Gun Owners’ Prudence is Required to Protect Second Amendment Freedoms

Florida Stand Your Ground McGlockton Drejka

courtesy ABC News and Youtube

“It is simply a fact that the irresponsible or reckless exercise of any given freedom undermines public support for that liberty. Thus, those who support, say, the First Amendment should be among the most vigilant in exercising those rights virtuously. Those who support the Second Amendment should be unrelenting in preaching responsibility, prudence, and courage. Applying these principles to the McGlockton case, was it reasonable for Drejka to believe his life was in danger after one shove? How about when McGlockton backed away the instant Drejka brandished his gun?” – David French in Cowards weaken Second Amendment [via philly.com]

comments

  1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Personally, I think that was a bad shoot.
    Should he be prosecuted?
    That would hinge on how he “felt” as he pulled the trigger. If I understand the “stand your ground” law.

    1. avatar Kendahl says:

      In a duty to retreat state, retreat is required instead of fighting back but only if retreat makes you completely safe. For example, you would not be required to retreat from a robber armed with a gun because you can’t outrun a bullet. That it might be less dangerous to comply with the robber than to fight him is irrelevant since compliance isn’t enough to guarantee he won’t harm you.

      In a stand your ground state, whether you retreat or fight is strictly your decision. The law doesn’t require one instead of the other. However, you still must satisfy the other elements of a self defense claim which are innocence, imminence, proportionality and reasonableness.

      In the Florida handicapped parking incident, the shooter clearly was innocent. It can be argued either way whether the deceased was an imminent threat, whether shooting him was excessive and whether the shooter’s fear of death or serious injury was reasonable.

      1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        And look at the time frame a person has to make the decision. The guy had already ben attacked from behind by a younger and much larger man. From what I have read, the shooter’s attitude and conduct before the shooting was the reason ( in my opinion) that this happened in the first place. I have seen people parking in handicapped parking spaces that were not supposed to be in them but I never made a scene about it. I was concerned that this type of thing would result from playing traffic cop. What’s the point. Avoiding the whole issue is the argument here more than retreating once the violence begins.

      2. avatar Jay says:

        That was a perfectly good shoot. Look a guy can yell at me all day long if he wants but as soon as he puts his hands on me he’s fair game. No one knows what Mcglockton was going to do maybe he was going to his car to get a tire iron and bash the guy’s face in. Either way he was just some moron acting tough and that is what brought him to his demise. No one is going to give a s*** either way in the long run. And it definitely will not change anyone’s Minds on the right to defend themselves.

        1. avatar Rob says:

          Claiming that “once anybody puts their hands on you [they are] fair game” would never hold up in most states’ courts of law. Your own statement of not knowing what he was going to do (get a tire iron?) Already implies that you do NOT have affirmation of him being an imminent threat, but rather of you only being WEARY of his status as a threat–NOT grounds to shoot. Furthermore, in many states, the minimum threat for shooting in self defense is the (again,) IMMINENT threat of SERIOUS BODILY HARM. Being shoved in no way even remotely satisfies that requirement, especially after the person doing the shoving does not proceed to take advantage of the immediate vulnerability of the shoved by continuing to assault, but rather stops and then even steps away when the gun was drawn.

          After the deceased began to step away, in a manner that in any REASONABLE man’s mind should NOT have been perceived as an act of perpetuating the threat, the situation was thus de-escalated and pulling the trigger was no longer justified. But then again, the shooter arguably was not a reasonable man to begin with… and evidently neither are you.

          I hope you never encounter even the most mild of threats because it seems you have issues with determining an appropriate response as of yet.

    2. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      “Personally, I think that was a bad shoot.”

      Agreed.

      Argument guy was pissed off he was thrown to the ground and wanted some payback.

      Gears down here are turning on this incident. I think he eventually will be charged, and the video will likely convict him.

      The media down here is calling it another Trayvon Martin “Stand Your Ground” case, but it isn’t, since Zimmerman never invoked SYG for his defense…

      1. avatar Kendahl says:

        Stand your ground doesn’t apply to this case either. Retreat isn’t an option when you are on the ground with the guy who put you there looming over you.

        1. avatar Quasi-Motors says:

          Also, the way I understand case precedent regarding escalation of force, if you’re on the ground and someone is striking or attempting to strike you, that’s considered lethal force being used against you.

          Now, if you’re knocked to the ground, brandish a firearm and the attacker backs off? Not lethal force (i.e. a successful de-escalation of force).

          Whether or not the dude knew this, we’ll never know, but if he saw and registered in his brain the dude backing off, he should have got up and left.

          It’s rare to run into a case that’s clear-cut this or that, in this case, I’d lean to say it was not a good use of lethal force. If the deceased did not back away, he would have been justified in the shoot for sure based on him being on the ground.

          But, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

        2. avatar FedUp says:

          Quasi: If the deceased did not back away, he would have been justified in the shoot for sure

          I wouldn’t call it backing away.

          He took one step back upon seeing the gun, but he did not disengage, may have even been psyching himself up for another attack, or may have been verbally threatening the guy he just knocked down. Or, he may have been begging for his life. I don’t see how we can declare good shoot or bad shoot without at least some audio to go along with the video.

          It’s beginning to look like a case of asshole #1 tells his girlfriend to park in the handicapped spot while he grabs a pack of gum, asshole #2 calls her names for parking in the handicapped spot, asshole #1 decides to open up a can of whoopass on asshole #2, asshole #2 shoots asshole #1, now there’s one less asshole on the planet.

        3. avatar California Richard says:

          +1 Fedup…. Agreed with everything you wrote here. Thanks for posting.

        4. avatar Susan Zurawski says:

          Watch the video again – the guy who pushed him down was backing away immediately afterward even before the shooter was pulling his gun.

        5. avatar Eric Granberg says:

          When the shot was taken, McGlockton was backing up. Now, the shooter is going to have to face the serious possibility of spending the rest of his life in jail because he wanted to be a parking space lawman.

      2. avatar LafrryinTX says:

        It’s easy to assert that he wasn’t definitely in danger, right up to the time he is rendered unconscious. But that is too late. Prosecuting the jerk is a near impossibility without him on record somewhere discussing being determined to stop people from parking in handicapped spot, stating if anybody attacks him he’ll be prepared to kill them, or whatever. Fact is, dead guy should have known better than to assault old guy talking shit. And killer should have known better than to harass doofuses if he’s not ready to get punched around a bit. When both are in the wrong, I’d rather be the one with the gun.

        1. avatar Some guy says:

          “He took one step back upon seeing the gun, but he did not disengage, may have even been psyching himself up for another attack”
          Very typical to see someone step or rock back in preparation for throwing a punch.

        2. avatar Shooter McGavin says:

          McGlockton had every opoortunity to go home alive if he had the excercised even the slightest amount of civility…(SOCIAL SKILLS PEOPLE!!!) Instead, McGlockton escalated the situation to violence…as stated above, he made the choice to take things from verbal to physical…blindsiding an older guy he thought he could easily handle….Old guy was running his mouth but not threatening anyone’s safety…McGlockton raised the stakes and didn’t consider all the consequences of his actions….in short, he chose poorly…Play stupid games, win stupid prizes…

        3. avatar Jeh says:

          Here lies the rub and the cause of this incident: people who think its ok to lay hands on another person and give them a “beatdown” for whatever percieved slight. If the thug (lets not pretend this dickhead was some kind of father the year like the media has been proclaiming, he had a rapsheet longer than my forearm) kept his hands to himself, he’d be alive today.

