BREAKING: Florida Parking Lot ‘Stand Your Ground’ Shooter Charged

Drejka McGlockton Parking Lot Stand Your Ground

courtesy ABC News

The Florida parking lot incident in which Michael Drejka shot and killed Markeis McGlockton after McGlockton pushed him to the ground has been a big topic of discussion. Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri declined to charge Drejka based on his reading of the state’s ‘stand your ground’ law. But he referred the case to prosecutors.

Today, Drejka was charged with manslaughter.

State Attorney Bernie McCabe’s decision to charge Drejka signals that prosecutors believe they can show by “clear and convincing” evidence that a stand your ground defense is not applicable in Drejka’s case.

State legislators revised the law last year to put the onus on prosecutors to disprove a stand your ground claim instead of on defense attorneys to prove one.

Several questions must be considered in deciding whether someone can be protected under the law when they use force: Was the person acting lawfully? Did the person have a right to be there? And was the person in reasonable fear of serious injury or death?

The attorney who represented Trayvon Martin’s family, Benjamin Crump, is representing Tiffany Jacobs, McGlockton’s girlfriend who was part of the altercation with Drejka the day of the shooting. And . . .

Five members of Congress, including Sen. Bill Nelson and Rep. Charlie Crist, called for the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division to open an investigation. State Sen. Darryl Rouson called for a special session to address stand your ground, an effort that failed on Friday.

And all the while, rallies and news conferences cropped up nearly every day to call for an arrest, organized by groups such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and Black Lives Matter.

Here we go. Look for the Drejka case to possibly rival the Zimmerman trial in a toxic mix of hyperbole and misinformation from both sides as the days and weeks go on.

 

 

comments

  1. avatar JOHN B THAYER says:

    Our friend “McGlocky’s” favorite color seems to have been orange. See his Facebook page below.
    https://m.facebook.com/markeis.mcglockton.7

    1. avatar Gales says:

      1. That page is more likely a fake.
      2. That doesn’t have anything to do with it.

      1. avatar P Hall says:

        He’s just trying to ‘dirty up’ the victim.

        1. avatar JOHN B THAYER says:

          Who is the “victim”? The one who initiated the use of force or the one who responded to it?

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          “He”, who?

        3. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          Hey John, This is just going to come down to leftists claiming the white guy was racist and the black guy was a model citizen. They will drag this through the courts until the nation believes that you can’t shoot anyone who physically attacks you, even if the white guy wins, he will still be a “murderer” in the minds of the idiot left!

        1. avatar DDay says:

          Even if that is correct, it’s irrelevant. The shooter didn’t know anything about the pusher. Everything that matters is on that tape.

        2. avatar How_Terrible says:

          Not everything. Near as I know the tapes that have been made public do not have any audio recordings, but that isn’t surprising since most security camera don’t have that ability.

        3. avatar JasonM says:

          None of that matters. McGlockton could have been an escaped murderer on the run from the law. It wouldn’t affect the justifiability of the shot.

          What matters is was McGlockton a credible threat of serious injury or death when Drejka fired the shot?
          The account I read before said:
          1 Drejka complained about McGlockton’s girlfriend being parked in a handicap spot.
          2 Drejka and McGlockton argued.
          3 McGlockton pushed Drejka to the ground and stepped forward.
          4 Drejka drew a gun.
          5 McGlockton stepped back and raised his hands.
          6 Drejka fired.

          Assuming that is correct…
          At 3, Drejka was likely justified in his draw. If he drew and fired as McGlockton advanced, then he’s probably justified. If there was enough time between his draw and the shot for McGlockton to back off and Drejka to reassess the situation, then he’s probably not.

        4. avatar Bob h says:

          The judges in the Trayvon Martin case and the Michael Brown case AND the Freddy Grey case made the “victims” prior records of violence and drug use un available to the grand jurys even though I would argue it provides context as to the character of the individual, which provides context to the conflicts and confrontations leading to their deaths. I would bet real $$ that Mr Mcglocktons criminal record will not be allowed as evidence, mark my words. Even if it shows Mcglockton has a history of violent assault.

        5. avatar Tundra says:

          Recent events bring something to my mind:

          YOU NEED TO HAVE PLANS!

          Of course as Tyson said “Everyone has a plan ’till they get punched in the mouth”, and it is true with many if not most people.

          Spending money and time with your gear is great, going to the range, training, taking classes…awesome. But also run scenarios in your head, use this kind of story to decide in a second “what would I have done? What if”. Of course it is much easier as you sit on the couch, but it can help.
          I know many folks invest for self defense but they never want to think about the worse. I see it as part of your training. When you are sitting at the red light “what would I do if a crazy person popped out and pointed a gun or began to shoot?”. Do you leave room between your vehicle and the vehicle in front of you so you can always maneuver? Where do you sit at the restaurant and what can you see? Do you watch people hands when they get close? Do you observe people behavior, clothing for the place and season etc? Do you have plans with the family in case of a burglary/home intrusion?

          I also believe many people are guilty of a bad use of deadly force by fear and lack of self control. Many situations are a mental game, with self control, escalating/de-escalating, forgetting about your pride, not being complacent or cocky….
          You need to have the will to survive at all cost but a good responsible armed patriot must also be capable of avoiding bad places, bad people, stupid situations etc.

        6. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

          Bob H – Past history of the deceased doesn’t really matter here – his relevant history of violent assault is right on the video, unlike some cases where there is not direct evidence of the person’s actions before being shot.

        7. avatar DDay says:

          Bob H – His past criminal record if any is irrelevant.

          If someone is a very violent career criminal, that doesn’t mean you are more justified to shoot that person than an accountant who has never even had a parking ticket.

          Also, even if he had a very long criminal record, the shooter didn’t know that, so it’s not a factor at all.

        8. avatar A H says:

          @DDay What is it with people here and their reading comprehension. Is everyone so damn fixated on their own perceptions that they can’t possibly understand clear language? Your statement isn’t even remotely what he said.

          Criminal history provides a basis for character (not exclusive nor entirely inclusive). What is one of the fundamental requirements for justifying self defense? That’s right, intent. What is one of the measures of intent during human interaction? Bingo! Words are. What do we not have do to the limited nature of the evidence available to us? That very crucial part called audio.

          “Back off!”
          “Don’t talk to my girl like that, I’mma fuck you up!”
          And there you have it, two very clearly different expressions of intent.

        9. avatar A H says:

          I don’t like the fact that the video is heavily edited, but, the sheriff does a good job of discussing the facts of the situation. He emphasizes the role that the verbal communication, or lack thereof, plays in the scenario. Far too few people seem to understand this fundamental concept.

          https://youtu.be/DPB7CV5s3dQ

  2. avatar Just Sayin says:

    “… a toxic mix of hyperbole and misinformation from both sides as the days and weeks go on.”
    In other words, just another day.

