide, so testimony about verbal threats or lack thereof once he was thrown to the ground and he drew his weapon could be considered. He drew appropriately but appears to have ended the assault. If the threat of force had in fact ended he shouldnt have pulled the trigger. A situation like this can easily swing fence sitters against CCW laws. This is why I have a non lethal option in my EDC, a small container of potent pepper spray. Under these circumstances ( which I would have initially been studious not to create!) I would have drawn pistol and also drawn pepper spray if he stopped advancing on me. A nice jet to the face would have allowed me to withdraw most likely and the pistol would have been my insurance. I cannot agree with the “man up and get busy” comment one commenter made (he obviously rejects the old adage, God made men unequal but Colt made them equal). You can’t know how a fight will go once it starts. You can get hit and rendered dazed or unconscious and find your throat cut or curb stomped and there you are all manly and dead, or he could take your wallet and your gun and maybe off you with it. I don’t think that kind of attitude should accompany concealed carry anyway. We should be trouble avoiders. Be willing to back down in an unmanly manner to avoid shooting someone. However, assault like this on a weaker opponent goes farther than a challenge. He wasn’t verbally challeged he was atfacked. Yet whether he needed to shoot to stop the clear physical threat, although it appears doubtful on film, or just continue to present the firearm, should go to a jury who can hear all the facts and testimony.

        1. avatar Free Texas says:

          PS. Other facts might be relevant and should go to a jury. What if the “defender” was starting to black out after hitting the pavement and thought he wouldn’t be able to defend himself if that happened? What if as some of those watching the video clip allege the pusher was in fact moving in after the shooter drew? Or, conversely what if he was backing up? There seems to be a lot of variance among commenters here about what we are seeing and a jury would probably get more facts. What if the shooter said “back up or I’ll shoot” and the pusher said “F.U. I’m gonna kill you.”? This is why we have juries.

    2. avatar million says:

      “He shouldn’t have been pushed the ground, but he was in no imminent danger and it was not reasonable for him to think he was.”

      that was no gentle shove. that could’ve caused a concussion or a broken collar bone. and he drifted forward in an aggressive posture until he saw his victim was armed. the shooter was disoriented from being knocked down and in a vulnerable position on the ground. how could he run away? and the guy put his hands to his hips. you can’t disallow the possibility the shooter thought “he was reaching for his waistband”.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        And remember, the boyfriend/aggressor was reaching for his waistband/pockets while moving toward the defender in his incredibly vulnerable situation on the ground.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          He was picking up his shorts, he was moving back before the gun was drawn and he became submissive when he saw the gun. Then he was shot.

          From the little I gather, this guy harasses people at the store by behaving like he runs the town. It sounds like he does it to black people or other minorities.

        2. avatar DDay says:

          McGlockton wasn’t moving toward the shooter, he actually took a step back. This wasn’t a good shoot, after he pulled the gun, McGlockton didn’t make any move at all. There was no threat, I think this guy will be charged and he should be.

        3. avatar Jefferson Voltaire says:

          Why doesn’t the stand your ground law apply to the “boyfriend/aggressor” who came out and saw his family being verbally assaulted by someone that intentionally invaded the families personal space.

          In the wrong or not, it wasn’t necessary for the guy to die over freakin parking spot from a mentally ill person on a crusade to punish anyone that takes the wrong parking spot.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Long as you have a few days to analyze …. Never saw the punk coming, slammed to the ground, younger, bigger guy advancing and possibly armed, and I will never draw and wave around, drawandfire is one word. If I were on the jury after seeing that video, he would not be convicted. Whether in a SYG state or not.
          Oh, and “after he pulled the gun” is not a reasonable consideration, he drew because he was in fear for his life, and without the gun he just might have been killed. Good shoot. But I would not have been in the place, would not confront people as if a cop. Just sayin’.

        5. avatar DDay says:

          If this goes to a jury, that shooter is going to a FL prison. He was pushed down unlike zimmerman who was held down and had his head pounded into a sidewalk. Also with a zimmerman situation, zimmerman followed martin but lost him and turned around. martin doubled back and confronted zimmerman. The shooter here confronted the woman when you start the situation, you lose the protection of stand your ground to a degree.

          He may have felt threatened when pushed but he paused a good few seconds before shooting and the pusher never advanced on him. He was not reasonable at the time he pulled the trigger, his delay and the pusher stepping back a few feet will do him in. He didn’t shoot right away, he delayed and in the delay the person didn’t advance but actually stepped backwards. No way this is justified and this isn’t what SYG was passed for.

          This is like that guy Dunn near jacksonville who confronted teens at a gas station playing loud music and ended up shooting into the car. Like dunn, this moron should have minded his own business about where people park.

        6. avatar doesky2 says:

          The shooter should receive no jail time for the simple fact if it was a cop who got pushed to the ground, and then the cop shot the guy then the cop would not get jail time.

          The dead dude “made a furtive move to his waistband” would be the explanation from the cops.

          If the cop gets off, the shooter should get off.

          Same laws for all.

        7. avatar DaveL says:

          @DDay

          If this goes to a jury, that shooter is going to a FL prison

          While I agree it was a bad shoot, I’m afraid I don’t share your faith in Florida juries. All the defense needs is one sufficiently stubborn holdout.

      2. avatar Zero Foo says:

        Concussion or broken collar bone?

        Head injuries can and do kill often.

        I guarantee that if you are knocked to the ground from your blindside, you will assume that your life is in danger. In split seconds, you don’t have the luxury of trying to figure out if your assailant intends to kill you or simply do you bodily harm.

        Exactly how far are we going to go to protect assailants? It should not be the responsibility of the victim to determine the assailant’s intent.

        1. avatar doesky2 says:

          I do not expect a perfect textbook response from the shooter.

          The dead dude “chose poorly”

      3. avatar CZJay says:

        Drawing your gun as a show of force is different than drawing your gun and using it.

        If a cop is shoved me to the ground with baton in hand because I happen to be a bystander on the sidewalk during a protest, can I shoot him dead?

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          If I thought he was going to kill me, I would certainly try.

        2. avatar Chip in Florida says:

          “..If a cop is shoved me to the ground with baton in hand ”

          Is it clear he is a cop?

        3. avatar neiowa says:

          Don’t drawn unless you intend to fire. If you checkfire you probably should not have drawn. A lot of Monday morning Qbacks.

          Don’t shackup with skanks who illegally park in the spaces which progtards have designated for an anointed special interest group, don’t father kids out of wedlock, don’t act like a cocky POS out attempting to intimidate and then battering folks. Some ethnic groups not instructed in such by their adult group?

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      BHG,

      He shouldn’t have been pushed the ground, but he was in no imminent danger and it was not reasonable for him to think he was.

      I disagree for three reasons:
      (1) The boyfriend just shoved the defender HARD to the ground.
      (2) The boyfriend continued to advance on the defender on the ground.
      (3) The boyfriend reached to his waistband/pockets while advancing.

      When you consider all three factors, I believe the defender was justified to draw and point a handgun at the boyfriend advancing on him. The boyfriend started to back up only after the defender drew his handgun. If the defender was convinced that he had to draw and shoot to defend himself, it may not be realistic to expect the defender to realize that he no longer has to pull the trigger in the one second time-span between thinking he has to shoot and the aggressor stopping his advance.

      1. avatar DDay says:

        The boyfriend continued to advance on the defender on the ground.

        Watch the tape again, he didn’t continue to advance at all. The guy pulled the gun, the pusher actually stepped back a step or two then he was shot. If he advanced toward him there would be a threat but that didn’t happen. This was not justified at all. Draw the gun, the situation was neutralized, then call the cops and have the guy arrested for battery. The shooter paused after drawing his gun, he had time to think.

        Zimmerman was on the ground being pounded into the pavement with martin on top of him. There was a threat, unlike here.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Watched again, he continued to advance. Now, YOU watch it again.

        2. avatar DDay says:

          Get your eyes checked

        3. avatar john says:

          +2 for getting your eyes checked. He started to move toward the guy but as soon as the gun was drawn he began to back away. Then a few seconds ticked off and the guy decided to execute him.

    4. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      You’re conflating stand your ground with self-defense justification. All that stand your ground means is that the law does not impose on you a duty to retreat, so long as you have a right to be where you are and you aren’t otherwise committing a crime. That’s the only stand your ground standard. SYG speaks nothing to the justification of threatening or using lethal force, as that’s a separate issue.

      The shooter was in a public place and exercising his freedom of speech, not committing a crime. That’s the beginning and end of stand your ground’s involvement in this case.

      So what exactly do you mean that you “do not think the situation met the standard of stand your ground?” Was he not in a public place? Was he committing a crime? No and no. So what are you talking about?