    3. avatar CarlosT says:

      Is it reasonable to believe that a person in Drejka’s position would fear serious bodily injury or death? Having seen the real time video now, I’m more open to the idea than before. A blindside knockdown that puts you on the ground could very well disorient in such a way that things like whether someone is moving towards or away from you.

      Ultimately, McGlockton is the one who introduced violence into the situation. His girlfriend could have diffused it even before he came out of the store by reparking in one of the many open spaces. Those were easy decisions they could have taken to deescalate way before it ended where it did. Drejka obviously had other options, too, but until the pull of the trigger, he hadn’t committed any crimes, and it’s unclear that afterwards he had even then.

    4. avatar frank speak says:

      word is he had threatened to shoot others in the past….if true, that would work against him….

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        would appear to be a case of cranky old white guy meets stupid black guy….

    5. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

      Your answer to the entire incident is:
      Mental Health

      “… was it reasonable for Drejka to believe his life was in danger after one shove? How about when McGlockton backed away the instant Drejka brandished his gun?”

      While the questions in this post may be valid on their own, It appears the cart is being placed before the horse, IE, in the manner the question\s are being ordered/placed.

      By that I mean, or am trying to say, Why did the DGUser approach a complete stranger in a parking lot about a parking space for which he does not own, and 2) what words came out of his (DGUsers) mouth? <– There is your horse; the first question to ask.

      The direct answer (for us), to this articles questions:

      "… was it reasonable for Drejka to believe his life was in danger after one shove?"

      'YES', It is about what 'he', the DGUser believes within his own mind. Previous encounters against the DGUser may very well have altered his mindset. In fact, one or more previous encounter(s) may actually be the cause of the DGUser approaching a complete stranger in a convenience store parking lot, about a handicap parking space for which he does not own. I have yet to read, whether or not, the DGUser was entitled to legally use.

      Mental Health.

      2) " … How about when McGlockton backed away the instant Drejka brandished his gun?”

      Once aggressive contact is made, depending on disparity of force issues, then 'YES', 'if' he was outnumbered or the shover/attacker clearly had/has a size/weight advantage. However, we would not be discussing this if the DGUser did not approach a stranger in a convenience store parking lot about a handicap parking space that he does not own, and until otherwise proven, did not have a legal right use/occupy.

      Mental Health.

    6. avatar Jay says:

      This reply is for Rob since I cant reply to him directly. I think we can all agree that Drejka should have kept to himself or at least acted in a more tactful way. However Robert what you’re not understanding is you have to make a decision immediately if your life is in danger or not. It may only be a split second. We all have the luxury of being able to look at this video over and over again and say what we would have done but you have no idea until you are in that situation yourself. One thing is for sure is if you put your hands on someone YOU ARE FAIR GAME. McGlockton decided to escalate the situation to violence, words cannot hurt anybody but physical violence does. Act like a tough guy in public enough and one day you’ll meet someone who is either tougher or willing to go further than you. This was not a “mild threat” and yes I hope no one ever physically attacks me as they would get what they deserved…just like McGlockton.

  2. avatar former water walker says:

    Well PERSONALLY the large black man knocked the shite out of the small white man. ASSault obviously. Could’ve knocked him out,stomped him,kicked,busted his head or stabbed him. If you did that to me would I shoot you?!? I’m not a little guy but I am old. You’re a FOOL if you attack someone…

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      If he had thrown him to the ground and was taking steps towards him, I could see that as a valid SYG.

      Him turning and stepping back will be what gets him convicted…

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        And if his baby momma had the least bit of shame she would have moved from the handicapped space. See how this works?!?😄(anyone getting tired of continually typing required fields??? Immediately disappears!).

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        Here is a clue for you – NO ONE gets to throw another person on the ground when there has not been a PHYSICAL attack.

        To the skank baby momma and sperm donor – don’t act like ghetto trash and on balance the world will work out better for you.

        1. avatar FedUp says:

          Is the doctrine of fighting words still in force?
          If so, you have a right to utter fighting words, but in doing so you give up your right not to get knocked on your ass.

          Too bad we’ll probably never know what Drejka and the woman said to each other before McGlockton started in with the physical violence.

        2. avatar DaveL says:

          The fighting words doctrine is all but dead in First Amendment Law. In self-defense law, this would go to the Provocation doctrine. In Florida, Gibbs v. State (2001) foreclosed on the idea of provocation using “mere words or conduct without force or the threat of force.” So as a matter of Florida law, Drejka did not provoke the use of force against himself.

      3. avatar LafrryinTX says:

        Drawandfire is one word. If he had turned and begun to run, I would agree. As it was he was merely reconsidering, he may have quit, he may have kicked instead. I would have shot him, except I would not have been harassing people in the parking lot (and I HAVE a handicapped tag.) Try this; would your answer be different if the initial attack was an attempted robbery?

        1. avatar Porkchop says:

          +1

          I also have a handicapped parking permit, and it annoys me plenty when people without one park in designated handicapped spaces. But it is not a worthwhile pursuit to harangue them about it. Unless you are wheel-chair bound, handicapped parking is more a matter of convenience than necessity, at least in most cases that I am aware of. It’s nice not to have to walk quite so far, but in most parking lots, it’s just a matter of a few feet.

          There is, however, a subset of humanity who see it as their mission to prevent such things. I have been harangued by officious interlopers in the past. In one instance, I took the placard down from the mirror (state law requirement) as I prepared to leave, but before I could put the truck in gear, some guy showed up and started berating me for parking in the handicapped space without a permit. I think that it helps them maintain their self-image of moral superiority or something.

          It sounds like Drejka was one of “those guys.” Whether he is on firm legal ground is question that I will leave to others, but unless he is handicapped himself and needed the parking space, he was simply acting like a cranky old man. He had the right to do that, but it was still a remarkably stupid thing to do.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I consider “remarkably stupid” to be excellent terminology. Still not illegal, but I sure will not be joining in that fun.

      4. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        Him turning and stepping back will be what gets him convicted…
        Stepping back is not breaking off the fight which is what the lawyers and the jury will be looking for. If shooter was still in reasonable fear of his life then the court will give him a pass.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          There is not likely to be a court involved.

      5. avatar Billy says:

        Something very important that everyone, big or small, should remember. “Do not mess with an old man because he no longer has the ability to stand and trade blows with you, HE WILL JUST SHOOT YOU”. I know this because I am an old man, an old Marine who can no longer stand and fight but I am still a damn good shot. Everyone should break open a dictionary and look up the word “CONSEQUENCES”. There are consequences for your actions. Do something stupid and consequences may bite you in the asz.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      The subtext to this whole event is: don’t make black people angry. Having someone criticize or even berate your girlfriend does not automatically give you license to commit a physical assault, yet in reading the article about the shooting this is exactly what McGlockton did to Drejka. When that happened a rather obvious line was crossed, one that is expressly defined by Stand Your Ground law. We can only speculate what was in McGlockton’s mind just as we can only speculate what was in Drejka’s mind.

      On the other hand, David French is tacitly agreeing with McGlockton’s defenders—who of course had to bring in Travon, who’s pounding of Zimmerman’s head on the concrete sidewalk is somehow justified, to their argument—who are telling us that black people’s anger is somehow different from the rest of us and that black people’s physical aggression must be understood from that standpoint.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        An attitude which is *clearly* racist.

        1. avatar Billy says:

          Uh, no Larry, I think yours is the attitude that is RACIST.

  3. avatar pwrserge says:

    That’s like saying that first amendment supporters should rally for hate speech laws.

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      “That’s like saying that first amendment supporters should rally for hate speech laws.”