  3. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    How do you exercise your “duty to retreat” when on your knees, on the ground?

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      You don’t. You pull your gun and give a warning that you will shoot instead of fight. Then when the person backs off you get up and decide to call the cops if you want charges on your attacker.

      You don’t shoot a man because he shoved you. Just like you don’t shoot a man that punched or slapped you. You don’t do what some gangsta in Florida did at a back to school event when he lost a fight. It’s cowardly to shoot a man because you’re scared to lose a fist fight or you lost in mutual combat.

      If the guy didn’t pull the trigger he would have been considered the good guy with a gun who shouldn’t be so petty. Once he pulled that trigger he is now the guy who is fucking it up for the rest of us, which he shouldn’t even be that, but the media is going to do what propagandist do.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Irrelevant BS. A big POS beat you to the ground and you SHOOT the SOB.

        What office is “State Attorney Bernie McCabe” running for.

        Five members of Congress, including Sen. Bill Nelson and Rep. Charlie Crist, called for the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division to open an investigation. State Sen. Darryl Rouson called for a special session to address stand your ground
        That is “Political Pressure”. Obviously McCabe doesn’t have a pair.

        1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

          You shoot if, and only if, you are in reasonable fear of your or someone else’s life. Shooting to avenge a previous assault is vigilantism, is illegal, and is most likely going to get you charged.

        2. avatar CZJay says:

          He didn’t beat anyone. He shoved a forty something year old who wasn’t paying attention.

          When you are not paying attention and you get shoved or punched you go down. If you ever been in confrontation or fights you would know this.

          I have been hit in the face with a wooden broomstick at full force. I only went down because I was standing around nonchalantly and didn’t know it was coming. I got back up in less than three seconds. I was hit right below my eye socket. My face was swollen and I was bleeding. I did not fear for my life in those few seconds because it was a one and done thing. If I was hit in the eye that would have been a different story… By the way, the guy who hit me was way bigger.

        3. avatar KenW says:

          This guy would go ballisic screaming at anyone who dared to park without a sticker. A hey you do not belong in that spot or calling the proper authority who can ticket them would be one thing. If you walked out and this creep was stand at the car door screaming at your significant other I suppose you would meekly while profusely apologizing get into your vehicle . While agreeing with him your SO is a real bitch for being with you.
          Odds are he would have had to shoot me if I had come out and he was berating my wife as I would have removed him from the vicinity of my wife.

        4. avatar New Continental Army says:

          CZ Jay, ok? You’re providing your personal experience at taking a beating. What was done to you was deadly force. I’ve been in 3 seperate training programs involving use of force (military and two different LE agencies) and all three said a blow to the head with a fist or a weapon is deadly force. Plus, just because you can personally take a beating, doesn’t mean other people can. Others have had TBIs from a myriad of events and literally cannot take blows to the head like you might be able to. Age and other health concerns are also a factor. A human being does not ever have to stand there and take a beating and be expected to not defend themselves, not anywhere.

        5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          CZJay,

          I did not fear for my life in those few seconds because it was a one and done thing.

          And you KNEW that your attacker only wanted to hit you one time in the head with a broomstick (and had no intention of attacking you otherwise) because … ???

          In the real world we are not clairvoyant and we have no idea whether an attacker is simply going to strike us once in the head and be done or whether that attacker will strike us until we are severely injured, permanently disabled, or dead.

          We should always give the benefit-of-the-doubt to the defender, NOT the attacker. As I stated in the other post: don’t go around attacking people if you don’t want to be shot.

        6. avatar jwtaylor says:

          No one got beat to the ground. No one got punched. No one got hit. The video does not show Drjejka obviously injured. There are no record of him requiring medical intervention.
          McGlockton is clearly backing up, for a couple seconds, with his hands plainly visible,when he is shot. He is obviously retreating. If Drjejka was a cop on the ground I’d be saying the same thing, it’s manslaughter.

        7. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          jwtaylor, BS. The attacker is not “clearly” backing up. TBH to me it looked like he might have been getting his feet set for another attack. Given that the attacker led with a sneak attack and clear intent to harm, I’m giving the defender the benefit of the small doubt there is.

        8. avatar New Continental Army says:

          I’m aware. I wasn’t really referring to those case, I was refuting CZ Jay’s ridiculous claim that a punch to the head, with a fist or otherwise somehow isn’t deadly force, or that even being hit in the head with a broomstick isn’t deadly force. That’s flat out bullshit. An attacker doesn’t have to be armed, nor do you have to go through any continuum to determine what kind of force response is appropriate to the attack. That is complete outdated thinking and training departments did away with years ago. If Mr CZ Jay thinks otherwise, he aught to take it up with the POST standards in GA and the FDLE in FL, as well as the US military because literally no one teaches that anymore.

        9. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Eric in Oregon, if you have not watched the full video and read the affidavit, please do so. The fact that McGlockton was backing up isn’t up for debate. Not only is it on video, but there are two eye witnesses that say he backed up until he hit the wall behind him and could back up no further. That matches what’s on the video.
          Moreover, Drejka’s own account to the responding officer states that Drejka drew and ordered McGlockton to back up. Drejka also states that McGlockton didn’t say anything to him when Drejka pulled the gun. He didn’t verbally threaten him. He put his hands in front of him and backed up until he hit the wall behind him.
          It is the video and Drjejka’s own words, (not to mention the multiple previous threats and brandishing complains against him) that convict him.

        10. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          I’ve seen the whole thing, and watched the relevant parts many times. Like Zimmerman it was a good shoot that turned political, hope this guy doesn’t get railroaded too.

      2. avatar New Continental Army says:

        … No. A punch to the head is deadly force in any circumstance and any state. If someone’s swinging at you, you have every right to lawfully defend your life. Where you are getting confused is when people pull a gun after having initiated a fight and then claim self defense. That, is murder. (I know that’s not exactly what happened here, but you specifically said you don’t have the right of self defense is someone punches you. That’s flat out bull Shit, everywhere.)

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          That’s now what I have seen in many cases of manslaughter. It’s self defense if the person beats you while you were not engaging, you went to the ground and they continue beating you. Or if there is more than one attacker. Or you are a woman and a man is attacking you. There has to be a clear danger to your life.