      1. avatar Bob h says:

        Further statement from the police today, they say all that’s required under FL law was that the shooter feared “further bodily injury”. They also pointed out the real time between getting shoved and shooting was only 4 seconds.

  3. avatar M1Lou says:

    Here is a plan, don’t go shoving people when it’s only a verbal encounter. Don’t get out of your car when you can just leave the area and defuse the situation. That guy would be alive if he ignored the pissed off guy and his girl stayed in the car.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Should the shooter be charged? Or are we just going to victim blame?

      That doesn’t mean the shove was okay, however, we don’t know what the white man was saying. What if the white man came up in a rage and was threatening the man’s wife and child?

      1. avatar Bye Philicia says:

        “Victim” blame? Please. Your precious “victim” walked up BEHIND someone, and responded to a VERBAL exchange by instigating physical violence against someone he simply disagreed with. Biting off more than you expect you’ll have to chew does not a martyr make. Damn right he’s to blame for his fate. He could have kept his hands to himself. The easiest thing in the world to do is nothing.

        And no, this hoodrat did NOT get “shot for illegal parking.” He got shot for walking up behind someone and shoving him to the ground. The shooter may not have been a perfect citizen, but this was hardly a loss to society at large.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          The law will disagree with you. When you shoot someone over a shove, you are likely to get charged as the offender, thus you are not the victim.

          If I shot every person that shoved me, the government would need to open up a cemetery for all the bodies.

          I remember when men used to say using a gun instead of using your fists is what bitch ass cowards do. Apparently, now it’s advocated to shoot people that touch you even though your life isn’t at risk. Imagine how that is going to change the police force.

        2. avatar Broke_It says:

          Where I come from if you shove someone all sucker punch like and aren’t expecting a bullet in return for your efforts then you’re “laughing at your farts in a dry bathtub” level of retarded. Feral punks will shoot at you for looking at them the wrong way. It ain’t Detroit, but it’s gritty. Especially cause a large population in my city wants to act like they hood.

        3. avatar drunkEODguy says:

          Lets say the sucker push was a sucker punch, now what? A sucker punch to the head/face can and will kill or handicap you if you get hit in the wrong place on the wrong day by the right guy. Realistically though, getting shoved, especially by surprise, can do the same thing when you fail to catch yourself.

          That said, old boy yelling over parking was clearly a dipshit, only a dumbass starts an argument over parking at a gas station. No argument from me there, but he doesn’t deserve to get physically assaulted over it.

          I’m actually not opposed to two guys more or less consenting to solving disputes physically. I don’t think someone needs to die over say, every bar fight or dumb fight over a woman. But there’s a level of “agreement” when it comes to these things. Arguments get heated and then turn physical, both parties continue escalation knowing where it will go. A sucker attack from the blindside isn’t it, that kind of escalation gets one hurt.

      2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        You’re assuming facts not in evidence, aka, just making crap up.

      3. avatar M1Lou says:

        He initiated violence over a moron flapping his gums. He could have gone home that day with his family if he (and she) would have just got into the car and left. You never know what the other person has on them, or is willing to do. Get out of the stupid situation, and don’t stoop to the level or morons. This guy choose to get physical and it cost him his life. This isn’t victim blaming, this is just using some common sense.

        Now, the shooting itself has some doubt as to it’s legitimacy. Still, the video is only part of the story. We don’t know what was said and that will have to come out if it goes to court. The shooter may have said he was going to kill everyone in the car, but again, it’s words. Call the cops and get out of the situation.

      4. avatar Chip in Florida says:

        “..What if the white man came up in a rage and was threatening the man’s wife and child?”

        Are we playing the What-if Game? Or are we reviewing the tape and analyzing this incident?

        I need to know so i can tailor my response to your question.

        1. avatar Broke_It says:

          What if my aunt was my uncle? That’d be NUTS!

    2. avatar Jefferson Voltaire says:

      Here’s another plan, don’t be waiting around a parking lot looking for a confrontation over a parking spot and getting hostile with a man’s wife and children.

      The guy is mentally ill. He waits in that lot, just waiting for someone to take what he apparently thinks is his personal, reserved parking space, just looking for a confrontation.

      Why isn’t SYG being applied to the man defending his family from a lunatic in a parking lot? If he had pulled a gun and shot the guy accosting his family, would stand your ground then apply to him, more so for standing his ground with his bare hands? The mental patient was the one looking for & that initiated the confrontation.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Pardon me if I am surprised to find anyone on this site who would ask such a question. It is ALWAYS illegal and stupid to respond to a verbal attack with a physical attack. And the one who initiates physical contact is in the wrong.
        But I agree that hanging out in a low-rent parking lot waiting for a chance to yell at people is pretty stupid. But you have to remember freedom of speech. Does not include freedom to shoot. Or shove.

      2. avatar Chip in Florida says:

        “..Why isn’t SYG being applied to the man defending his family from a lunatic in a parking lot?”

        Because the dead guy acted first. Getting yelled at is one thing. Getting shoved to the ground is something complete different.

        The minute the guy shoved the other one it became a clean shoot. Bigger guy got physical, smaller guy shot him from the ground. Doesn’t mean anyone deserved anything it just means that the guy on the ground didn’t lie down on his own accord so the shoot is good.

      3. avatar Jean-Claude says:

        Because the person who initiated physical violence over a verbal altercation is in the wrong?

        You need to quit looking at this through the filter of race.

        The guy who got killed was a violent asshole who thought he was targeting a sheep but got a wolf.

      4. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        You don’t even know what the concept of SYG is. Less typing, more reading. Otherwise you’ll argue here all day and get nowhere, because the terms you use are disconnected from their actual meanings. You might as well speak absolute gibberish.

  4. avatar WDH says:

    It certainly appears that McGlockton had disengaged from the incident. I expect that Mr. Drjka will be charged with manslaughter. The only thing I saw in the video that might excuse the shooting would be if Mr. McGlockton was reaching into his pocket as if going for a weapon. I couldn’t tell that from the video I saw. In any case, this looks like it should be the decision of a grand jury, not the sheriff, as whether to charge the shooter.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      The lawyers or the people decide to charge. The cops just arrest. So, the sheriff can let him go until the lawyers make their decision, then they will hunt him down or ask him to turn himself in.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Let’s stipulate the sequence of events right up to the moment the shooter fires, that is, right up to the point where the deceased has backed away after the shooter presented the firearm. OK?

      Now let’s get hypothetical. What happens next, if the shooter did not shoot at that instant when he did?

      Does the shooter stand up or remain on the ground? Does he return his firearm to his holster or pocket? Again, assuming he didn’t shoot, what does he do? What would you do?

      Me? I would attempt to stand up, WHILE keeping my firearm trained on the attacker, so I could leave the area and notify the police. Keeping the firearm aimed at the attacker during this maneuver is still an act of threatening lethal force. Per the law, the legal standard for threatening force is identical to that of actually using lethal force.

      Thus, if it is OK for the defender, as he attempts to stand and depart, to keep that firearm aimed at the attacker, because he has already attacked and remains within striking distance, despite having taken a few steps back, then it is OK to threaten lethal force. That is what pointing a firearm at someone is. It’s a threat of lethal force.

      If that threat in that case is OK, then firing the weapon while still on the ground is also OK because that’s a use of lethal force, whose legal justification is identical to the threat of lethal force we just determined is OK.

      If you’re OK with continuing to point the gun while you’re getting up, then legally you’ve just acknowledged that it’s OK to fire while still on the ground. That’s where I am in my thinking at this point: lawful shoot.

  5. avatar surlycmd says:

    Ancient Tibetan philosophy: Don’t start none, won’t be none.

  6. avatar Newb says:

    Agreed that it’s easy to judge the situation after the fact; that video though, doesn’t look good. Too bad that guy decided to get physical.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Men like to defend the honor of their women and they get very aggressive when you mess with their kids. There have been laws to reflect that.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        There nothing honorable to defend about screwing handicapped people out of their rightful place.

      2. avatar Scoutino says:

        Not much honor in physically assaulting mentally challenged people for yelling.

  7. avatar Chuck says:

    If he gets charged and I’m on the jury, he walks. No question, no doubt. Video doesn’t lie, I don’t need to hear any testimony.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      That’s why you won’t be a such a jury.

      1. avatar It's Obvious says:

        Thank you. The people defending this moronic wimp and woman-bully of a shooter are embarrassing the carry community. Yelling at women would have got you a much more thorough ass-beating 50 years ago. Much more than a gentle push. This man straight up murdered a father because he is a loser and a coward, to boot.

  8. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    With no sound, we don’t hear what Drejka was saying to the girlfriend or if he had made any threatening gestures before McGlock blocked the view from the camera. It does appear that Drejka did raise his hand towards the girlfriend in the seconds before he was pushed. McGlock was backing away and that made this a bad shoot.

  9. avatar Vhyrus says:

    Anyone else find it humorous that the man killed was named McGLOCKton?