      The ACLU did just that for the ‘KKK’ in Skokie, Ill, in the 1970s…

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        I think you misunderstood me… In Sokie, the ACLU did something right, odd, I know… A right cannot be “misused” by definition.

        1. avatar Drake_Burrwood says:

          A Right to keep and Bear is not a right to shoot, a right to defend ones body and life is a seperate issue.
          The problem is here we Don’t know enough.. in the fall was his vision compromised, does he have other issues not apparent, this is one reason things go to Court simply to bring facts in the open.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          All I care about is who threw the first punch. Don’t want to get shot? Keep your hands to yourself.

  4. avatar former water walker says:

    As an addendum I’ve also seen(online) where the black fella has a criminal record for assault and other crimes. Unconfirmed ’cause the lamestream would scream “raciss”…be careful who you knock around. This isn’t grade school.

    1. avatar Kendahl says:

      True but irrelevant since the shooter didn’t know that when he was attacked.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Yeah, I haven’t figured out the sense behind that. He didn’t know, but I can’t see why the jury can’t. When there are two stories being told, one “EEeek!” and one “Dindunuffin, turning his life around, etc”, seems like 50-year-old businessman without a speeding ticket shot tattooed felon with pants around his ankles could suggest which story is believable.

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        Don’t care. Dead criminal is a civic service.

      3. avatar frank speak says:

        not totally irrelevant because it makes the attacker more menacing and alters intent…it’s a bit like being attacked by a dog that has attacked others in the past…..

        1. avatar FedUp says:

          Funny how a dog’s history can be used against it in court but a man’s history can’t, even after he’s dead.

          Harold Fish, an innocent retired schoolteacher, could probably talk for hours on that particular subject.

          http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15199221/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports/t/trail-evidence/

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Fascinating. Doofus attacked even when he knew Fish was armed. More than usual stupid.

  5. avatar No one of consequence says:

    “Thus, those who support, say, the First Amendment should be among the most vigilant in exercising those rights virtuously.”

    So you’d think. But, given some of the things both the democrats and their subsidiaries (mainstream media, for instance), you would apparently be wrong.

    Re the shooting, I wasn’t there. But here’s the thing … No matter what the final verdict is, the initial physical aggressor is dead. As a motorcyclist, I’m well aware of the fact that no matter who had right-of-way, if I have a collision with a car, I lose. Similar principle here. If I choose to initiate the use of force, I might wind up having just assaulted someone carrying a gun.

    I’m not making a statement as to whether this was a good, bad, or indifferent shoot. Just noting the consequences.

  6. avatar Kenneth says:

    “It is simply a fact that the irresponsible or reckless exercise of any given freedom undermines public support for that liberty.”
    Not correct. Given that there is liberty, there will always be those who misuse it. Just as there will always be robbery, murders, assaults, etc., no matter how tough or restrictive the laws of a land might be. It is NOT the ones who misuse these liberties that are the danger. It is when the system abdicates its responsibility to apprehend and punish those who misuse their rights, and instead often chooses to punish the victims, like the injustice system in the US has been doing for many decades now.
    When the system is corrupt from the top down, it takes the entire society down it. THAT is the danger. Not a few miscreants.

  7. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “…was it reasonable for Drejka to believe his life was in danger after one shove? ”

    What is with ‘just one shove’ shite I keep reading? A bigger guy shoved a smaller guy to the ground. ‘Just one shove’ this is not, this was a bigger dude knocking down the smaller dude.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      an older person is more vulnerable…some of you don’t seem to get that…shoving them to the ground risks further injury…

    2. avatar Anymouse says:

      “One shove” is disingenuous. This isn’t two guys facing off and one pushes the other back a couple feet. There was definitely a physical disparity between the two, the attacker struck without warning from the blind side, and the shove knocked the shooter down. That’s like saying “one little punch” to describe a knockout punch. The only argument to be made is whether a reasonable person in the shooter position would have thought the attack was over.

  8. avatar m. says:

    it be ok to tray-von a yt, donchaknow?

  9. avatar DJ says:

    Face it parking in the handicap spot and the knock to the ground was thugging. The victim did not jump to his feet. That was a violent knock down. That guy was twice his size and younger. Under the law I doubt you would get a conviction. If I was on the jury I would have given the victim the benefit of the doubt. I would not have convicted. And someone said the guy who went to the ground was white. Actually it was black on black.

    Don’t go to stupid places with stupid people and do stupid shit. The thug won his stupid prize.

    1. avatar A H says:

      You can’t have an objective argument when you have already applied labels to the involved parties. All there is to read here is hate.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Please let me know when it becomes wrong to hate career criminals… go away little SJW.

        1. avatar A H says:

          Well, that depends on your religious beliefs and entirely irrelevant to the case. I personally hate career criminals too. But who is the career criminal? The shooter has a record for domestic disturbance. Did the dead guy have one too?

          Your the only one bringing up “social justice”, and as an entirely baseless label too. Are you covering the lack of an intelligent response?

        2. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          “But who is the career criminal? The shooter has a record for domestic disturbance. Did the dead guy have one too?”

          Apparently, yes.

          So they both had a history. If the shooter has a domestic violence conviction, was he a prohibited person?

          And how does that impact the incident?

        3. avatar A H says:

          Well, that could change things. Criminal history can be very important in deciding perception of actions in which we, as third party viewers, are missing information through observation in a limited medium.

          I don’t know anything about the dead guys history. Lets just assume, for arguments sake, that it was violent, repeated and recent. That changes things. Just as the shooter could have been using threatening language, so could have the dead guy, which gives merit to the idea that the shooter, did in fact fear for his life. We extrapolate this probability from his history.

          I heard domestic disturbance. Tells me he was looking to cause trouble, but didn’t necessarily expect violence. I even get the impression that he was stunned by the shove.

          Domestic violence is a whole different story, and would mean he is looking for a confrontation, not just to cause trouble. I don’t think he is getting charged, so I doubt he was prohibited, and I’m sure the media would have jumped all over that.

          To be honest, it is more than likely that both parties involved were complete dick heads, who co-contributed to escalating the situation. One of them is dead. The question then comes to, should the shooter be held criminally responsible, and I still say yes.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      if true…that removes the racial but not the age factor…..

  10. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

    Drejka wasn’t exercising his right to self defense when he shot a retreating assailant, it was something else at that point. He may be protected by Florida law though. He may have been so disoriented by the assault that he couldn’t tell what was necessary and what was not, in which case the law functioned justly. I doubt we’ll ever know what his state and reasoning were though.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      I disagree that self defense does not include shooting “retreating” assailants. You are under no obligation to let the criminal seek cover to return fire.

      1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        I do have some sympathy for your position. Letting an aggressor choose the time and circumstances of the next encounter puts the victims at a severe disadvantage.

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        Wrong. Once your attacker stops his attack your right to self defense ends. The only circumstance where you can continue to use lethal force is if your attacker continues to shoot at you or others as he retreats. If he turns tail and runs the encounter is over. If he reengages it is a new incident.

        The primary reason criminals run from an armed citizen is that they know you can’t come after them. If we act in an offensive manner more of them will stand and fight. That isn’t a good outcome for us.

  11. avatar A H says:

    The events need to be considered in order, and the first thing is that the shooter initiated and maintained a targeted, aggressive behavior. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of what was to follow, the entire conflict would have not happened had he just minded his business.

    Yes, I know, the couple had supposedly parked illegally. So why isn’t this the instigating action? Because it isn’t aggressive, targeted, endangering and so on. It isn’t the general public’s responsibility to enforce laws. Call the cops, you pay them for this very work and now you don’t have to endanger yourself or others in unnecessary conflict.