          Many people get punched in the club. You will get in trouble if you pull out a gun and shoot the attacker dead. They will not look at that as self defense. A punch has a tiny percentage of a chance to kill you itself; it’s usually you hitting your head on the ground that is the killing blow. So a punch in of itself is not a death blow. If a punch was a death blow there wouldn’t be “mutual combat” allowed by the government just like dueling with pistols has been outlawed.

          Cops will stand by and watch you get touched up because they do not believe that your life is at risk when it’s simple assault and/or battery. Once it escalates to potential major harm or death they will step in.

          You must defend yourself with a reasonable amount of force necessary. Just because you don’t want to get in a fight doesn’t allow you to shoot someone dead immediately. You have to go through the checklist first, just like a cop does.

          Usually the people I see argue that a simple punch is deadly force is older white men. They don’t often have experience with street fighting. When someone gets in their face they panic and if they are touched their immediate emotional reaction is fear of the afterlife. Now those types will defend people who resemble them that do things wrong because they feel like that could have been them. It’s similar to the emotional reaction that an anti gun mother has when she hears about a school shooting — she will have an unreasonable response…

        2. avatar New Continental Army says:

          Wow you are a Fucking moron. You have ZERO clue what you are talking about.

          “You have to go through a checklist just like a cop does.”

          This has ZERO basis in reality. I’ve been through different LE academies in two different states and not ONE of those describes that in use of force criteria. Both in fact said that blows to the head constitute deadly force, at which “anything goes”. The checklist bullshit you are referring to goes back to the OUTDATED “use of force continuum” from the 90s which has long been discontinued by nearly ALL departments.

          Further: the claim that only “older white men” are the only ones who freak out about being punched in the head.

          More flat out bullshit. You simply have outed yourself as another SJW troll. You’re going to sit there and tell me the color or someone’s skin constitutes physical strength? Or that old black women someone don’t mind being punched in the head? Are you assuming I’m white? Did you also just assume my gender? If you think old white meh have a problem throwing punches then I suggest you visit the nearest biker bar, or really any bar in the south, and go on your little SJW tirade about “scared, white, weak men who can’t fight.” Because I’ll tell you right now having personally fought several white men you are flat out lying.

        3. avatar CZJay says:

          Are you white? How old are you?

          Usually the people I see argue that a simple punch is deadly force is older white men. They don’t often have experience with street fighting.

          Reading comprehension might not be your strong point. I was talking about a specific type of person that I have come across.

          Now those types will defend people who resemble them that do things wrong because they feel like that could have been them.

          When I say “checklist,” I am referring to making sure the circumstances are befitting of lethal force. Police departments clearly have policies on what to do and when, those policies are not universal. The law requires specific circumstances to justify a homicide. The manslaughter law exists for a reason. Just because a cop, or a trainer of cops, tells you it’s okay doesn’t make it okay through law — a lot of cops don’t even understand or know the law, hence the need for qualified immunity.

          You can try to rationalize why he was charged by saying it’s political… That doesn’t change the evidence.

        4. avatar New Continental Army says:

          No, you don’t understand. I’ve been very clear throughout this convsersation that *I am not* challenging the fact this man, in this case, was charged. I am absolutely challenging your idea that you can not justify leathal Force from an unarmed attacker punching you in the head. Precedent: the Zimmerman case. Also in Florida, where I live and am very aware of the law and training doctrine here. If an unarmed violent attacker punches you in the head, that’s lethal force. Full stop. This particular incident in this article does not apply here, because he obviously isn’t punched in the head. I actually agree with you, in the fact that he shouldn’t have Shot him after the attacker turns away before he shoots. But this matter is up to the courts to decide. But you’ve been arguing for hot minute now about taking a physical beating and not having justification for lethal force. You are wrong about that.

      3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        CZJay,

        It’s cowardly to shoot a man because you’re scared to lose a fist fight …

        Real-life fist fights cause hundreds of deaths every year and many more grievous bodily injuries. The blows themselves can cause the damage. Or the blows can cause a person to fall and their head to slam into concrete which causes the damage. Finally, a simple blow can knock the person unconscious at which point the attacker can casually stomp on your head or slit your throat to your demise.

        In my opinion EVERY fist fight with a reasonably fit adversary is a credible, reasonable threat of death or grievous bodily harm. And the statistics bear this out: every year attackers use their hands and feet more often than rifles and shotguns to kill their victims.

        If you don’t want to die from a gunshot wound, don’t go around trying to punch people.

        1. avatar CarlosT says:

          Beatings cause more deaths every year than long guns, by an order of magnitude.

          It’s definitely possible for someone to have a legitimate fear of serious bodily harm or death from having been shoved to the ground. If McGlockton had been still advancing on Drejka when he was shot, then it’s a completely clean shoot. Because he backed off, that’s what opens up the manslaughter charge.

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

          “If McGlockton had been still advancing on Drejka when he was shot, then it’s a completely clean shoot. Because he backed off, that’s what opens up the manslaughter charge.”

          *Exactly*, Carlos.

          That is what will get him convicted…

        3. avatar DDay says:

          When this incident was first posted on TTAG’s a week or two ago, I said it was not a justified shooting and I think he’ll be charged.

          What really makes this look bad is there was a strong push but that was it. Then there was 10 feet of space between the two and the pusher didn’t move forward at all, he stayed still. The shooter took several seconds to draw his gun with that time there was no additional assault. And once the gun was drawn, the pusher took a step or two backwards.

          This case isn’t at all like the zimmerman case and I think it’s likely he’ll be convicted.

          FL has a gun enhancement to crimes. Just for the act of using a gun in a crime, it’s an automatic 10 years additional to the sentence. So if he gets 8 yrs for manslaughter, 10 more will be tacked on for using a gun.

          The guy was stupid to start bitching about the parking. He’s not a cop, not a ticket writer, call the cops if it bothers you. Don’t go looking for trouble.

        4. avatar CZJay says:

          A fist fight always has a chance of death if certain things occur. That chance does not justify deadly force. What justifies deadly force is the circumstances.

          Most of the time a person dies from “hands and feet” is when the attacker refuses to stop attacking once the now victim is out of the fight. When a person isn’t able to properly defend themselves the fight is over, you are attempting to murder that person if you continue. Regardless if it’s mutual or not, when someone can’t defend themselves against the onslaught it becomes a self defense situation where deadly force can be applied with prejudice.

          You can’t claim self defense when someone tries to punch you or punches you once. The “hands and feet” defense only works when you are at a point where you are being overwhelmed or you are not a person that can reasonably defend yourself against your attacker.

          If you could shoot dead someone that assaults/batters you in any circumstance, there would be a lot of dead college kids who go around punching “Nazis.” In Virginia, a few men are being charged with major “crimes” that occurred during a protest — one for drawing a gun and firing it when someone tried to burn another person, others for winning a fight with bats and sticks after they were attacked by BLM.