    Anyone?

    Bueller?

    Okay I’ll show myself out.

    1. avatar JOHN B THAYER says:

      I find this whole incident to be hilarious.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        It’s unfortunate such a man had a gun and used it. This incident hurts gun owners. That guy goes around messing with people and he is armed when he does it. He creates confrontation and when confrontation comes to him…

        1. avatar DDay says:

          Agreed. He shouldn’t have started a thing over the parking space to begin with. He’s a not a meter maid or cop, don’t think he can police people for illegal parking. Mind your own business. And as you correctly state, the man stepped back when the gun was pointed at him. This is a bad shooting and this guy definitely gives gun owners a bad name. He was quick to fire and it was in a situation he started to begin with.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Sort of agreed. He definitely missed a golden opportunity to STFU, but talking is not assault, shoving is. Would be nice if he’d let the stupid bully chicken out, but no obligation, and if you think your life is in danger, you don’t consider what the law says, anyway!!

        3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Evil wins when good guys do nothing. All that Mr. and Mrs. civil rights violator had to do was not steal a handicapped person’s spot. Failing that, all they had to do was accept the public shaming they had coming their way. All of that boils down to DBAD! They had ONE job!

          Instead, Mr. Tough Guy attacked a man and suffered the consequences. I don’t challenge that none of this had to happen. I only assign blame on the original violators who probably pull selfish acts and bullying stunts every day with impunity.

          To the guy, I say rest in Hell. To the woman, cry cry cry over your poor life decisions, then resolve to become a better person.

        4. avatar Dirk Darkus says:

          You are exactly right, this incident hurts the carry community badly. No normal person (pace the dingleberry above with the “GOOD GUYS ALWAYS DEFEND PARKING SPOTS” hilariously moronic basement-dweller nonsense) will see this as a justified endangered old person defending himself. It looks like what it is – a pants-wetter and whiny self-righteous hipster shooting someone over nothing. Totally cowardly to go straight to pistols over falling on your rear-end.

        5. avatar Jeff Hunt says:

          Larry In Texas, Actually talking, yelling and threatening, is assault. Physical pushing, which happened next, is battery.

        6. avatar Scoutino says:

          You need to learn the difference between verbal confrontation and physical violence. It may save your life one day.

    2. avatar nyglockowner says:

      I wish I had made that my screen name.

  10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Hmm. This one is a tough call.

    If you look closely at the video, the boyfriend moved steadily and almost briskly toward the alleged defender and even picked up a bit of speed at the end in order to shove the alleged defender HARD, so hard that the alleged defender went several feet backwards to the ground. Even worse, the boyfriend continued to move toward the alleged defender on the ground. Those are incontrovertible FACTS.

    If the boyfriend was substantially bigger/stronger than the alleged defender (which appears to be the case) I would say the alleged defender was justified in pulling a firearm. That is my opinion.

    It was only after the alleged defender drew his firearm that the boyfriend stopped advancing toward him on the ground and then started backing up. By then it may have been too late as the alleged defender may have already committed to pulling the trigger. After all, we have heard many people claim that if you are justified to draw then you are justified (and arguably even committed) to pulling the trigger.

    I predict that the prosecutor will charge the alleged defender and I further predict that the trial will end in a hung jury.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I watched the video a few more times after typing my comment above. Not only does the boyfriend continue to advance toward the alleged defender after shoving him to the ground, the boyfriend actually moves both hands toward his waistband and pockets. That might have been the deciding factor for the alleged defender to draw and shoot.

    2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      You are in a store picking up a pack up gum. A person comes in and states to all in the store that some deranged guy is out in the parking lot yelling at a woman in a car.
      You walk out and a deranged nut is yelling at your wife/girlfriend/sister/mama .
      Do you push him away?

      1. avatar million says:

        are you parked illegally?

        1. avatar NateInPA says:

          Doesn’t matter. Kindergarten Cop shouldn’t have started with someone’s significant other. Not his business to be parking lot attendant and hopefully he won’t be able to use SYG as a defense since he initiated the encounter.

        2. avatar Scoutino says:

          He did indeed initiate the encounter. He did not initiate the violence.
          SYG has nothing to do with it.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Chris Mallory,

        First of all, how do you know the “deranged man yelling at your [wife]” was deranged and yelling?

        Second of all, even if I learned that a deranged man was yelling at my family member, I would NOT go and accost the man. I would certainly go and verbally confront the man — from a reasonable distance (perhaps 10 feet away). I would not shove him hard to the ground.

        1. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

          All the witnesses said the shooter was engaged in yelling at the girlfriend. The Deceased came out and saw this and that’s when he advanced over and knocked the shooter down. That is so far undisputed. I live here and it’s been on all the local news since Friday.

        2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          And I would say you are either a liar or not much of a man if you allow a female under your care to be attacked by a strange man.

        3. avatar Mark N. says:

          Any suggestion that the shooter was a disabled person who was angry because the handicapped spot was taken by someone who was not and had no business being there? It wouldn’t be the first time that such an incident has transpired. Some people think they are “privileged” to use such spots when they are “just running in for a second.”

        4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Chris Mallory,

          A stranger yelling at a family member does not justify briskly advancing on that stranger, shoving them hard to the ground, and then advancing on them when they are down. Period.

          My intention to verbally confront some blowhard — rather than assault and batter them — does not make me less of a man or woman. It makes me smart.

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Chris, yelling at someone is not “attacking”, and shoving “IS”. If you haven’t understood that yet, get ready, here it comes. Maybe you can loot you some free stuff after the dismissal.

      3. avatar Zero Foo says:

        If there is no evidence of physical violence as I approach the scene, I would ask the person this:

        “Is there a problem sir?”

        Your choice of words and tone can instantly de-escalate a situation. If the guy called me a shitbird for illegally parking in a handicapped parking spot, I would say “I’m sorry and it won’t happen again”.

        Then again, this whole scenario is academic since I wouldn’t illegally park in a handicapped parking spot. That’s just rude.

        1. avatar Trukk_WI says:

          Apparently the mentality that causes one to claim you are less of a man if you don’t immediately and explosively defend your woman is shared by the deceased. And given the deceased’s girlfriends propensity to verbally joust at the drop of a hat this is unlikely the first time that the deceased was brought into a confrontation by her big mouth.

          Most sensible people seem to agree that there is fault on both sides but regardless the physical escalation is what ultimately caused this guy’s demise. He made his own choice now his girlfriend gets to live with it.

      4. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Actually, I get in the car and drive away, possibly with a few choice words for the jackass. Physical assault is purely NOT ACCEPTABLE!!! Now, if Mr. mouth wishes to try to stop me from getting in the car and driving away, THEN I can respond in kind. This is really pretty easy. Keep your hands to yourself unless you’d like to go life-or-death.

      5. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        No. You shout at him as soon as you exit the store to move away from your car. Then you continue toward your car, enter it, and drive away. You do not initiate physical violence in response to verbal provocation alone. That’s illegal.

        Now, if on the way to the car the other guy attacks you, then it’s go time. That didn’t happen here, though, so there is no justification for the deceased to have shoved the defender.

        1. avatar R D B says:

          I concur with this situation. As a member of this carry nation, I’ve been in a convenience store situation where a man began yelling vulgar things to my wife as she walked into the store. As an armed husband, I yelled at this POS and advanced on him from the vehicle I was pumping gas into. POS began yelling back at me and continued to say inappropriate things about my wife. I stopped advancing at 30 feet and placed my hand on my weapon, still in the holster. At this point said POS began to retreat and now told me to shoot him.
          Some one begins to harass my family I will act immediately, any man with a pair of balls would do so. In this case the dead guy might not be dead had he came out of the store and yelled “WTF are you doing?” or the shooter might also have drawn and shot him as he advanced after yelling that.
          In my opinion, don’t think the shooting is justified as SYG, this looks like manslaughter. I don’t think the shooter had a pair of balls until he carried a gun and decide to play hall monitor over a parking spot. In the south, (florida is not) an adult verbally assaulting a female with children is not worthy of the title “man” let’s be honest he’s a “bit%^”, and shot someone that was putting him in his place.
          I will also say without audio I will not be surprised when testimony comes to light what he was saying that got him put on the ground.

      6. avatar CarlosT says:

        No, I don’t shove him. For this very reason. I can control what I do. I have zero idea what the other guy will do. So I’m not going to escalate a verbal exchange into physical violence, because physical violence is exactly where I don’t what this thing to go.

      7. avatar Jeff Hunt says:

        Nowhere in the article does it mention the couple were parked illegally. Maybe the woman or the man was handicapped. I dont appear to be handicapped, but i have a broken back x4, and have broken 4 ribs in rhe last year alone just by small accidents. People who are carrying firearms have a duty to be the better person and avoid a confrontation. Yelling and threatening someone constitutes assault. This man should not have been allowed to have or carry a firearm. He was assaulting the woman in the car and thus triggered the physical response by the boyfriend.