    Now a shove could be hard to judge, and could just as easily be an aggressive life threatening action as, depending on conditions, an injury free defensive technique. But we have context, and context can mean everything. This was a response to aggressive behavior. On top of that, he stepped back. It doesn’t appear to entail any life threatening intent.

    We also have to consider history. The shooter has a police history of aggressive behavior. Not only was he acting irresponsibly at the time, but he had a record of actively looking for and causing conflict.

    And that tops it off. This is clearly a bad shoot.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Not gonna happen, so long as 1A guarantees a right to say whatever you wish. You may wish to rewrite the BoA, but a lot of us aren’t willing to let you. The assault broke the law, not speaking words in public.

      1. avatar A H says:

        What’s “not gonna happen”? I never said anything was going to happen. Oh, so you are putting words into my mouth that aren’t even remotely implied. I never said that “the assault”, which I believe refers to the shove, didn’t break the law.

        You have to disprove one or more of my arguments using facts and logic. Follow this with an equally constructed counter. Let me demonstrate:

        It could possibly be argued that the shove was not in fact an assault. Specifically, “assault still requires a criminal ‘act’.”[1] Considering I provided reason to view the shove as an act of defense, an act which is not criminal, then the shove was not assault.

        Further more, speaking words in public can be defined as assault. “The definitions for assault vary from state-to-state, but assault is often defined as an attempt to injure to someone else, and in some circumstances can include threats or threatening behavior against others.”[1] “Spoken words alone will not be enough of an act to constitute an assault unless the offender backs them up with an act or actions that put the victim in reasonable fear of imminent harm.” [1] “Moreover, an intent to scare or frighten another person can be enough to establish assault charges, as well.” [1] We don’t actually know what words were spoken, but we can observe behavior.

        [1] https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/assault-and-battery-overview.html

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Ah, so you go on and on and on about how everything is the shooter’s fault, then wish to pretend you are not advocating something? I am familiar with that technique, and consider it childish, even when put forward by elected officials. I am sure there are sites for people to play word games. Meanwhile, you are *STILL* expressing yourself as being Perry Mason, advocating for a position. And you are still 100% wrong, you will never be justified laying hands on someone for words that he says. Pretend there are word games happening all you wish, that is the only argument which needs to be made. It clearly defines a point dividing lawful and criminal.

        2. avatar FairyinTX says:

          Like R. Lee Ermey (rest his soul) said long ago (more or less), there are only two things in Texas, and you ain’t got no horns, boy. “Big Tex” cornhole Larry here has made a hundred posts on these articles yammering endlessly from behind the thin veil of his outdated racism to justify a diaper-filling golf-shorts wearing old nosey do-nothing loser in shooting a father in cold blood in public. This man who fell on his back is a coward. He gets knocked down, for verbally berating a woman (let’s remember it is a woman that big, powerful pocket-pistol Pete here is screaming at), and he goes straight to the pocket for his testicular fortitude on tap. There are ALL SORTS of laws, in every state, that classify some types of speech as assault. There isn’t a jury in America, for instance, that would excuse ol’ Tex here if he were publicly screaming at a child and looming over it in a threatening manner and I came up and pushed him. Not a one. Many people don’t know that there are even some types of speech you can’t use with a police officer. Years ago I was helping on a trial in Ohio where a thug being arrested had been screaming obscenities for hours at the arresting officers. “F—- this” and “Let me go you -ssholes” things like that. Well he finally was standing inches from an officer who was putting him in the car and said something about “just like your whore wife” and the officer clocked him pretty hard. In the trial, the officer was acquitted because there are standards of speech that are protected, of course, as long as they wouldn’t provoke “a reasonable person” to violence. Some words are over the top. So here we have one of Larry’s friends walking around in his diaper and golf shorts all day threatening women in a parking lot. Some guy comes out of the store, totally unaware of what is going on, and sees him just looming there over his wife. Every jury in America will say that could have provoked a reasonable man to a push. Then he steps back. Diaper-filler goes for his underpowered bravery. If this goes to a jury, that man is going to prison. They WILL and CAN bring his comments to others in the parking lot to bear.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          You do sound like a fairy! Facts remain facts, you are so very wrong, and such a fairy, but there will still be no prosecution, despite your melting snowflake. Because you are wrong! So fly away!

        4. avatar A H says:

          @LarryinTX

          I didn’t pretend anything. I said, and I quote, “This is clearly a bad shoot.” Obviously I am advocating it is a bad shoot. It is not even remotely possible to misinterpret such a fundamental written statement of belief.

          I already presented fact based evidence against your argument that you again try to pass off as a counter with no backing.

          Your the one acting like an elected official, attempting to pass off mudslinging as if it had some sort of merit. This is a debate, you do know how those work right? Put up or shut up.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        “BoR”. Sheesh.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      Let me simple this up for you cupcake… you can’t be “aggressive” with words. In this country, we have this thing called the 1st amendment. The incident became criminal when the scumbag shoved his victim. At that point, the victim was entirely justified in making said scumbag assume room temperature.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        Hopefully you’ll have a jury agree with you. I prefer to avoid getting in that situation in the first place unlike the shooter.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          if no criminal complaint is filed then it could become a civil action…for whatever that’s worth…

      2. avatar A H says:

        Sure you can, and you demonstrated it nicely by calling me “cupcake” (don’t worry, I’m not offended, but quite ammused). In the context of this conversation, the purpose of doing so would be to belittle me. It is not kind/positive, or neutral, so it must be aggressive/negative. Unless it is something else? What would that be?

        You can’t have an objective argument with non-objective labels.

        Speaking words in public can be defined as assault. “The definitions for assault vary from state-to-state, but assault is often defined as an attempt to injure to someone else, and in some circumstances can include threats or threatening behavior against others.”[1] “Spoken words alone will not be enough of an act to constitute an assault unless the offender backs them up with an act or actions that put the victim in reasonable fear of imminent harm.” [1] “Moreover, an intent to scare or frighten another person can be enough to establish assault charges, as well.” [1] We don’t actually know what words were spoken, but we can observe behavior.

        When we talk about acting in legal self defense, we talk about proportional force. A shove, as I stated before, can cover a huge spectrum, which, again, is why context is important. In this context, it doesn’t present itself as force requiring a lethal response.

        [1] https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/assault-and-battery-overview.html

        1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

          In the video, the gunslinger appears to be careful in keeping a bit of distance from the driver as he delivers his harangue about her unlawful parking. He’s not right up in her face, he’s a few steps back, so unlikely to be seen as threatening physical harm to her.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          *AND*, A H, the SJW, what you are asserting above amid tricky word games, is that calling you a cupcake is justification for shooting somebody? Are you generally considered sane? Calling someone a cupcake certainly entitles you to respond verbally. Shove someone to the ground for it only if you don’t mind being shot a few times. And, you may wish to note, that is exactly where the matter has been left by the cops, who appear to be uninterested in your silliness.

        3. avatar Jeh says:

          Theres no reason to lay hands on anither person in an aggressive fashion unless they are physically engaged in an assault on someone else.

        4. avatar A H says:

          @Serpent_Vision

          Fair assessment. I agree that he was not presenting action in a manner threatening physical harm. We don’t know what he was saying, and we do know that he liked to cause trouble (repeated domestic dispute).

          @LarryinTX

          I never claimed any of those things. I merely showed that aggressive language is in fact “legally defined”, and used his own language to demonstrate the complete ignorance and hypocrisy of his so called “argument”. I even asked him to categorize such language to no response. No word games, but your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. My sanity is also just fine. How about yours? Those completely ridiculous assertions came from you alone.