        5. avatar New Continental Army says:

          Jay the reason you don’t see very much of that is self defense shootings are pretty much only reported here, and, carriers are generally very good at avoiding fights and confrontations. How many people get shot at pro gun rallies? Pretty much never happens. Because the vast majority of gun owners and carriers are responsible law abiding people. Also the “punch a Nazi” / “knockout game” crowd generally live in deep blue districts where carrying is prohibited. So they’re targets are generally disarmed. Also, those types often talk a big game, and a few of them do actually walk the walk, but most talk trash then do nothing.

        6. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Yo, Jay! So, in order to be justified in defending yourself, you simply must allow him to beat you unconscious, first? I think I will believe that when SCOTUS upholds it. Until then, for me that will be too late.

      4. avatar neiowa says:

        “Assume” for a minute that Drejka was female (or not) and the big ole thug, rather than pounding Drejka, bent Drejka over the car hood and raped Drejka. Would you then approve of Drejka shooting the SOB at some point during, or after, the event?

        I suspect that all here would heartily approve ogf a gal shooting her rapist. Or perhaps some of the nannies would draw the line at firing after thug is done and pulling his britches up half way (as at that point she could run away BS).

        Both are forcible felonies committed by the POS thug.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Well, she was not in fear for her life, right? Isn’t that the absolute, here? Hang her, right? Not a bad example. Keep your hands to yourself or stand ready to be shot.

        2. avatar DDay says:

          It’s not just fear for life but for fear of great bodily harm. Rape would certainly count as great bodily harm and shooting an attempted rapist would be justified.

          But who cares about ‘what if’s’. The facts here are a strong push to the ground then nothing else. If the push was followed by more aggression, it would be justified. But that isn’t what happened, there was a push and McGlockton didn’t move after that, there was an assault and battery followed by nothing. If the shooter saw mcglockton charging at him before he pushed him and saying ‘I’m going to beat your ass’, that would be justifed shooting. But at the time he shot, there was no reasonable fear for his life or great bodily harm.

          He’s going to get convicted. Manslaughter can get up to 30 years in FL, the shooter here will probably go to prison for 20 plus years.

          The moral of the story. Don’t go looking for conflict and think before you pull your gun.

      5. avatar Chip in Florida says:

        “..You don’t shoot a man because he shoved you. ”

        If I am shoved hard enough to wind up on the ground I have been shoved hard enough to be in fear of my safety and concerned for my life.

        If I am shoved hard enough to wind up on the ground I will be shooting my attacker.

        You can just lie there if you like, that’s your right.

      6. avatar Old Man says:

        “It’s cowardly to shoot a man because you’re scared to lose a fist fight or you lost in mutual combat.“

        So if I’m a 68 year old guy and a 20 year old starts punching me, it would be “cowardly” for me to shoot him?

        It’s only a matter of time until you’re too old to win a fist fight and “mutual combat” becomes “brutal, one-sided, potentially life-threatening beating”. Maybe you won’t be so quick to call others a “coward” then.

        1. avatar New Continental Army says:

          I’ve come across a few of his type. It’s a comment made by someone who’s clearly done allot of “fighting”, as in fighting in a ring with rules and points. It’s clearly not one made by someone who’s ever been in a real, honest to god brawl where a grown man is trying to kill him with his bare hands. Especially when said attacker is drunk and feels very little pain.

        2. avatar Toni says:

          NCA or on speed, Ice or any number of similar drugs like that. would far rather take on a belligerent drunk than someone on one of those drugs. someone on pot however would be more likely to want to give you a damn hug….Gah

      7. avatar Pxxat5 says:

        CCW permit holders can not pull or show their weapons, in a threatening manner, enter a challenge or fire a warning shot. Stand Your Ground allows you to use deadly force when threatened.. you pull, you must use,… or you can be jailed and subjected to: brandishing, “improper exhibition of a weapon”, and “aggravated assault with a deadly weapon”. You can be convicted of this crime even though you did not intend to use or threaten anyone, but only showed the weapon in front of other people in a rude, careless, or angry manner, under Florida law, you can be prosecuted and jailed for up to 10 years.
        Stand Your Ground Law, needs to remove the brandishing element from the SYG defense , so you can announce, demonstrate, and warn aggressors, you have deadly force.

  4. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    My goodness. Most of the headlines I’m seeing refer to a dispute over a parking space. No mention of some guy getting blind-sided to the ground, by someone half again his size. Who continued, squared off on the guy on the ground.

  5. avatar Dan H. says:

    They can objectively argue facts that would prove a manslaughter case, I have no beef with the SA for moving ahead. They seem to have wised up to avoiding political over-charge. It’s going to be a close, hard case for a jury that’s going to come down to how the interpret a critical second, second and a half of film and the attendant circumstances — was he fearing for his life? Was he pissed off and embarrassed for having gotten shoved to ground so casually? Going to have a lot of analysts picking apart where that one step backwards fits or not in the reasonable perception of an imminent threat of death/gbi.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      It’s more like four seconds from the time he saw the shover and shot him. Two seconds with his hand on the gun thinking about shooting.

  6. avatar DaveL says:

    State Attorney Bernie McCabe’s decision to charge Drejka signals that prosecutors believe they can show by “clear and convincing” evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a stand your ground defense self-defense is not applicable in Drejka’s case.

    State legislators revised the law last year to put the onus on prosecutors to disprove a stand your ground claim self-defense instead of on defense attorneys to prove one to a lower standard ealier in proceedings before being allowed to go on to full trial. The standard at trial has always been for prosecutors to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Fixed.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      I really hate how the media is pushing ‘Stand your Ground’ as something that it is not.

      1: Calling every questionable self-defense case a ‘stand your ground’ case deliberately muddies the waters and makes it seem like stand your ground, IE Self-defense law, is a bad idea to try and push legislation that weakens self-defense protections.

      2: This treatment misleadingly implies that it is not a normal and well-proven law that is observed in 46/50 states. States without SYG are very much the exception.

  7. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    Regardless of how this ends up- it will largely depend on what was said during the physical altercation. Also, the prosecutor learned from the Zimmerman case, as he didn’t overcharge.

  8. avatar jwm says:

    My civil rights are violated every day in CA. Will those 5 members of congress call for an investigation?

  9. avatar Sheep dog says:

    Anyone with an oz. of sense would apply the “Routine activity theory” doctrine.
    Ie. confront a black person especially in the ghetto and you can expect to get your ass kicked at the very least. Which goes to my second rule, Don’t go stupid places at stupid times with stupid people to do stupid things.
    Rule three refer to rules 1 & 2 respectively.
    Drejka made a series of decisions that will ultimately alter his life for the worse not the least dragging his reputation and character thru the mud.