  11. avatar Edward Rogers says:

    Although it doesn’t appear to me that the shooting was warranted, there’s undoubtedly more to the situation than we’ve been privy to…at least I hope so.

    I can’t stand worthless pansies who abuse handicapped parking – Both the blatant violators and those who don’t actually need them but get the placards..

    I’m classified as a disabled veteran but I choose to park out in the boondocks. It’s healthier and less risk of door dings.

    1. avatar 33Charlemagne says:

      One thing to remember is that it is not always apparent that a person is handicapped when looking at them. I remember going to a shopping mall with two friends one of whom had a severe heart problem, which made walking more than a hundred yards or so very difficult. We got a nasty note on the windshield expressing disgust at “Three able bodied men” parking in a handicapped slot. My friend was arguably less mobile than many people in wheelchairs! The best practice when seeing somebody in a handicapped slot it to recognize you don’t know their whole story.

  12. avatar YaDaddy says:

    Mistakes made on both sides with this one, easily covered under the “Don’t be a Dick” way of being. Hard to say when you weren’t on the receiving end of whatever, but I would hope that if I found myself in the shooter’s position I would not immediately pull the trigger on someone who was backing away after I present/point a Glock 19 their way. I would also hope that I wouldn’t abandon my family in the vicinity of someone who just shot me.

    Here’s to never finding myself in either situation and to making the right choices if I do.

  13. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    Seems Mr. Drejka isn’t an angel. Maybe the grand jury will decide differently than the sheriff.

    “The owner of the convenience store in Clearwater told ABC affiliate WFTS that Drejka had assaulted customers in the store’s parking lot before. And Rich Kelly, who frequents the store, claimed Drejka picked a fight with him over a parking spot about a month ago, calling him racial slurs and threatening to kill him, WFTS reported.”

    https://www.whas11.com/article/news/nation/victims-girlfriend-says-florida-gunman-provoked-fatal-stand-your-ground-shooting/417-576681283

    1. avatar John Boch says:

      “And Rich Kelly, who frequents the store, claimed Drejka picked a fight with him over a parking spot about a month ago, calling him racial slurs and threatening to kill him, WFTS reported.”

      And Mr. Kelly didn’t report it to the police? Hmm. Sounds suspicious. Not especially relevant in the current case, either.

      “Jacobs, who was waiting in the vehicle with the couple’s two younger children — an infant and a 3-year-old — said she started feeling “scared” when she noticed how fast the argument was escalating. It wasn’t long before McGlockton came out along with their 5-year-old son and tried to diffuse the situation.”

      She was so scared that she exited the car rather assertively instead of rolling up her window and driving away? Yeah, and your boyfriend had his hands in the air saying, “don’t shoot me bro” when the CCW guy shot him in the back too, right? And Mr. McGLOCKton tried of diffuse the situation by violently blindsiding the other man?

      “Neither she nor McGlockton knew that the man was armed.”

      Should it have mattered?

      1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        Sounds like the shooter initiated this incident in addition to shooting a man who was disengaging.

        We don’t know what Kelly told the cops.

        If Drejka had walked into the store and minded his own business there would not have been an altercation to start with. But instead he had to be a tough guy and yell at a woman.

        1. avatar NateInPA says:

          That’s exactly how I saw it. The only difference is, I would have already been in condition red before I approached someone standing and yelling at my wife’s door.

        2. avatar CZJay says:

          I thought only women like to get into petty arguments and cause drama. I didn’t know grown ass men like to watch “reality” shows and bring that into the real world.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Sane or not, you have a clear *right* to yell at anyone you like, if it’s too excessive you may be cited for disturbing the peace, trespassing, whatever. You are NOT legally subject to being physically attacked and/or threatened. Sumbitch could have yelled at the doofus all day, all night while getting in his car and leaving. He chose, instead, to physically attack. And he paid for it, and no one is going to prison for his mistake.

        4. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          And if some handicapped person got run over because he had to park so far away, then what?

          These two are bullies who ran into someone who was within his rights and they suffered the consequences. You would likely agree with that assessment yourself if, upon being pushed to the ground, the defender instead stood up and put a beat down on the larger man, killing him. You would whoop and holler “Go little man! That’s what he gets!”

          Instead of surprising pugilistic prowess, the smaller man produced a firearm. Same circumstances and outcome, just a different means.

      2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        The woman had just as much right to stand her ground as the nutcase yelling at her.

        1. avatar Chuck u Farley says:

          SYG only applies if you are somewhere LEGALLY! By parking in that handicap spot ILLEGALLY, she couldn’t use SYG no matter what happens.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Oh, bullfeathers. SYG has nothing to do with babymomma. She did not physically attack anyone, and was not shot.

        3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          So? And that is relevant to what?

          First, she wasn’t in that spot legally, but let’s set that aside.

          All that stand your ground means is that you don’t have an obligation to retreat before using or threateninglethal force. She never used or threatened lethal force, so SYG has nothing to do with her.

          You might as well bring up any random legal principle and try to apply it. It makes no sense.

        4. avatar Scoutino says:

          Sure, she had every right to stand her ground and yell back at the nutcase.

      3. avatar RidgeRunner says:

        yeah, I thought the same thing, I don’t believe this Rich Kelly. It’s similar to the false testimony given around the Ferguson incident. Of course, the false testimony gets picked up by the media and spread far and wide, tainting the court of public opinion.

      4. avatar Icabod says:

        I also noticed she exited the vehicle. All the road rage advice says to stay in the vehicle. Did she have other children in the vehicle? If so why leave.
        The pusher simply comes out, walks straight at the shooter and pushes him to the ground. At this point he and the women are side by side. Two against one?
        Yet, when he brought out the gun, the two backed off. Here it gets messy. What do you do?

  14. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

    I know it’s not germain to SYG, but was Mr. Drejka handicapped and needing that parking space?

    If he wasn’t, and he’s not a store employee then what was the point?

    If I was feeling annoyed, I might say something like, “Hey, did you know you’re parked in a handicapped spot?”
    And either listen to them say they didn’t know, some lame excuse, or them tell me to F off and mind my own business. Either way I’d continue on my way, no need to escalate situations. What a foolish thing to push someone or shoot someone over.

    1. avatar NateInPA says:

      Exactly. A cardinal rule of self defense is to avoid bad situations.

      This man clearly put himself, by being the aggressor, right in the middle of one.

    2. avatar Trukk_WI says:

      In this case is best course of action would have been to Simply take down the license plate number snap a picture and go call the police. Unfortunately it sounds like the situation was precipitated by someone attempting to exercise Authority he didn’t have and it was escalated by somebody who overreacted and assaulted someone who later turned out to have a gun. It’s a very strong object lesson in the art of walking away and or D escalation

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        If you want to stick to a philosophy of de-escalation don’t call the cops for every little thing. Mind your business like the Asian people do.

        If Japanese people were to act like Americans, there would be a lot of fighting and arrests. Cops and citizens would have to carry guns.

        1. avatar CarlosT says:

          Instead, Japanese people apply crushing social pressure upon each other, leading to one of the highest suicide rates in the world.

          Much better.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      He was being an asshole. It is my understanding this is not unusual, people hanging around to yell at people in handicapped spots. People with no cars, for example. But they have a right to do that, you do not have a right to physically assault them. You can certainly tell them to FOAD, but not to physically assault them. Why is this tough?

    4. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Discretion is the better part of valor, I agree. He had many choices available that would not have ended with this result.

      That’s not the point, though. The issue here is whether he acted legally, which he did. Whether he chose the wisest course of action is a separate issue.

  15. avatar FedUp says:

    Media talk is already trying to “Zimmerman” Drejka. Trying their hardest to demonize both Drejka and SYG. But I’m not sure what SYG vs duty to retreat has to do with sitting on your ass while the guy who knocked you down towers over you.

    Very suggestive wording in some of the articles, like McGlockton “left the store to defend his girlfriend”. Especially since he probably didn’t know anything was going on until AFTER he walked out of the store.

    They’ve even found somebody willing to say Drejka threatened to shoot him for parking in that spot earlier.

    As for McGlockton disengaging, I see him take one step back and stop. I do not see him disengage from Drejka, but I do see him ceasing or at least pausing in his attack. I do not hear what, if anything, he was saying to Drejka.

    It’s hard to say who is at fault here.
    McGlockton might have been verbally threatening Drejka at the time the shot was fired. Drejka may have been verbally threatening Jacobs at the time McGlockton struck Drejka, or Drejka may have issued fighting words to/about Jacobs.