          @avatarJeh

          Absolutely right, and I never claimed what he did was the correct form of action. A person’s actions are entirely their own up until the point whereby, the actions of another remove the other options.

    3. avatar samuraichatter says:

      “Regardless of the rights and wrongs of what was to follow, the entire conflict would have not happened had he just minded his business.”

      True, but this applies to the deceased and the woman in the car. They chose to park illegally AND she chose not to move her vehicle when approached about it.

      “Yes, I know, the couple had supposedly parked illegally.”

      No supposed. She admitted on camera that she knowingly parked in a handicapped spot even though no one in the vehicle was handicapped. She also lied in an interview when she stated that her man tried to “deescalate” the situation. He pushed the shooter down immediately after he came out of the store.

      Point is there was nothing illegal about the shooter and the woman getting in an argument. The push is what really did it . . . and that was illegal and indefensible.

      Was the shooting justified. Maybe, maybe not. Based on what I know as I write this I am leaning towards it was not. I definitely would not convict on a murder1 charge and I would strongly hesitate on a murder2 charge. Manslaughter? That is much easier sell.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I believe your confusion comes from mixing in a different question. This should not have happened. I am not even particularly concerned about misuse of handicapped slots. Things went wrong when the shooter decided it would be fun belittling someone in public. Childish and stupid, but legal. He was stupid and looking for trouble. He happened onto someone else who was stupid and looking for trouble. The two of them could have been stupid at each other for hours, except one chose to do something illegal, and he died for it. Too bad, so sad. Cops are not interested, game over.

    4. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      “..The events need to be considered in order, ”

      OK, lets do that. And I should remind you that we are doing so in a relaxed manner with no imminent threat and the ability to examine and reexamine the tape. Which the man on the ground could not do.

      First, he started yelling at someone in a parking spot. OK, this makes him an asshole. Rude, possibly threatening, but not illegal. And even if we was saying threatening things, the lady in the car didn’t feel threatened because she can be seen exiting the car just before McGlockston shoved him to the ground.

      Stop the tape right here for a moment. Djerka wasn’t impeding the woman in the car from leaving the situation. He was to the side of the car saying whatever he was saying to her. He did not continue to approach the car while saying whatever he was saying, he stays more than an arms-length away. She could have simply flipped the guy off and ignored him. She didn’t, she chose to get out of the car.

      Moving forward…. McGlockston approaches screaming guy and takes the last couple of steps at an increased space as if he is planning on body-checking the guy, or tackling him if you prefer football over hockey. Full body contact and Djerka goes to the ground and it looks like a hard knock too. McGlockston carries forward at least one step, possibly two, to end his travel standing over Djerka.

      This is the exact moment the shoot becomes justified. If you want to use SYG, that’s fine, but this is the point where it clearly becomes self-defense. He was physically attacked by a bigger man who just knocked him violently to the ground.

      Was Djerka yelling at the lady in the car? Doesn’t matter. His position in relationship to the car is what is important, he is more than an arms-length away and not advancing. He is to the side of the car so the driver was free to move or leave.

      If McGlockston approached and started yelling at Djerka who then shot him there would be a problem.

      McGlockston decided physical violence was called for and with ‘just one shove’ knocked Djerka to the ground.

      Physical assault.

      You throw yourself to the ground, or ask someone to knock you down in a manner similar to what McGlockston did to Djerka, and then tell us you wouldn’t shoot. You tell us from your new perspective of being on the ground that is was ‘just one shove.’

      1. avatar DJ says:

        I’m old and have had multiple surgeries and need some joint replacements. I would not be able to get off the ground if I was violently knocked to the ground. I didn’t see the guy in the video get up.

        A H I think you are wrong. I don’t think a jury would convict. Don’t be a thug. Obviously me calling it thugging triggered you. The woman in the car and the deceased were completely in the wrong. He initiated the violence.

    5. avatar Jeh says:

      The thug lost his claim to victimhood the second he bumrushed drejka.

      Like i said earlier, lets not pretend mcglockton is sone kind of model citizen either. He was a prototypical thug.

  12. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

    It seems to me that this was a case of ‘when a$$holes collide’. We lost one of the a$$holes. There is a tear running down my thigh for them.

  13. avatar H says:

    He was harassing his girlfriend wife. What man allows that? Not saying he should have pushed him.

    What we do know is that he has done that before. “Stupid people in stupid places at stupid times doing stupid things.” This phrase was mentioned in a training I attended. Any one of those is a reason to go home.

    Guns don’t have to come out. Proportional response. If one goes to fear immediately perhaps one shouldn’t carry. Perhaps one shouldn’t be out and around fellow humans who can be in a variety of moods or make mistakes. Perhaps grounded man shouldn’t be telling people what to do. What if she was handicapped but hadn’t hung sticker? That’s between her and the cops. That’s the shop owner’s job to make the call if it matters. Perhaps one should take self defense classes so one knows what they are capable of. Perhaps grounded person could have walked away too. So many possibilities before someone ends up dead.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Proportional response is advocated by vermin who care more about criminals than their victims.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Dead guy was totally free to stand over doofus screaming STFU for the remainder of the day. He was not free to physically attack. Come on, guys, you all know that! Shooter cannot retreat, whatever the law says, since he has been knocked to the ground.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        No, screaming STFU, would be “Assault”.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          No, it absolutely would not. We could argue about “I am going to kill you”, but giving you an order, whether “STFU” or “sit down” or even “hold my beer and watch this”? Absolutely not.

  14. avatar Pete says:

    The shooter, charged or not, is in for a world of hurt. Lawsuits and probable harassment will certainly follow.
    As for the shooting itself, lacking audio it is hard to determine if he was in reasonable fear.
    If the victim shouted “I’m gonna effin kill you” as he shoved him or “Leave my wife alone” would change the shooter’s perception of danger.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I seriously doubt shooter has enough assets to make lawsuit worthwhile.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        Bingo. He has nothing of value.

        The state is in a tough spot on this – They are going to be pressured to charge him, and he can’t afford a serious defense team.

        Unless there are some crowdfunding efforts going on we aren’t aware of?

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Really? Who is pressuring the state to prosecute? Why would anyone be interested? Who would be funding a prosecution?

  15. avatar jwm says:

    Human and civil rights are individual rights. Mine cannot be taken away because the next guy is abusing his same rights.

    Collectively punishing all for the behavior of a few is basic fascism 101. Machine gun the whole town because a few are acting out. This is the sort of mass punishment one gets with the clintons, obamas, and the rest of that broken crowd.

  16. avatar GS650G says:

    He picked a fight with the guy over a handicapped parking space.
    1. He’s not a traffic cop so why is he getting so revved about it. Call a cop and report his tag number.
    2. He got tosses to the ground but the assailant didn t move on him. To a jury it looks like the incident was over or close to it..
    3. He has the option of drawing without firing. So many times we see how presenting a gun changes everything. He drew and fired.
    4. The media will convict him before he even is arrested. Remember that when you are drawing a gun.

    A wise man once said carrying doesn’t mean you don’t take shit from people, it means you take a lot of shit because you’ve the tool in your pocket that can change lives.

    Another reason to not put yourself in a bad situation. He did that when he got riled up over a parking violation. I bet he wishes he kept his mouth shut now.

    1. avatar DJ says:

      If you get to a point in life where you need that handicap parking it will change your perspective.

      I don’t have a problem with people taking violators to task. The cops sure as hell don’t.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        If I get to needing a handicap tag im still not.going to start a fight over it. Maybe you will but I won’t.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      The police, aka the professionals, disagree with your assessment.

      1. avatar Jeh says:

        “Professional” what? “Professional” fuckups? Cause thats what alot alot of departments seem to be comprised of now…..