    1. avatar JMR says:

      The same thing can be said for the other side.

      1. avatar Sheep dog says:

        Yes but we POTG bear a higher responsibility to avoid confrontation, we choose to strap iron. Drejka went looking for trouble and he found it.

        “If’s, butt’s, and coconuts”
        “What if” some tool shed was yelling at your SO when you walked up. What would you do? De-escalate or confront? How many steps away from drawing your firearm; or laying hands on that person would you be?
        What are your “unlock codes” for escalation or (de)-escalation?

        1. avatar CarlosT says:

          Deescalate, every time. If it’s just yelling, then I’m definitely just getting in the car and driving away. Why would I escalate? That’s just moronic.

        2. avatar JMR says:

          First of all I wouldn’t have let her parked there in the first place.

          If she had called me here’s how it would have went down:
          “Someone’s yelling at me”
          “Okay why is he yelling at you?” Me
          “Because I’m parked in a handicap stall”
          “Then get the hell out of the handicap stall, what the hell is wrong with you?” Me

      2. avatar Risky says:

        Yeah and the other side learned his lesson… he’s dead.

        Now it’s time for for Drejka to learn his lesson that self defense requires reasonable fear for your personal safety. If he had fired while McGlockton was within reach of or moving towards him it might have been different. Instead he waited until McGlockton was clearly backing away and at least 10 to 15 feet away.

        Maybe he thought McGlockton was reaching for a weapon, but unless he told police that in his initial statement he will have a hard time convincing a jury of that revelation.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Here come the exaggerations. I haven’t seen video of the actual shooting, but big doofus shoves the shooter over 5 feet and then pursues him. After a step back to either disengage or position for a stronger kick, I don’t think he is more that 6 feet away, someone will measure and we STiLL won’t know.

        2. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Larry, Watch the full video and read the affidavit. It’s pretty damming. According to Drejka, he was more than 10 feet away when he drew the gun. The police report says greater than 15 feet, and McGlockton backed up further after that. Again, according to Drejka, he ordered McGlockton to back up. McGlockton backed up until he hit the wall behind him. Again, according to Drejka, McGlockton did not verbally threaten him, or present a weapon at any time.
          Not only did Drejka do something stupid by shooting this guy, but he compounded his stupidity by talking to the cops.

  10. avatar RA-15 says:

    NAACP , no one wants to hear my opinion on them , believe me. It really disgusts me when I see this shit. If you attack a person , slam them to the ground & threaten their life , expect to get shot. Reasonable people usually use language to settle disputes. Not violent behaviour. Tip : do not use violence against POTG. You won’t need the NAACP to fight your battles.

    1. avatar Dev says:

      And how do you know that the shooter wasn’t threatening to kill the woman in the car?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        How do you know the shooter wasn’t an alien wearing a human suit?

        What we have on tape is a clear self-defense case. In the real world, we deal with facts, not hearsay and crazy theories from a ganbanger’s babymama.

        1. avatar Dev says:

          So if the video is so clear (it isn’t) why was the shooter charged?

        2. avatar jwtaylor says:

          What we have on tape is a clear case of manslaughter.

        3. avatar Pawl from Florida says:

          There would not have been any incident if the shooter had not appointed himself the Guardian of the Parking Lot. We all know that it isn’t right to park in a handicapped parking space without a sticker. You just chalk the person off as being a jerk. That is a matter for the police .

          If this person didn’t get involved in something that didn’t concern him he wouldn’t have been assaulted . I’m not saying who was right or wrong but he certainly got himself in a lot of trouble .

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Apparently some people are having a hard time with some basic concepts.

          1. Words do not give you the right to put your hands on another person.
          2. Knocking someone down is at the very least battery.
          3. Once you’re on your ass, your ability to retreat is effectively zero.
          4. If someone knocks you on your ass, waiting for them to curb stomp you before you defend yourself is not a legal requirement.

          Don’t want to get shot? Keep your hands to yourself. It’s not a difficult concept. This is one of the many reasons why I’m happy I don’t live in a state that requires “reasonable fear” to justify self-defense. Any forcible felony is sufficient and there is no duty to retreat.

      2. avatar DaveL says:

        Is “how do you know he didn’t” your strange not-quite-English-language way of saying “he isn’t even alleged to have”?

    2. avatar JOHN B THAYER says:

      Old time joke:

      N.A.A.C.P. stands for,

      “National Association for the Agitation of the Colored People”.

      Highly politically incorrect today, of course.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Every single thing it even could stand for is racist, and has been for a lot of decades. No joke.

  11. avatar TruthTellers says:

    If you shove somebody to the ground when he’s not a threat to you, you’ve escalated the situation, plain and simple. The victim on the ground had plenty of time during his draw to realize he wasn’t incapable of retreat, he could have gotten up or tried to get up and if during that time the guy assaulted him again, then it’s the right time to possibly shoot.

    Thing is tho, we don’t know at the moment if the shooter was in fear of his life or disoriented beyond reasonable thought and was acting on pure fight or flight instinct. Being on the ground, flight is impossible so fight takes over.

    Bottom line is if you don’t want to get shot, don’t assault someone other than if that person is in the process of assaulting you. If that becomes the status quo, assaults in states with CCW licenses will drop quickly.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      You have your assaults and your batteries confused. Think as Battery = a big bastard hit you with a bat. Assault – as his babymomma was spewing out of her ass.

      The Main Difference Between Assault and Battery

      The main difference between a battery charge and an assault charge is the actual presence of harm and the threat of harm. Someone can only be charged with battery if they have caused real physical harm to someone, while a person can be charged with assault if the mere threat of harm is present.

  12. avatar TruthTellers says:

    The difference between this and if the guy had shoved a cop is the cop wouldn’t have been charged because cops apparently have more a right to fear for their safety than someone not a cop, even tho more non-police are killed everyday in incidents than cops are.

    1. avatar New Continental Army says:

      I heard there was actually a cop hiding in the background in this video, who orchestrated the whole event. Sounds far fetched, but, what if?

      1. avatar TruthTellers says:

        I don’t believe that for a second because pigs are way too lazy to do any such thing.

  13. avatar Big Joe says:

    Just line up all the jurors in the parking lot with blindfolds on, get a guy with same dimensions and weight and strength and have him blindside each juror randomly into the concrete…case closed.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Make sure none of them watch a lot of American football.