    I do get the idea that “Rich Kelly” is full of shit when he tells his story about Drejka and the handicapped parking spot. It just doesn’t seem feasible.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      “As for McGlockton disengaging, I see him take one step back and stop”

      He’s definitely still engaged. Almost looks like he was getting his feet under him for another attack.

      1. avatar DDay says:

        Well then he wasn’t attacking. There was no threat. If the guy started towards him then it would be a legit shooting, that didn’t happen though, so it wasn’t justified.

        1. avatar FedUp says:

          At that range, he’s within 1/2 second of kicking Drejka’s teeth in, should he choose to do so. The threat is still immediate. A cop would shoot you before you ever got that close.

          But is the threat credible? I can’t tell from here, so no way I could convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          DDay, you need to not bet your life on that attitude, since when you lose you will have been in the ground for years. You are wrong! Read the title of the article!

  16. avatar Alex Waits says:

    *reviews video and news articles*
    Good shoot.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Sheesh. You’re no fun. Correct, but no fun.

  17. avatar SkyMan77 says:

    IMHO… The second the women got out of the car Michael’s chances of NOT being charged increased 10 fold… I wouldn’t have confronted her in the first place but Michael does have a right to.

    I’m a firm believer in staying away from stupid people doing stupid stuff as you may win a stupid price like poor Michael… If no one’s getting maimed or murdered call the police if you’re that bothered.

    My 2 shekels… Carry on…

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      I wouldn’t even call the police for stupid shit. So what if the kids are playing basketball in the street and that is illegal. This is America. Worry about the real crimes.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I can stand with that! For the freaking WIN!

      2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Illegal parking is a gateway crime. If we can’t be bothered to protect society’s weakest members, then what good is it having a society?

  18. avatar Felix says:

    The whiner didn’t look at all threatening. Posture was slack, didn’t look agitated, didn’t even look tensed up enough to be yelling and screaming. But the lighting is bad, not a lot of detail.

    The boyfriend came out of nowhere and pushed hard enough to knock him to the ground, and kept moving close enough to keep the whiner from even getting up.

    That all speaks to justification.

    On the other side, well, it seems extreme if the whiner really was agitated, screaming, yelling. I’ve been on the receiving end of idiots who didn’t like my parking, and all I wanted to do was get away from them because they seemed so unpredictable. Sometimes I was surprised to not find my car keyed when I got home, they seemed so erratic and uncaring of private property which upsets them. Although he didn’t look agitated to me, maybe the whiner was, maybe the video was too short and the sound would have told a different tale.

  19. avatar Henry says:

    Without the audio and knowing what was being said between the two men, I cant tell if it was a clean shoot or not. Just being knocked to the ground isn’t justification to shoot someone. If the guy who shoved the other one was closing on him and verbally threatening him with further violence I’d say yes it was a good shoot.
    But like I said without knowing what was said between them it’s impossible for me to judge.

  20. avatar former water walker says:

    I commented ad infinitum nauseum on fakebook. Good shoot. Unmentioned by ME on FB is the dead assualter is a LARGE black manwho pushed the smaller white dude down. I HAVE been attacked by deranged black men several times. But I was big,strong and fearless at the time. And unarmed except for my 19″ pythons. Now I’m not so tough…GOOD SHOOT😄😎😏

    1. avatar Felix says:

      What the heck does race have to do with it? If it had been a large white man pushing a smaller black man, would it have been the same, or are you saying black men are scarier than white men?

    2. avatar DDay says:

      Who cares if one is black and the other is white. You were attacked by a black guy, who cares what his race is. You sound like a racist.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        I think he stated in a previous comment that he is part Native. I don’t think that is the case because they thought every human is related. It’s generally white people that direct such negativity at black people.

      2. avatar former water walker says:

        Race has EVERYTHING to do with this. A helluva lot of black men have a massive chip on their shoulder about “whitey”. You are retarded if you don’t know that! Duh…my black wife and kids know I’m not raciss you goofballs…

        1. avatar Tiger says:

          The posters on this blog seem to be the ones with the race problem. On further review, this shooting is looking not as clean as first presented. While there was some justifiable need to respond the confrontation. Lethal force was not needed.

  21. avatar Imayeti says:

    As guy is thrown to the ground, she’s getting out of the car…….to do what? Add another layer of threat or help the guy on the ground. We know nothing about the shooter. Assuming he’s me, recent cancer survivor, artificial knee, too weak to fight, unable to run, 2 people coming at me? Same outcome. In TX the fine for illegal use of handicapped spot is $250. I point that out to violators and go my way, if able.

  22. avatar CZJay says:

    He shouldn’t have shot him. He should be charged. However, don’t charge him with the worst thing you could because he didn’t create the situation or start the violent confrontation.

    The store owner that shot a thief, who was stealing beer and refusing to give it back, shouldn’t be charged yet he is. A man who shoved someone gets killed yet his killer isn’t charged. That’s not how it should work — it’s completing upside down.

    Drop the charges for the store owner who was defending his property. Bring charges on the man who murdered someone because he was shoved, then got even more angry and chose to use a gun instead of getting into a fist fight.

    1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      “he didn’t create the situation or start the violent confrontation.”

      When he approached the female in the car in a threatening manner he created both the situation and the violent confrontation.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        I said “violent confrontation” in to be very specific.

        The entire situation was created by the white man. So you can say the confrontation was due to him, but the violence started with the shove, thus the “violent confrontation” was started by the black man.

        1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

          “…The entire situation was created by the white man”

          Not really.

          Yes he was (reportedly) yelling at the lady in the car and without audio we don’t know what was being yelled. But no matter what it is only a verbal assault. The lady being yelled at could have simply rolled up the window, or backed out of the spot, or any number of things since she was in control of the car. She chose to get out of the car. The now dead guy could have just come over, got in the car, and they could have driven away but he instead chose to physically assault the yelling guy. That is a physical attack and as such it makes the shoot a good one. Did he deserve to die? That is not my judgement to make. Did the shooter have to shoot him? Also not my judgement to make because I am watching a video that I can pause and rewind and consider the what-ifs. The guy on the ground didn’t have the option of rewinding and considering the what-ifs.

          I may not like the results but I consider it a justified shot. I do hope it goes to court and I do hope the jury agrees it was a justified shot. Because then when people complain about what happened I can tell them, just I tell people who mention Zimmerman, the jury heard the evidence and made the decision.

      2. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

        According to the locals in that neighborhood, the deceased made a habit of hanging around and harassing people in that parking lot. That is apparently his “thing”. He’s done it before. He wasn’t just on his way into the store to buy a pack of cigs when it all started.

    2. avatar M1ndT3hG4p says:

      ^^This. This comment section is hilariously depressing because if the races were reversed, most here would be calling it a bad shoot or at least call for more review than ‘good shoot.’ In my humble opinion, this is a questionable shoot – at *best*. Just look at how long he waited between drawing and firing, look at the distance the assailant was when he was fired upon, not to mention the fact that the shooter started the situation off aggressively. The underlying racial bias that’s endemic of a portion of the pro-2A community is what continues to push me further from frequenting sites like this and associating with staunch pro-2Aers. Demonstrably, I’ve seen less consideration given to the facts of a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ shoot based on two different races vs a singular race between the defender and attacker. Just my .02 from observation.

      1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        “if the races were reversed, most here would be calling it a bad shoot”

        This is an exceptionally ignorant comment. For me personally I didn’t even realize the shooter was white until I started reading these comments.

      2. avatar CZJay says:

        This site isn’t nearly as bad as others. On other sites white people like to say every black person being shot is justified, then they gloat and make jokes about black people.

        A lot of white people look at black people as a statistic rather than an individual. That goes against American ideals. It’s understandable, but still counterproductive.

        I heard studies have shown people do base their decisions on what someone looks like over evidence, which is why your lawyer will advise you to dress well and have a nice haircut for court.

  23. avatar Ralph says:

    Is that Drejka guy a white Hispanic? He might be totally screwed if he is.

    Fortunately for Drejka, the Grand B!tch Angela Corey is out of office and never held any in Pinellas County.

  24. avatar darkstar says:

    I am a big fan of avoiding stupid people in stupid places doing stupid things. Without knowing all the details it’s a tough call. What I can tell you is that the victim being black and the shooter being white this is going to turn into a serious racial shitshow.

  25. avatar Shire-man says:

    Why are so many people seemingly so eager to engage? So what if somebody is in a handicapped space? Are you a cop? No? Then it’s not your job. So what if some guy is talking even shouting at your woman? Is she in immediate danger? No? Then don’t run up and escalate.

    Too many fucking wannabe hardasses out there. Everybody just chill the fuck out and slow that roll. To whom are you all trying to prove what?

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      From what I have seen in America, white people love them some strict government enforcement and black people love in your face drama. That leads to confrontation and violence.