  17. avatar FedUp says:

    If Drejka had volunteered to do handicapped parking enforcement and been given a ticket book, we wouldn’t be arguing about this incident.

    He could have been slapping a $250 ticket on the windshield when McGlockton walked out of the store, McGlockton could have blindsided him (McG has a criminal record for assault already, and I bet a well earned $250 ticket would piss him off), Drejka could have shot him dead, and pretty much nobody would have given a shit, as McG’s attack would have been viewed as an assault upon legitimate law enforcement.

  18. avatar Luther O’Dunahee says:

    If you have viewed the video a reasonable person will conclude this was a violent assault not a simple “shove”.

    Drejka who is handicapped was pancaked on the parking lot by a much larger man and never saw it coming. Those who have played football who have been blind sided by a “crack back” block know what happens.

    So after Drejka gets re-oriented after getting hit by a bus it’s not that difficult to understand his self defense reaction. He likely didn’t even notice that the thug took a step back.

    The Sherrif’s assessment is correct and this is a legal act of self defense under the Stand Your Ground law.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      The Sherrif’s assessment is correct and this is a legal act of self defense under the Stand Your Ground law.
      Even with Duty to Retreat, where was the shooter supposed to go?

  19. avatar Dev says:

    If the shooter was black and the victim white, half of the keyboard warriors posting about it would be screaming for the death penalty for the shooter right now. Hypocrites and racists, just like the left. The fact of the matter is that the shooter created a volatile situation all by himself by harassing someone over a trivial civil matter. No one knows if he threatened the woman with physical harm either, at least from the articles about this case. The article above is correct, responsible gun owners have to be responsible because the left is wetting their pants waiting for any excuse to try to take away our rights.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      Nice of you to bring race into it, and then accuse others of your racism.

      1. avatar Dev says:

        You obviously have not been reading the comments from the people I am talking about. And if you think my comment indicated any racism on my part you’re just an idiot.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Well and good, still, your post above was the first I have noticed which puts this incident in a racist light. As in, distinguishing different attitudes due to race of participants. That is what racism, is, you know. All those posts, and yours was the first to go there. And my analysis of the recent media says if the shooter was black, regardless of the race of the deceased, we would never have heard about it. Like 600 times in Chicago last year.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      The (D) who wrote the article gets paid to write, and doesn’t give fuck-1 about the 2A. Philly.com is anti-2A 100% of ghe time.

      What they say has no bearing.

      F em all.

    3. avatar CarlosT says:

      And how do you think the media would be covering a large, young white man attacking a older black man?

      Let’s do that thought experiment: young white couple with child pulls into a handicapped spot. The woman stays in the car while the man takes the boy inside. An older black man, upset by the presumption and gall of taking a handicapped spot in a nearly empty lot, berates the woman. Instead of moving the car, the woman gets out of the car and starts arguing. Hearing the argument, the man runs out of the store and shoves the older man hard to the ground. The older man pulls out his gun and shoots the boyfriend, who goes back inside the store and collapses.

      So, what’s the narrative? Are we still talking about how Stand Your Ground is so horrible? Or are we talking about how white privilege and ableism are a scourge upon the land? Are the social justice activists protesting because the shooter isn’t immediately arrested and charged?

      I think we know what the answers to these questions is very likely to be, and that should bother us.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I guess maybe I’m a bit blind. I see the result exactly the same, except nobody making any noise about it. Totally unremarkable, everyday “stupid things in stupid places”, nothing to see here, move along. Similar to a recent shooting in a Waffle House where white guy football player type, excessively drunk, harasses and then attacks a black guy trying to eat breakfast, who shot him dead (all on surveillance cam) and was not charged, very little reported. That analysis makes me not at all uncomfortable, I think I hear you discovering you are a racist and attempting to convince me that I am, too. No sale.

        1. avatar CarlosT says:

          I think you’re a little naive if you think a young white guy shoving down an older black man wouldn’t get the media setting their hair on fire. Same thing with a white, able-bodied couple abusing a handicapped spot, then getting into a violent incident over it. You honestly believe CNN et al. would leave that story alone? You think Black Lives Matter, etc. would just shrug it off?

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Carlos, that is a different ending than the original, which had the older black man shoot and kill the younger white man. The shoving alone, yeah, the media would notice, but if the dead guy had just shoved around the shooter there would have been no coverage. In your original flip of situation, I still assert there would have been NO coverage.

    4. avatar Jeh says:

      I dont think you have a good grasp of exactly what happened……..but feel free to continue being a dumbass…..

  20. avatar Moltar says:

    This is a sh*t storm of a shoot. Audio would make all the difference. If the shooter had just kindly asked the woman to move her bucket of bolts or said something like hey can you move your car, you’re in a handicapped spot. Then the big dude is in the wrong for shoving him. If the shooter says something like hey b*tch move your f*cking car before I whip your a**, stupid wh*re. Well, that changes the math and he got what he deserved when big dude put him on the ground. Likewise, if after the shove big dude had said Dude don’t f*ck with my wife or I’ll beat your a**. That’s understandable shooter is in the wrong. However, if big dude shoved him down said b*tch I’m bought to get my strap and f*ck you up in this parkin lot for messin with my woman. The shooter is in the right.

    Personally I think this all could’ve been avoided by all parties involved minding their own damn business and exercising proper parking etiquette. No park in handicap spot, no confrontation, no confrontation, no shooting. Even if they had parked in the handicapped spot had the shooter just done what 99.99% of other humans do and just muttered “asshole” to himself and went about his day we wouldn’t be discussing this.

    1. avatar Ingenero says:

      Exactly. Wordless video doesn’t make the rest of the situation clear, so it’s hard to know more. But all of this is a mess, an entirely avoidable one on both sides. No one but the shooter can know what went through his head, but it’s a hell of a thing to kill someone in a confrontation over a parking spot, justified or not. That the shooter has a background as a jerk charged for being such, and the victim a background for assault and battery shows that they both probably bear blame, but only one is dead. If either had simply left the other alone this never would have happened.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Boy, are you missing 1A, or what? I don’t GAS what anybody *said*, it does not justify a physical attack. If this is going to be “the truth about guns”, you better start getting that! It could get you freaking KILLED, or jailed for decades for killing someone else. Not just thinking legal, think “how stupid could you be??” You’re going to kill someone for something he said to your baby momma? Can you be serious?

  21. avatar Joe R. says:

    F Philly.com

    Hell
    F all of POS Philly

    Some dipshit working for an entity hell bent on bringing America and the 2A down gets zero say in what will protect it.

    Philly.com is The PROBLEM. The Problem doesn’t get to define the problem. The Problem soesn’t get to offer solutions to the problem.

  22. avatar Aaron Standish says:

    When are people here going to catch up with the rest of the world and acknowledge that ‘thug’ and ‘thuggish’ and ‘thuggery’ etc. are racist cliches used to replace the word they really want to use? You undermine your already thin ‘I’m not a racist’ trope by using this phrase so freely. It’s not just rare to hear that phrase applied to a white bad guy, it’s purposely avoided because y’all wink & nod & agree to use it instead of the n-word. It isn’t like you’re choosing a word that makes you sound less racist. But I guess that’s why you use a ‘code word’ that was broken many years ago–wouldn’t want your own dumb peers missing your point…

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      Thanks, Aaron. It’s always amusing to watch a racist call everybody else racist.

      BTW, you do know what the T in JBT stands for, don’t you? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not ‘person with darker skin than mine’.

    2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Oh heck, with all the SJWs running around, we are all racists now. It has become meaningless.