      1. avatar Big Joe says:

        It’s concrete…not astro-turf or grass…so there is that, even football players get concussions and that’s with helmets, worse if they don’t see it coming.

  14. avatar Gunr says:

    I would have not fired my piece unless I was again attacked, but being as I was not there, it really is hard to determine what should have been done.

  15. avatar Jimmy says:

    yes about time to do it,,,,,, this guy did not need to do that

  16. avatar former water walker says:

    Gee whiz homie assaulted the shooter. Landed on pavement and probably hit his head. All this fistfight BS from so-called tough boyz. This ain’t grade school idiots. In the real world I believe it was a good shoot. Not my problem as I wouldn’t yell at a baby mama parking illegally…

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

    The state is responding to pressure to charge him, and they responded.

    They are playing it smart by not over-charging, by going for manslaughter.

    Prediction – The state will prevail and convict him…

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      When I first watched the video, the day it came out, I already knew it would be a manslaughter charge based off the evidence and totality of events. I have seen this before.

      Whether he is convicted is a different thing. I would not be surprised if a white jury says not guilty. It is Florida.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I have never been able to tell from the video who, if anyone, is black or white. Makes no difference, to me, shooter was justified, I would find him guilty of nothing. That will prove a problem to prosecutors, but hey! It’s just taxpayer money.

      2. avatar New Continental Army says:

        Wow. More of your SJW bullshit. An all white jury? Really? Even Zimmerman didn’t get that and he was acquitted. The jury in Zimmerman was *very* diverse.

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

        ” I would not be surprised if a white jury says not guilty. It is Florida.”

        It won’t be an all-white jury, it’s Pinelleas County, where St. Petersburg is. It votes consistently BLUE…

  18. avatar Gman says:

    Not commenting on the righteousness of this charge, but rather expounding upon Sheep Dogs comment. We POTG MUST keep to a higher standard. Drejka chose to initiate conflict and then the situation got out of control. If he had a problem with someone inappropriately taking a handy spot, then he could call the police and report the plate number. But he chose to start a conflict. An armed society is a polite society not because others know you are armed and will be polite. It is so because good, decent, level headed people who carry CHOOSE to be polite because they carry and understand the great responsibility thereof.

    1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      “… Drejka chose to initiate conflict and then the situation got out of control.”

      No. Drejka chose to be an assh-le. And that is not illegal nor is it actionable.

      The dead guy chose to imitate conflict by body-checking Drejka and knocking him to the ground.

  19. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    Michael Drejka is about to get an expensive education in the law, I wonder if he had liability insurance? No matter how it turns out his decisions that fateful afternoon are going to cost him.

    Nice to see the ambulance chaser Benjamin Crump is also involved, should add to the daily insanity.

  20. avatar Evey259 says:

    In the two seconds where McGlockton retreated in the full video and Drejka chose to shoot, this went from justifiable self defense to manslaughter. The only way, and I really do mean the ONLY way Drejka gets to beat this one is if, following the altercation (or, preferably, after getting a lawyer and communicating to the police through them,) he said he saw/thought McGlockton was reaching for a weapon. Otherwise, I will be surprised if he isn’t found guilty of manslaughter. This was a bad shoot and if he gets put away for a while I won’t care.

    1. avatar Big Joe says:

      Your 2 seconds from a keyboard is way different than 2 seconds from being violently blindesided into concrete…so there is that.

      1. avatar Evey259 says:

        Yeah, but that’s the same way a person on the jury will see it. Detached and in hindsight. He’s going to get steamrolled and this will be a lesson in choosing not to start fights for stupid reasons.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Evey259,

          Judges explicitly direct juries to NOT look at the case detached and in hindsight. Rather, judges instruct juries to consider the circumstances as if they themselves were there in the moment and only had two seconds to decide what to do.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Closest you could get to fair is to just allow jurors to see video at full speed, once. Explain law, take vote, trial is over in one hour.

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

      Drejka can’t afford competent representation.

      I *seriously* doubt a GoFundMe campaign will gather the necessary few hundred thousand it will take to keep the steam-roller of the resources the state of Florida will bring to bear in getting him convicted…

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Maybe he does what his victim would have done, make a plea deal.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        All he needs to do is demand a jury trial, preferably tomorrow. “Speedy trial”, right?

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

          That won’t help him in this case, Larry. The state has resources he couldn’t hope to equal against him.

          He’s going down…

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          State doesn’t own any special jurors, best it can hope for is a hung jury after EXTREME expenditures. He just needs to be sure he does not get talked out of a jury trial.

  21. avatar Dan H. says:

    Drejka’s defense will undoubtely focus on three basic points

    A) subjective time passes faster than it looks on a video
    B) he was afraid because the shove was surprising and also showed that this man could overpower him easily
    C) the hesitation step-back by the decedent doesn’t terminate Drejka’s reasonable fear.

    (C) will be their hardest point with the jury.

    Where by charging manslaughter, the prosecution’s case amounts to convince a jury that Drejka being shoved aside so effortlessly only made an angry, confrontational man suddenly more angry, and now embarrassed, and that he was so angry he drew his gun and fired not caring what would happen, and McGlockton died as a result; manslaughter.

    The normal thing for a Florida SA to try would be to argue that Drejka got shoved, and immediately decided he was going to kill the man who shoved him, and that he made this whole calculation he had to shoot him right away before McGlockton retreated too far and he lost his “excuse”. And that’s how they end up getting acquittals.

  22. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    This is a really tough call.

    Here are clearly evident facts from the video:
    — The deceased had a HUGE physical advantage over the defender.
    — The deceased initiated force.
    — The deceased blindsided the defender.
    — The deceased stepped toward the defender once on the ground.
    — The deceased then reached for his waist/pockets.
    — The defender then and only then reached for his gun.
    Up to this point I believe the defender has a rock-solid case of self-defense.

    Three additional facts clear from the video:
    — The deceased did not start backing up until the defender started to reach for his handgun.
    — The deceased backed up four small steps between the time that the defender started reaching for his handgun and when the video stops.
    — The video stops two seconds after the defender reached for his gun.

    This entire case is going to revolve around those last two seconds of the video. Keep in mind that the defender did not have the luxury of hours to to assess the situation and determine what to do. He had a few seconds.

    I predict a hung jury.

    1. avatar Connie says:

      Actually, the original video continues for a longer period of time after the shoot. In the extended part of the video, the shooter gets to his feet and continues to move about the parking lot. For a good recap. Check out the full video and review by John on the Active Self Protection Youtube Channel.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Connie,

        I am not finding John’s full video and analysis on this case at YouTube. Can you provide the title of that video or a link?