      He could have kindly told the lady can she not disrespect disabled people by parking in the spot made for them when there are other spots she can put her car that are closer to the door. You don’t have to get into an argument; it’s not like there is a disabled person waiting for the spot and she is refusing to move (which does happen).

      Dumb people don’t know how to interact. They rather fight than talk through things. Most of the time it’s better to go the Japanese route by just walk away from those types.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I have disabled plates. If I wanted to be a bitch, when somebody without such plates were in my way, I’d simply park behind them, after taking photos, then they could just wait until I returned. If a tow truck is called, the driver can easily see which car needs to be towed. So far, hasn’t happened. But then, I don’t live in the “gun violence” east!

  26. avatar Dev says:

    So we carry to protect ourselves and our loved ones. The victim here was coming out to protect his loved ones, the mother of his child. Anyone else see the irony here? How do you know the man who shot him wasn’t threatening bodily harm to the woman?

    1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      “..How do you know the man who shot him wasn’t threatening bodily harm to the woman?”

      I’m just guessing here but since she was in the driver seat and decided to not back up or pull away then she didn’t feel physically threatened by the guy. The fact she got out of the car reinforces my opinion that he may have been a a-hole and yelling rude things but people who are intimidated by someone yelling at them don’t get out of the car while being yelled at.

      Just thinking out loud.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Threatening the woman is a good cause to call police, and stand ready to defend if any FREAKING *ACTION* is taken. But the first person to physically assault another is due for a killing. Really easy to understand, really easy to make decisions on, really clear that in this case the dead needed killing.

  27. avatar auldzalt says:

    If someone blindsides me like that, it is a potentially lethal attack. I’d have shot him until he was no longer a threat. Having words is not anywhere near a lethal threat, I do not care what is being said.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      The law does care. If you are ordering people to move or they will be shot and you have a gun on you, that will be a crime.

      I don’t believe you would think a strange man carrying a gun, aggressively approaches you and starts screaming at you isn’t a lethal threat. Then starts ordering you to do things and says he will make you do it one way another. You would feel like it’s about time to draw your gun.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Pretty extreme, has nothing to do with this situation or, possibly, any situation ever. If preceded by nuclear holocaust, would answer be different? How about you get real?

  28. avatar JIMMY says:

    I Think the shooter was in the wright

  29. avatar Gregolas says:

    This was a murder, pure and simple. The victim violently shoved the shooter down, but did not continue the attack. In fact, he even backed up a step before the shooter pulled his gun. The victim then backed up 2 more steps whereupon the shooter fired.
    The shooter was NOT in imminent danger of death or permanent injury when he fired. This was a murder.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Video is still there, you might want to look again. He continued advancing in a threatening manner until a gun was presented, he meant to offer further violence to a smaller, older man, possibly including death. Despite your claims, the evidence is there. A punk, a thug, a bully, and thankfully dead.

      1. avatar Texas is seriously fruity says:

        Commando Larry here, like the pants-wetting shooter, doesn’t understand that a court of law WILL look at every aspect of your life in front of a jury. His constant posts about who “needs killing” will be found when he makes a similar dumb judgment call and, like the the shooter, he will be given a free 10 gauge poop shoot in prison.

  30. avatar Hannibal says:

    Physically assaulting someone over what was a verbal altercation is a crime and the man doing it should have faced the legal consequences.

    However, the standard for killing someone is a bit different. I would not be surprised if the prosecutor’s office disagrees with the sheriff’s assessment. When you draw a gun in public and someone starts backing away, unarmed, you’ve accomplished the goal. It’s not like this guy was beating the other one into the ground and he didn’t have time to think. He got pushed down. Big fucking deal.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      There is no standard for killing someone, where did you get that? There is a standard justifying self-defense, whether a punch in the nose or a .44 mag between the eyes. He met that standard and paid the price. Over and done.

  31. avatar KsC50 says:

    I shouldn’t get into this – but … If you think this has anything to do with “stand your ground” you should not be allowed to own a weapon! This applies to the idiot sheriff from Pinellas as well. This incident is about the question of justified use of deadly force. We passed “stand your ground” on the way to the parking lot! Was it avoidable? Was it proportionate? There are a couple of areas the prosecutor can look at. Like someone else said – he better get himself a good lawyer.

  32. avatar Daniel says:

    I don’t agree with the shooting. Once the gun came out the guy started backing away. In my opinion he wasn’t a deadly threat anymore.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      “started backing away” = “took one step back, then stopped, either to hold his ground or launch another attack”

      He could have “backed away”, instead of “starting to” and he’d still be alive.

  33. avatar Sheep_dog says:

    Mr Drejka started the altercation, he carries a firearm which has a high level of responsibility, he should’ve walked a way.
    Drejka provoked glockton by yelling at his woman, Glockton shouldn’t of pushed Drejka but he also didn’t deserve to get shot either.
    Again WHO started th altercation? The ARMED man.
    Drejka backed himself into a SYG scenario; now he, like a coward is hiding behind the law. Maybe thechnically justified, but not morally.
    If I was a juror I’d vote to convict Drejka.

    1. avatar dlj95118 says:

      …I think I’m gonna agree with you.

      This whole nasty event could have been easily avoided.

      Much repercussions will ensue.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Land of the free. We are (all of us) free to do all manner of stupid stuff, much of which we would be well advised to avoid. That freedom ends just short of physical attack on *anyone*, which guy began the physical attack? Right after the answer (you can take a break to research), get extra points by checking who had the final chance to avoid physical confrontation.

  34. avatar Troublefindshewhoseeksit says:

    I don’t know what video some of you guys are watching. I’m reading a bunch of excuses and downright lies to justify this horrible shoot. I’ve read that the lighting was bad and that the boyfriend was still advancing. Also that he was reaching for something. The video is clear. The shooter was leaned in and had his hand raised at the woman. He was so engrossed with his harassment of her that he had no situational awareness. At 11 second the boyfriend can clearly be seen pulling up his shorts by the waistband. As the shooter is reaching behind himself at about 12 second mark the boyfriend had already removed his hand and taken at least a step or two back and one more when the gun was produced. If its true the shooter has a history of harassment of people then he is a threat to the public safety and should be charged and lose his ability to own firearms.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Great story, except it’s fiction. The video says you are wrong.

    2. avatar Stan says:

      Pure bullshit. That was no love tap. The buck looked like he was about to take another pound of flesh out of the old man. The old man hadn’t gotten up, nor did the buck get in his car to leave. The old man absolutely had reason to believe a beat down was coming. And in his situation, based on my experience, I would have definitely feared for my life.

      1. avatar Kyle Clown says:

        Watch and see what the jury decides. You would have filled your pants over being pushed to the ground, too??? Are you also a self-appointed parking spot guardian???? Hahahaha. This guy is a total coward and in no way should be defended by the shooting community. You get pushed?? Get back up, siss. Squirming around on his widdle-golfy-shorts and then shooting someone…he is a total coward.

  35. avatar Last OfTheOldOnes says:

    If the woman had an ounce of empathy for handicapped people, NONE of this would have happened.

    First SHE broke the law because she didn’t care about anyone else.
    As a result, unintended consequence #1, the BOYFRIEND broke the law by using violence against someone berating her for breaking the law.
    We now are left with the last unintended consequences of the first 2 actions……..the fallen man would have no idea whether the boyfriend would stomp him to death or not, so he did what the law allows.

    It sounds pretty simple to me, and I can’t remember the last time I was wrong……..

    1. avatar jwm says:

      I thought I was wrong, once.

      Turns out I was mistaken.

      1. avatar Last OfTheOldOnes says:

        H
        Hey JWM, happened to me once, too…… 🙂

  36. avatar LarryinTX says:

    “Boyfriend” is father of 2 kids? Not the way we did things, back in the day. I suspect welfare is more free stuff if she’s not married, right? We should change some stuff.

  37. avatar New Continental Army says:

    Meh.

  38. avatar Matt in Florida says:

    If the “victim” wasn’t shot that day he’d of gotta hot one in him sooner or later. There’s over a million people packing ccw’s in Florida. You go around physically assaulting people you’re eventually gonna get shot.

    You bleeding hearts crying about this wasn’t a justified shooting need to leave your guns in the safe.

    What’s the guy supposed to do after getting blind sided and smashed on the ground? Wait for a curb stomping?

    I didn’t even research the “victim” but I’d venture to say he has a lengthy criminal record including violence.

    The point of ccw is to level the playing field and stop a physical threat… BTW this case won’t even go to a grand jury so obviously the DA doesn’t have a problem with this shoot.

  39. avatar SCW says:

    It amazes me that some of you pecker heads on here are making it out like a hard shove that puts you on the ground is just no big deal.

    A hard shove that you’re not prepared for, and don’t see coming, can easily kill or seriously injure you. That’s the prerequisite being met for the use of deadly force right there.

    It also doesn’t matter who started the verbal altercation. Those are not crimes in most situations.