    3. avatar DJ says:

      I’m ok with using thug and thugging.

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Yo, Aaron! You’re so FOS it’s coming out your ears. There are all manner of racial slurs on this planet, but thug is not one of them, and there are thugs of every race. Your assertions that white thuggery is overlooked due to *our* racism, are racist assertions with no basis in fact. Try some introspection.

  23. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Sounds like another Trayvon case in which all the bleeding hearts try to put in extraneous information to make it appear the shooter offed the perp in cold blood.
    Perp shoved shooter hard to the ground and took one step back. Big deal. Perp could have still continued the assault easily. Shooter in fear of his life? Probably.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Zimmerman was doing his neighborhood watch thing and he called the cops when he saw Martin behaving in a suspicious manner. When the 911 operator told him he didn’t need him to follow Martin he turned around and was returning to his truck when Martin popped up and attacked him. Zimmerman did not plea SYG. He claimed regular self defense. Other than that it was exactly the same.

  24. avatar tdiinva says:

    if Drejka had not decided to play hall monitor none of this would have happened. Put yourself in McGlockton’s shoes. You come out and see someone who looks like he could get physical with the girlfriend. What would you do? The letter of the law says Drejka is innocent but he is bears the moral responsibility for initiating the sequence of events.

    If you carry mind your own business.

    1. avatar Sal Chichon says:

      I would collect my wife, get in the car, and leave. Simple!

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        The correct answer to a rhetorical question by someone with no skin in the game.

        1. avatar CarlosT says:

          It’s exactly what I would have done. Why would I escalate the situation to physical violence? It’s just a dumb risk.

          “Come honey, let’s go.” Over. Done.

          Even better, don’t park in a handicapped spot for no reason at all in an almost completely empty lot. WTF.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      I keep my hands to myself. This isn’t kindergarden. You’re responsible for your own actions.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      OK, you want me to put myself in dead guy’s shoes? You first. If you were dead guy and armed, and you came out to hear doofus requesting one of your string of hookers to move the car, would you have shot him in the back? You are suggesting that would be a “yes”. No, you are NOT clear to do that, nor to knife him in the back, nor to club him with a baseball bat from behind, nor to come up behind him and shove him to the ground. THAT is assault! THAT justifies a self-defense response. Me? I’d have gotten in the car and left. If he had shot me while I was doing that, he’d have been arrested. Unless I killed him.

  25. avatar Grace12 says:

    So, why was the shooter there? One news account stated he had confronted other people in that same parking lot. Was he there to buy a drink or some smokes or was he there to do precisely what he did and had done in the past? If I was on the jury I would take that history of confrontation into account.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      past history is definitely in play here…for both parties…

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I doubt it, particularly since there is no interest in prosecuting the case.

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          “… particularly since there is no interest in prosecuting the case.”

          So far. That could change. It took about a month before the rancor of the Martin/Zimmerman incident led to Angela Corey (?) being on the case. The local prosecutor was fairly adamant that there was no prosecutable case, but the state caved to pressure.

          This is 30 miles from me, so it’s getting covered in the local news. I’m hearing continual low-level noise being generated about SYG, but so far the national players like Sharpton haven’t been heard from.

          It wouldn’t surprise me one whit if the state AG is tip-toeing very carefully on this one…

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I hear ya! And it made me laugh that in Martin/Zimmerman, the prosecutor was correct, there *was* no prosecutable case. Spent a bunch of taxpayer $$, for nothing.

  26. avatar Sal Chichon says:

    The guy doing the attacking (the shover) had it coming. The fact that his first action to the scenario was violent physical assault meant that he’d probably done that in the past as fist first course of action, and gotten away with it. Well, he did not get away with this time. The guy was trash, and he got taken out. Good shoot.

  27. avatar Ralph says:

    “Thus, those who support, say, the First Amendment should be among the most vigilant in exercising those rights virtuously.”

    Well, allow me to retort.

    I support the First Amendment and you can go fvck yourself.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Yeah, I’m seeing that as reasonably virtuous, no?

  28. avatar Ingenero says:

    I think one of the big points I took from the article is getting missed: regardless of correctness under the law, this shooting looks terrible, and is tragic in that a life was lost over an idiotic confrontation, and will make some people who aren’t POTG and don’t know how this works question Stand Your Ground laws and Concealed Carry. People who read about this in the paper won’t ask if the shooting was justified, they’ll ask if this could happen to them. We want the story about Stand Your Ground and Concealed Carry to be about citizens protecting themselves and others from knife- or gun-wielding maniacs and home invaders, not a jerk shooting another jerk in an unnecessary altercation over a parking space. People like Drejka carrying guns to protect themselves because they’re serial a******s is simply terrible on all levels. We don’t want him to be a poster boy for the millions of responsible gun owners, and we don’t want McGlockton to be the standard victim when we defend ourselves. Justified or not, regardless of his past, a kid’s parent died getting physical with a man screaming at his girlfriend while a child was in the car. This is not a gangbanger getting shot invading a home, it’s a guy doing what many men either could see themselves doing, or that they sympathize with (protecting his gf and kid), and this is simply terrible regardless.

    1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      “..not a jerk shooting another jerk in an unnecessary altercation over a parking space. ”

      Yeah. But very much no. This shooting had nothing to do with a parking space and everything to do with a physical attack. The guy was shot because he physically attacked someone.

      1. avatar Ingenero says:

        I get it, but Drejka, who repeatedly get in other people’s faces about jerky behavior, and others like him are effectively asking for a confrontation. That’s not the behavior of a responsible CC holder. Yes, the person ultimately at fault is the one who throws the first punch…but once again, someone with a police record for going around confronting people for parking in the wrong spot is trying to provoke confrontation. No one should do this, and we shouldn’t reward this provocative behavior by holding him guiltless for a shooting just because he didn’t physically assault anyone first. Stand Your Ground isn’t put in place to protect professional jerks. If that’s what people see, those laws will be undermined by a change in popular support.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Guys, let’s face it. I know nothing, but I surmise shooter had a carry license because he was tired of getting his ass whupped by people he was berating like a jerk. If society believes, as some here seem to, that a bigger guy is free to just kick your ass, or rape you, whenever he feels like it, then more like dead guy need to become dead guys. You do not have to put up with that shit and keep your ammo dry for only home invasion use. Dead guy’s behavior was unacceptable. In the future it won’t be. Maybe some of his friends will learn something. Maybe his son will learn something.

        2. avatar Ingenero says:

          So…rather than let the big guy beat people up, we let jerks shoot people? I don’t like any of this. They were both at fault, but while one guy is dead, I don’t think the other guy should walk free. At least charge him with manslaughter, people shouldn’t use guns to make them free to harass people. That’s not the point, and if we make it the point society will lash out and change the laws.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Jerk was already free to harangue people, even if they were not parking illegally, people are verbally harassed every day by people protesting something or other, no harm, no foul. Jerk was armed because someone might ATTACK him, and just that happened. That’s why I carry as well. I don’t provoke confrontations, but then that’s me. Verbal attacks will normally get you no response from me, maybe an occasional verbal response. Physical attacks will never earn you a fistfight, will most likely get you shot. Because I am too old and weak for that shit.

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        False, this has everything to do with Dreyka playing Metermaid. If he had minded his own business, or if concerned got the police involved, none of this would have happened. Being legally right is not the same as being morally right.

        Do you want Dreyka to be our posterboy for a concealed carrier or SYG?