        I have searched (to no avail) within YouTube as follows in their search field:
        Active Self Protection Drejka
        Active Self Protection McGlockton
        Active Self Protection parking space

        1. avatar Sian says:

          Video title is “Parking Spot Duel Ruled Self Defense” hope that helps!

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Thank you Sian.

          I actually saw that video result when I searched and I dismissed it because the freeze frame shows a pickup truck that was not in the short video clip that so many of us have watched. (Was that a run-on sentence?)

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Connie, let’s remember the video is a surveillance camera, there are 24 hours of video leadingup to the shooting, probably a few hours after. What we are seeing is carefully edited. I suspect jurors will see the whole thing uncut.

  23. avatar Connie says:

    This is where the rubber meets the road. Whether you agree with the shooting or not, it is a jury of his peers that will make the decision as to the legality of his actions.

    Ultimately, this should serve as a reminder to all of us who carry firearms: always take the high road. Was there any reason for this guy to instigate a confrontation over a parking spot? Regardless of whether or not he was handicapped or the fact that there were much closer spots in front of the store, is it EVER a wise idea to start a confrontation over something so trivial?

    Once he started his verbal tirade on the passenger in the vehicle, the driver came outside and blindsided him; an assault, no doubt about it. Again, regardless of the handicapped (or non-handicapped) status of the man, this could have been anyone who chose to start an childish argument over a parking spot instead of finding another spot to park.

    It seems fairly apparent to me that this man was of the variety that has false courage because he had a firearm on his person. If he did not have a gun on him, I would venture to guess that he would not have started such a ridiculous argument. He allowed the fact that he had a firearm on him cause him to think that he could act as asinine as he wanted, because he could back it up with deadly force.

    For those of us who carry a firearm, it is ALWAYS the best course of action to try and DEFUSE a confrontation WITHOUT our firearms FIRST! We should NEVER BE THE INSTIGATORS. Let’s say that you were the parking lot shooter. What is the best course of action? Find a difference parking spot. Let’s say you are the guy who parked in the parking spot. What is the best course of action? Move your car. The only time that you need to escalate directly to the threat or use of deadly force is when you are facing the threat or use of deadly force, or you can ARTICULATE that you were in a situation that was headed that way, and you were acting PREEMPTIVELY.

    When we carry firearms, we should be doing it with a moral desire to defend ourselves and others. If we carry a gun simply to have our way or force others to abide by our rules, we are carrying for immoral (and illegal) purposes, and we are only going to end up with people doubting our motives, at best. At worst, we could end up convicted of murder and stripped of our right to carry. If you are carrying for these reasons, truly, you are no better than a criminal who uses his firearm to force others to abide by his rules or to have his way.

    Moral of the story? Don’t be an A-hole and always take the path of high (moral) road. This way, you are legally protected, and anyone who judges your actions after the fact will believe that you used your firearm in a righteous manner.

    1. avatar How_Terrible says:

      I was going to make a long post for this article, but this pretty much covers everything I wanted to say.

  24. avatar Asdf says:

    Lol, it already started. I don’t look forward to still arguing about this 5 years from now.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      Right? The legal geniuses claiming this is “clearly manslaughter” are the same kind of people who are still saying Zimmerman murdered a kid.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        I think it’s manslaughter.

        I think Zimmerman was justified and shouldn’t have been charged based off the physical evidence.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Yup, same here. Those were radically different cases.

        2. avatar New Continental Army says:

          So… then you agree that taking a blow to the head by an unarmed attacker is justification for lethal force. Were you not just arguing that people should stand there and take being punched and hit with broomsticks because your billy badass self has done it on numerous occasions?

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Damn, NCA, are you allowed to interject facts, here? That should cause some embarrassment!

  25. avatar JD says:

    Now, granted, I wasn’t there. But based on the info provided this wasn’t a good shoot in my opinion. I’m glad Drejka is getting charged.

    1. avatar BAD SHOOT - now face the music says:

      It was a bad shoot and in most states Drejka would have been charged within hours. As a CCW holder you are taught to use common sense and Drejka showed NONE.

      You are held to a higher standard then someone who didn’t have any training in the use of deadly force. Drejka had one standard and mindset “I have a gun.”

      McGlockton’s or Drejka’s past have NOTHING to do with this.
      Zimmerman and Martin have NOTHING to do with this.
      What Drejka did was COWARDLY and now he will be judged by a jury.
      Even worse he chooses to be tried by a judge and easily gets 15 years.

      Drejka was pushed down, nothing more and the altercation was OVER.
      There wasn’t a beating and Drejka isn’t elderly, he clearly has time to think should I shoot? His mind says “I’m a coward so I’ll shoot the guy, my pride is hurt.”

      Instead of deescalating the situation he shoots an unarmed man.
      Make no mistake about it, Drejka gives all CCW holders a bad name.
      That’s for all the comments about how this was a good shoot.
      In my state he is charged within 24 hours and does 15 years easily.

      Before the snowflake comments start, I have been actively involved competitive shooting since I was 11 years old. I have been carrying since 1993 and have worked in some really rough areas. Places that most keyboard warriors wouldn’t go.
      Guess how many people I have shot in 25 years?

      None.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Altercation was over when he shot the mofo, not before. There was plenty of time to decide what to do as long as you were repeatedly watching in slo-mo in mama’s basement. More noise is good, let’s get the story spread far and wide, keep your hands to yourself or be prepared to be shot. Not that tough. Easy to interpret. Simple to analyze. He will not be convicted.

        1. avatar BAD SHOOT - now face the music says:

          He will EASILY be convicted and probably take the cowards way out and kill himself. Dreyka is not the type to survive incarceration.
          “I told a guy he was in my seat, he stabbed me in the eye with a spork and then I was lying on the ground crying because I have a big mouth”.

          As for mamas basement as I think back 30 years it was pretty nice. Larry I’m not going to trade insults with you, just watching the video makes it clear that Dreyka is going down for this, plain and simple.

          I would read the charging document from marcus, its damning and will be admitted.
          https://www.scribd.com/document/386120319/Drejka-Charging-Affidavit-180813#from_embed

          The real question is for how long is Dreyka going to get?
          IMO he gets 15 years but it could be more.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Nice that you are positive you know exactly what a jury will decide, all 12 members, I have never heard a prosecutor nor defense attorney claim to know that, even after the individuals had been empanelled. I bet 95% the best the state can hope for is a hung jury, because that only takes *one* member, and I would not agree to guilty unless there is a lot more on the video than what is seen above.