    The deceased could have easily gotten into the car and left the scene. The woman could have ceased contact and left at any time. I’ve been in similar situations when I’m in my vehicle. Every time I’ve just swallowed my pride and driven off to live another day.

    You guys are literally making excuses for someone who has committed an assault, or possibly a forcible felony, in which lethal force is justified. Stop being retarded.

    1. avatar former water walker says:

      He was violently assaulted. This isn’t your misspent childhood or playground kerfuffle. Or your drunken barfight. DUH…

  40. avatar Stan says:

    Not surprising, TNB. Really, these people are prone to violence, have no future orientation and a short temper. That makes for a very volatile mix. And all you pansies whining about the “fact” that the shooter wasn’t in danger are full of it. Black attacks against whites are statistically more violent, especially more deadly. An old white man laying on the ground with a buck like that hovering over him has every right to believe his life is in danger. Statistics and culture prove it.

  41. avatar Stan says:

    If the deceased shoved a cop like that, the cop would have shot the perp dead also. Why should a cop be immune from prosecution and a citizen cannot be? The cop would not be prosecuted and neither should the citizen.

  42. avatar Last OfTheOldOnes says:

    SCW says: “It amazes me that some of you pecker heads on here are making it out like a hard shove that puts you on the ground is just no big deal.

    A hard shove that you’re not prepared for, and don’t see coming, can easily kill or seriously injure you. That’s the prerequisite being met for the use of deadly force right there.”

    I have always believed in Peace Through Strength, and I’m also a firm believer in the EQUALIZER function. Somebody 6′ and 250lbs shoves my 70+ year old body hard to the ground, and if i’m not dead, he will receive multiple cranial reorganizations courtesy of my high speed lead delivery system……

  43. avatar Mort says:

    I just want to add my two cent opinion, and “for the record” this article.

    That man didn’t need to be shot, based on the visual evidence alone. The only “x factor” variable here is: What did the man say to the shooter on the ground, after he pushed him? Because that really sets up whether or not the shooter felt he was going to be attacked again. As it is, it doesn’t look like self-defense– it looks like revenge.

    No, a man does not have the right to shove you violently on the ground. He should be arrested, charged, and tried & punished. Just because you lose your cool and shove a person, doesn’t mean you deserve to be killed. He was dumber than a rock, sure… assaulting someone, knowing that AT ANY TIME, a person can pull their sidearm and shoot you. The man was initially in the wrong, physically assaulting someone.

    But the shooter should have held his nerve, presented his weapon and called for help. He only should have fired if the threat was further advancing. It is NOT self defense if you are essentially retaliating for being assaulted. That is not one assault plus one self defense… it is two assaults.

    Again… the attacker is in the wrong for physically assaulting someone… If I shot someone every time that has ever happened to me or in the immediate vicinty of my person, there’d be dozens of bodies. This has happened to me numerous times over decades (i.e., where strangers have suddenly become violent in demeanor and physically abusive) and I have defended myself or another with my pistol twice, and I did not shoot either attacking person (even though, using the same standard as this… I could easily have “gotten away with it,” killing both humans… and one was a really bad dude who is likely to get it from someone…). Both were clearly informed that advancing further would lead to their death (in reality, probable death– but you gotta sell it as imminent, because presumably nobody wants to get shot and die, so make it crystal clear…). Both opted out and retreated.

    This man is given two, maybe three seconds? All this obsession with training that decision are “instant” and things “happen in a flash,” sure.. they do, and sometimes you have no choice, but you will know when that is occurring to you… you really will. But if you can, if you have a window, take it and SLOW IT DOWN. Slow things down, let humans think for a second, to use god’s gift of reason, what separates us from animals… police should do this, too, much more often than being all amped up and juiced up to use weapons on people. That’s not self defense, and it definitely isn’t the better part of humanity.

    Y’all can indulge in being “decisive” and brutal… this gun culture we own and participate in, which sometimes is more brutal and unforgiving than it ought to be occasionally, and we all recognize it… most of us… but I don’t care if it makes me a “pussy” or “too soft” to be decisive in someone’s theoretical opinion. I submit that it doesn’t. I’ve been in lots of high pressure situations, even life or death must decide situtations, and while it is true that you must act quickly to save your life… there is an inescapable truth: the MOST IMPORTANT part of the OODA is orientation… what’s really happening? Everybody sees things… everyone is going to decide and act somehow… but WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING? Orientation changes what you see, because it is about what it means– and it changes how one decides, and ultimately acts.

    If some kid one day kills me because I gave him a split second longer than I should have, nobody will speak ill of my choice– but at least I didn’t make an error an kill someone that was not a threat. I can live with that– I would rather live that way. There are always exceptions, and every situation is different… but as good, responsible Americans, we really owe it to each other to be better human beings, and to fall on the side of humanity, rather than animalistic brutality.

    This shooting looked like aa butthurt retaliation for being shoved on the ground violently. If I had to judge, I would say that shooter did the wrong thing. He himself, his life was not under immediate threat. Even if he perceived that (the excuse many a cop provides…), it just wasn’t. If you believe THAT is “life threatening,” sitting on the ground fully drawn on a man with no weapon… perhaps you should get out more. Perhaps this isn’t murder… perhaps it is manslaughter. The shooter should have firmly directed the man away, and been loudly vocal. Plates, camera — arrest, charged, tried for assault… it should have ended that way. This looks like it is a bad shooting… and doesn’t make American gun carriers look good (not that it’s a primary concern… but anti-gun people will feed off this, and feed on some of our utterly unrepentant opinions about the victim and his behavior…). In my opinion… maybe you see it differently. Certainly, some of the more “unforgiving” responses above are disheartening to me asa gun owner in Arizona, and as a person (23 year carrier, mid forties, for perspective…).

    As an aside, I found it very peculiar that the man– who was so concerned about his wife/girlfriend that he had to violently shove someone just standing there– suddenly, when shot under deadly force just runs away leaving his wife/girlfriend alone with someone who just shot him! Maybe the shooter shoots her next! Very puzzling, very weird…. I do not think I would’ve reacted that way… but we are all different people, with different fear/fight reactions. I also thought, maybe he knew he was dying and ran to see his child… but that’s a stretch, probably. II mostly think he just got freaked out and realized, uh oh, something irreversibly bad just happened…. This whole thing was a horrible, and horribly unnecessary, incident.

    Everybody should have just slowed down and behaved themselves better. Awful. If there’s a way to feel bad for a jerk who goes up and shoves a guy violently (even if that guy is a loudmouth nosey interfering douche), killing him unnecessarily does it.

    Anyway, that is what I think. Be safe..

  44. avatar Kerg says:

    Dude went and picked a fight, causing arguments because he felt like a big man because he was carrying. Mouthed off to a woman until he got pushed by her boyfriend . Couldn’t fight back, so shot the guy even though he was in no danger except his ego. Makes all gun owners look bad. That’s my take. I’m pro gun but anti idiot.

  45. avatar Kerg says:

    Don’t go starting fights with people just cause you have a gun on you.

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      That goes both ways. Don’t go escalating verbal situations into physical violence, because you have no idea what’s going to happen.

      To me, this doesn’t look like good shoot. The attacker does look like he’s backing off after the gun comes out, so it appears that the threat was over. However, before all that, McGlockton could have just gotten into the car, and they could have driven away laughing about the parking lot weirdo.

      1. avatar cogs says:

        I don’t condone the pushing, I think the pusher could have and should have been charged with battery. That can be up to 30 days in jail.

        But I still think it was a bad shoot. He pushed the shooter, which is wrong, but he wasn’t trying to kill him or even beat him up further.

        I think the shooter is a coward. Acting like a big man with a gun yelling at women, for something that was none of his business anyway, and then get all scared and start shooting because someone pushes you for it.

        Stand your ground laws are important and protect the rights and lives of people who are in real danger. This guy is hiding behind those laws and abusing it. For Shame.

  46. avatar Warlocc says:

    Both of these men made mistakes that led up to this shooting, that much is clear. However, the shooting itself is clearly self defense.

  47. avatar borg says:

    I thought that I heard a reference to the shooter being blind. If true it would explain why they did not charge him.

  48. avatar Dan says:

    The title of this story is “When Assholes Collide”.
    You have asshole 1….the ratchet who parked her lazy ass in a handicapped spot.
    Then there’s asshole 2…..the self elected parking monitor who went all righteous on
    asshole 1 for parking incorrectly.
    Finally there’s asshole 3….the biggest asshole of the three….and the deadest.
    He comes out, sees asshole 2 giving asshole 1, his baby momma, grief and decides
    it’s a good idea to blindside and knock asshole 2 to the ground. And gets lead poisoning
    for his troubles. Thus we see how the “When Assholes Collide” game can go horribly south.