        1. avatar FedUp says:

          none of this would have happened

          …because McGlockton didn’t have priors for assaulting people who weren’t playing metermaid…
          no, wait…

          we don’t want him to be the posterboy for CC or SYG

          …but the professional talking heads do want it, so we get to see
          1. Drejka smeared and cast in the worst possible light
          2. Everybody who isn’t Drejka treated as if they are Drejka.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          Let me translate your post into plain English for you. ” I have the right to stick my nose where it doesn’t belong and if somebody takes exception I can shoot him.”

          Dreyka has been falsely compared to George Zimmerman. Zimmerman didn’t try to play cop. He called them, followed their instructions and got jumped on the way back to his car.

          If you carry a gun you avoid conflict because every encounter has the potential to get someone killed. If you carry mind your own business and ignore assholes. Instead of blindly supporting this guy take him as an example of what not to do.

        3. avatar FedUp says:

          TDI, I haven’t thought of you as a liar before, but that post really takes the cake.

          “Let me put false words in your mouth…”
          Really, is that the way you want to play it?

          And you have the nerve to describe McGlockton’s actions as ‘taking exception’???

          I agree with you that sensible people avoid conflict when they carry, but you don’t have to turn into a blatant liar to support that point.

        4. avatar tdiinva says:

          And I haven’t thought of you as being a couple fries short of a Happy Meal until now. I don’t care what McGlockton’s record was. Was Dejka a clairvoyant? Drejka should have minded his own business and walked on by. Parking in the wrong spot is down there with jaywalking on the scale of offenses. Do you recommend confronting jaywalkers as well?

          Pro tip:. You are not a cop. You probably couldn’t do a cop’s job. Don’t play cops and robbers with real guns.

    2. avatar CarlosT says:

      Who created the confrontation? McGlockton and his girlfriend. There was no reason to park in that spot. She could have easily reparked. He didn’t have to escalate to physical violence. Drejka should have minded his own business, but McGlockton and his girlfriend were acting with chips on their shoulders.

      1. avatar Ingenero says:

        So was Drejka, who has a police record for confrontations over this. That’s not the sign of a responsible gun owner, and is a terrible example of a Concealed Carry holder and use of Stand Your Ground. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, but I don’t want people who regularly try to provoke confrontation thinking this makes it ok to shoot people when they don’t get the reaction they’re aiming at.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Yeah, but the shooter is still alive, and not going to be prosecuted, so who is the loser here is pretty clear.

        2. avatar Ingenero says:

          Is and should be are two different things. This isn’t something to celebrate. Someone is dead, and it started with a jerk harassing his girlfriend about a parking spot. It’s an idiotic, senseless thing for someone to end up dead over.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I agree completely, this should be a teachable moment! Keep your hands to yourself or you might be killed.

        4. avatar Badgerman says:

          My question is: if the shooter had a history of confrontations should he have had a CC license in the first place?

      2. avatar Jamesfromlakegeneva says:

        Here is a different perspective I would like to offer: When McGlockton exited the convenience store and saw Dreyka (who chose to get in the face of McGlokcton’s girlfriend / mother of his children), if he perceived there was an immediate threat to his girlfriend of physical violence, would he be covered by Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law by removing the threat as he did? And if not, why not?

        1. avatar demetri says:

          Probably not, because his fear would not be reasonable and there was no imminent danger as the girl was in the car and Drejka was 2-3 feet away from the car window. The fact that the girl exited the car just before the assault happened shows that there were no grounds for the fear

  29. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    He said/She said..
    Guy gets shoved down. Sees larger man standing over him, woman getting out of car. Now two on one.
    Note: Other guy exiting store walking behind large guy can be viewed as three on one. (this guy is smart and jets though)
    Larger man hitches his pants (hands reaching towards waist) and blades his body. (what some see as taking a step back) Smaller man fires from the ground.

    Sheriff is correct for not arresting.

  30. avatar Erik says:

    You know what might have worked? Hands up, don’t shoot. If there wasn’t video, how much do you want to bet that the narrative would be that Mr. Attacker would have done just that.

    I cannot believe anyone can say the shooter did wrong. We are just entering that the guy said anything to the girlfriend. He could have been selling Girl Scout Cookies for all we know.

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      “I cannot believe anyone can say the shooter did wrong.”

      Well…

      As a concealed carrier, I think it was butt-fvcking-stupid of him to be in a confrontational mode about something that was of zero business to him.

      And apparently, he had a history of doing just that.

      So, it’s pretty much something that as carrier, he should have been actively trying to avoid, if at all possible…

      1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

        “… I think it was butt-fvcking-stupid ”

        And even people who are butt-fvcking-stupid have the right to bear arms.

  31. avatar Sora says:

    All I read was “Progress for Progress’s sake.”

    Yeah, for #2A, let yourself be beaten half to death.
    Screw that! You let that happen to yourself and your family.

    Mine, we rather talk in court than be dead.

  32. avatar DaveL says:

    While Mr. French’s point is well-taken, it’s curious how the misconduct of a free man so easily discredits the liberties of all his fellows, while the misconduct of government merely leads to calls for more government.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      I believe we have a winner here.

      Good post, Dave.

      1. avatar Drake_Burrwood says:

        I agree as well.

  33. avatar DaveL says:

    Of course there’s a problem with French’s thesis. If a people, collectively, cannot be trusted to exercise their own individual liberties responsibly, how can they be trusted to raise from among themselves a government that would responsibly wield the power to suppress them? They can’t, clearly. Thus the very suggestion carries with it the unspoken implication of a tiered society, where the wise and benevolent ruling class lords over the unreliable masses. It’s okay, they’re better than us – they say so, after all, and they’re so much smarter anyway.

  34. avatar JOHN B THAYER says:

    https://www.facebook.com/markeis.mcglockton.7

    Looks like McGlocky spent time in the slammer.

  35. avatar tdiinva says:

    You guys kill me. If McGlockton lived up to his namesake and whipped out his G19 and perforated Mr. Dreyka you all would be saying what a moron for not minding his own business.

  36. avatar Bruce Clark says:

    If you feel a rational fear of great bodily injury or death or to anyone else in your immediate vicinity you are bound to a higher cause than any of mankinds rules or regulations. Therefore, as a person that is on the ground and unable to possibly escape at that point I would consider him an adversary and a threat until he was completely out of my sight. I would do my best to eliminate him as a threat with the utmost prejudice. In other words, I’d shoot the hell out of him until he wasn’t a threat anymore. How’s the old saying go about being judged by twelve?

    1. avatar Badgerman says:

      Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.

  37. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    wow. more wasted energy than a steam engine.
    this was a couple of jagoffs and a goofy bitch with plenty of disrespect to go around.
    “you gotta keep ’em separated.”

    once i had a ’71 2dr bonny, 455 coupe. as mr. boffo said “weederman, with this car we are either going to the gas station, at the gas station or, foolishly, leaving the gas station.” so with a long line at the pump i started jockeying for a spot by using the sidewalk. bobo, a fine young gentleman in a buick regal, was leaving but decided to stop mid driveway to block my progress. he looked at me and said, “how does it feel to have to wait?” i smiled and took a pull from a 16oz red bull schlitz and sat until he tired of his fiasco.
    such is the mindset of the perpetually offended. wind in your face/ wind to your back.

  38. avatar just digs says:

    After you have been thrown to the ground you cant perceive a step backwards. You look up and there is the beat down. How about you get your ass chucked on the concrete and see how well you can perceive a non threat from an attacker. On video it looks like chicken shit but in real life it wasnt.

  39. avatar Michael says:

    Never attack an old man. If he’s in a position where he can’t get away…he’ll kill you…he didn’t get old by being stupid. Foxtrot, Kilo, Alpha! 30

  40. This punk ass guy should go to jail for murder. He shot at this guy when he did not need to.

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