    Now under Florida law it would appear that this shooting is legal. That in no way makes
    it a good shooting. If ANY of the three assholes had decided to MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS
    and act civilized nothing bad would have happened. Now we have a dead asshole, an angry
    asshole and an asshole who is about to get bankrupted and destroyed by the civil lawsuit that
    is most certainly being drawn up. So remember…..it’s not smart to play the “When Assholes Collide”
    game.

  49. avatar Adam says:

    This was a straight up murder. Guy was clearly backing away after the gun was presented. The situation could have easily been de-escalated with the mere presentation of the firearm. I’m all for Stand Your Ground laws but I think Florida takes it to an extreme in what they let people get away with. Seriously, a guy is dead over a parking space. That’s beyond idiotic.

    1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      “…Guy was clearly backing away after the gun was presented. ”

      To you.

      You have the advantage of being able to watch the video multiple times and analyze the situation.

      And that is the exact reason why SYG laws exist. The benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter who was in the situation and had to make their decisions based on the evidence immediately available. The guy on the ground didn’t have the option of rewinding the video to see that the aggressor was backing up/off.

  50. avatar Dan H says:

    This is a pretty close case looking at it legally. I do think the State Attorney should overrule the LEOs and charge Drejka, but I think the most serious charge with which they could convict him would be voluntary manslaughter. Theory of the case being that Drejka was already agitated over his views about the morals of parking, and when McGlockton shoved him to the ground he was so suddenly angry that he drew his pistol and, despite McGlockton beginning to withdraw, killed him in that rage. Another lawyer I talk to said this would be an easier case for murder if, say, Drejka had gotten up and followed McGlockton around the car and shot him down, but that *one step* is going to make it very hard for a jury to make that extra leap.

    Now, I think the SA should charge him because that’s an SA’s job and they should be assertively pursuing cases that they believe in good faith can sustain a conviction — I didn’t say Drejka’s assertion of a JDF defense wouldn’t prevail. But it’s a close case. There are a solid 1.5 mississippis from when Drejka brings his gun on target to when he fires, and it feels like about a year watching it but probably felt much more instantaneous doing it. But during that 1.5-2 seconds, McGlockton does nothing particularly threatening. Cracks me up watching everybody throw out how it’s obviously one or obviously the other in this case.

  51. avatar FlamencoD says:

    This is an unjustified homicide in my opinion. The deceased came out of the store and saw a strange man who was probably heated and yelling at his girl/wife. Few men would react that way if the guy was calmly speaking. He pushed him hard, to end the perceived threat against his loved one. I agree he didn’t start retreating until the gun was drawn, however, he wasn’t exactly pouncing on the guy on the ground before, either. Once the gun was drawn he immediately retreated, ending the threat. I hope they charge the killer and put him away for a while. A hard shove is a misdemeanor, and I believe that’s where it would have ended even without the gun. The standard is threat of death or grievous bodily harm (including rape), not a misdemeanor push to the ground. Too many people, including many cops, resort to pulling the trigger when it’s not justified or necessary.

  52. avatar Last OfTheOldOnes says:

    Cherchez la femme, pardieu! cherchez la femme!

    Eve took a bite of the apple, chaos ensues, people die
    Woman too obnoxious not to park in handicap zone, chaos ensues, people die.

    This is self explanatory……
    Thank you.

  53. avatar little horn says:

    the dead assailant can thank his inconsiderate girlfriend for this. and her dumb ass can thank her self.

  54. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    I don’t care about the race of the people involved. You attack a person, unprovoked, then you deserve to get shot dead.

    Once again the self hating white liberals are at it again. They have a love affair with the Black criminal class.

    It’s not wrong to publicly correct a person who is in the wrong.

  55. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

    Mo matter how this particular incident pans out, here’s a good rule for longer living:

    Consider everyone you come in contact with in Florida armed with a gun and willing to use it.

  56. avatar Albert says:

    A lot of these posts remind me of studies that have been conducted on confirmation bias. A lot of people formed an opinion after seeing the video and new evidence conflicting with that opinion only reinforced it. After many commenters learned that a witness claimed to have been verbally accosted by this shooter over a parking spot, about a month ago, and said he called him racial slurs and threatened to kill him, they reacted by saying the witness was lying. I would point out that the store owner corroborated the witness’ account, but I know that will not change the mind of someone with confirmation bias.

  57. avatar Don says:

    Ive been hit like that and knocked to the ground playing sports. I think a lot of people are taking issue with the 1 or 2 second delay between presantation and firing. Imagine being blind sided, dazed, wind knocked out of you. Head hitting the concrete. You raise your gun up to defend yourself not even knowing where the attack came from. You see a guy leering over you, taunting you, not running away from a gun pointed at him. You are that guy, at that moment, what do you do.

  58. avatar cogs says:

    I’d like to know what any of you would do if you saw some crazy guy menacing your wife? Would you push him away from her?

    Also, if, after the guy on the ground pulled out his gun, if the pusher suddenly feared for his life and also drew and shot him first. Would that be stand your ground?

    1. avatar FlamencoD says:

      No. The person that initiates the violence can not claim self defense during said melee.

  59. avatar Anymouse says:

    This has nothing to do with SYG. Even in states where retreat is required, the shooter fulfilled them since he was on the ground and couldn’t retreat from a standing aggressor. There isn’t enough info on the video to rule one way or another about whether this was legitimate defense. I can’t tell if the shooter had been verbally threatening, which could have justified physical force by the deceased. I don’t think it’s a cut and dried case that should have been cavalierly dismissed. Did the pusher say anything to the shooter? I saw a door opening – was the girlfriend starting to get out? Even if the actions are deemed legal, it isn’t wise for a carrier to act boldly or start arguments or fights . Carriers should act like mice, not lions. The gun is there to protect you from bad situations – it’s not backup for you to insert yourself into one.

  60. Much of the internet blather about this incident is misplaced or incorrect and premature. (But it proves the sheriff would have blundered to order the shooter arrested). An on scene arrest would be improvident under these circumstances, given the video and Fla. Stat. 776.032(2).

    The shooter has simply not been arrested, he can easily be charged directly by the state attorney, or by indictment of a grand jury. An arguable case can be made that it is manslaughter (see Fla. Stat. 782.11). The “political” and “practical” question (for the state attorney, not the sheriff) is whether there is a reasonably likelihood that the defense of self-defense can be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The short delay in the timing of the shot can be argued as proof of the unreasonableness of the use of deadly force, or the opposite, as being time for assessment and deliberation of the imminence of further great bodily harm. Or maybe it is just what it is, the human mind isn’t instantaneous and perfect.

  61. avatar Trigger9 says:

    If some one approaches your wife I would love to see how you behave. This was in no way a good use of force. Pathetic even…..he will go to jail and rightfully so. See you idiots who feel this was justified back on this thread once he is convicted. People like this hurt all our rights to carry.

  62. avatar Mikial says:

    First, as usual, the media misleads the reader with their headline that the incident was over a parking space. It was not, it was over an unprovoked assault of a big guy against someone physically less able to defend himself. If the smaller, older man was in fear of his life from the attack, he had every right to defend himself.

    Second, BUT, the attacker backed off and the armed citizen could have held him at gun point as he summoned police to report both a physical assault and the handicap violation. I carry daily and have fired shots in self defense before, but I think the armed citizen should not have shot. Sorry, but there it is. Would I vote to convict him if I was a member of a jury? No. I would support his right to defend himself if he was in fear of his life, but if I had been him I wouldn’t have shot so soon.

    Third, taking it on yourself to confront a jerk who doesn’t care enough not to park in a handicap spot is asking for trouble. I would have simply called the police, reported the license number, and left it up to them. When you carry, rule number one is to avoid confrontations of any kind. I had a jerk confront me in a parking lot after waiting for me to come out of the store after a few words were exchanged. He was bigger than me and hostile. I was carrying a cocked and locked G21. Rather than fall into his desire for a confrontation, I just told him top p*ss off and walked away.

    1. avatar borg says:

      A better way to confront someone without starting a fight would be to say “In case it matters I though I saw a cop car heading this way.” Alternatively you could say “It must be nice to be able to afford to be fined thousands of dollars a month in parking fines. By the way I thought I saw cops heading here on my way this store if that matters.” Either response will be better since you would not be acting in a threatening manner and in the latter case implying that the driver is rich may be seen as a compliment. Also the shooter should be charged for the harassment of the women since harassment is not legal and even if he was justified in shooting he was not justified in what he did to the woman.

  63. avatar David Keith says:

    It’s not unreasonable for me to see this as a hyper aggressive black guy push the white guy hard to the ground. That was probably a felony by itself. Why would we assume he’s going to passively walk away? And what if one white guy gets off given violent blacks are released from jail for crimes against whites and other blacks daily – – by the hundreds.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email