        3. avatar BAD SHOOT - now face the music says:

          You do realize that 90% of criminal cases are settled by a plea bargain, correct? Drejka’s big mistake was falling for the good cop routine when in fact they were building a very strong case against him. Drejka is guilty by his own admission on videotape at the PD. Then you have advanced forensics and not just some videotape that the public has seen a million times.

          IF a jury ever sees a videotape it’s going to be one that forensically shows a man 12 feet away backing away. Florida wants Drejka on this one and they will get him. Please read the charging document, Drejka was given enough rope at Pinellas County to hang himself. This has a 1 in 20 chance of ever going to a jury.

          You are dealing in emotions and I am dealing in facts. He’ll take the 15 years because that’s his very best option. What happens next is probably very bad for him.
          He’s done. Stick a fork or spork in him.

  26. avatar sound awake says:

    im not saying hes guilty of murder 1 but this one had to go to trial im afraid

    probably less rioting and looting afterwards with a not guilty verdict than it not going to trial at all

    regardless if hes convicted or acquitted this was a very teachable moment

    i said something to somebody the other day at a hotel i wasnt carrying at the time because i was out of state but what i said i definitely shouldnt have said if i was carrying so i should just go ahead and get in the habit of not saying stuff to people when they really really piss me off

    i couldnt help it though he played the race card on me while being a full foot taller and about 50 pounds heavier

    it wouldnt have mattered one bit if i resisted or not the amount of time it wouldve taken him to mop the floor with me would have been exactly the same

    about 5 seconds

    i more than likely would have had to draw if he attacked

    what i told him probably didnt quite fit the textbook legal definition of provocation but some hotshot da wouldve tried to make it fit

    i need to be better

  27. avatar JOHN B THAYER says:

    The entire 18:39 minute video is worth watching IMHO. The Pinellas County, Florida sheriff gives a very fair and balanced account of the entire confrontation. Unlike most videos of this event, the shooting itself is shown.
    https://youtu.be/DPB7CV5s3dQ

  28. avatar anonymoose says:

    Right after Zimzam was acquitted a couple of my friends were jumped by a car full of upstanding gentleman. Hopefully they’ll be more careful about walking around at night this time.

  29. avatar marcus says:

    Stand Your Ground does not have anything whatever to do with this case. SYG (776.012) only removes AVOIDANCE from the 5 required elements for a self-defense claim to have some likelihood of gaining an acquittal. http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/Shooter-charged-with-manslaughter-in-Clearwater-stand-your-ground-case_170853729

    In all likelihood, Drejka’s lawyer, pulled from the PubDefender’s office my guess, will likely file for a Self-Defense Immunity (776.032) hearing, and it is at that hearing that the Prosecution must prove to the standard of clear and convincing evidence the failure of any ONE of the remaining required elements, i.e., Innocence, Imminence, Proportionality and Reasonableness. If Drejka loses the SDIC, the case then proceeds to a full trial where the entire matter is rinsed and repeated.

    And if you haven’t signed up at http://www.lawofselfdefense.com for the free stuff, you are doing yourself a major disservice. I have and it has made an enormous difference in helping me sort out the wheat from the chaff.
    As well, I sure as heck have SD insurance (and NOT from the NRA).

  30. avatar WiffleballTony says:

    Honestly, he didn’t need to pull the trigger. The situation was diffused at presentation. With that said, the assault was unnecessary from the outset. I can’t imagine a jury will be unanimous that this is anything other than a DGU.

  31. avatar randaII says:

    Totally agree with pwrserge:
    Apparently some people are having a hard time with some basic concepts.

    1. Words do not give you the right to put your hands on another person.
    2. Knocking someone down is at the very least battery.
    3. Once you’re on your ass, your ability to retreat is effectively zero.
    4. If someone knocks you on your ass, waiting for them to curb stomp you before you defend yourself is not a legal requirement.

    Don’t want to get shot? Keep your hands to yourself. It’s not a difficult concept. This is one of the many reasons why I’m happy I don’t live in a state that requires “reasonable fear” to justify self-defense. Any forcible felony is sufficient and there is no duty to retreat.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Your ability to retreat is irrelevant if your opponent is retreating.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        People only see what they want to see. If they take in all the information they will have to change who they are, thus changing what they think. A lot of Americans are far too stubborn…

        1. avatar New Continental Army says:

          Ah. Makes sense. You not only have a problem with whites, males, and the elderly, you also have a problem with America.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        JWT, I watched the video included above multiple times, I did not see anybody retreating. If you are talking about a more expanded or high definition video, fine, but if you think your interpretation of the above video is going to fly with all 12 jurors, I think you’re dreaming. Not guilty or hung jury.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Not the video in the article. The full 19min video is referenced in the comments above. That video, multiple eye witnesses, the police report and the shooter’s own words prove he backed up. He stopped when he hit the wall behind him.
          He really should not have spoken to the police without an attorney.

  32. avatar tdiinva says:

    If our intrepid wannabe metermaid were a cop all you defenders would be screaming murderer.

    I think this was premeditated in the sense the Djeyka had been harrassing people with his wannabe cop behavior for some time. Giving the totality of the situation and his history I think the manslaughter charge is appropriate and winnable. It’s clowns like Djeyka who give responsible gun owners a bad name and provide examples for anti-gun activists to exploit.

    No matter how you come down on this case perhaps you will figure out that police work isn’t easy and your typical TTAG cop hater would be far more trigger happy than the people currently doing the job

    1. avatar New Continental Army says:

      Damn. That’s a real truth bomb right there.

    2. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Nope, as I said above, uniform or not, it’s manslaughter.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        Attacking an officer in performance of his duties? The presumption is that if you are bold enough to attack a police officer you are bold enough to kill him. Despite the assertion to the contrary by much of the readership, a sworn officer is not just an ordinary citizen. If McGlickton came out an saw a police officer he isn’t pushing him to the ground.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          In this case, the “officer” is not wounded and clearly in control of his weapon, with no attack ongoing. The opponent is retreating, not continuing an attack, not aggressing, and showing his empty hands. Once the opponent started retreating, and this one clearly did, if I, as a POST certified officer, shot and killed him, I’d rightly go to jail, guilty of manslaughter.
          If it was just a fast draw and shoot on a continuing assault, that would be another thing entirely. But that’s not what this is. He drew, the opponent retreated, he waited at least 2 seconds, and then shot and killed him. Anyone, officer or not, is guilty of manslaughter at that point.
          If he is no longer an immediate threat to me or anyone else, I can’t just kill him because he previously assaulted me, uniform or not. There is no fuzzy line for officers here. If he is not a threat, I can’t use deadly force.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          Let’s step back and look at this incident as if it police officer is involved.

          Cop rolls up and tells the lady to move. She either complies or mouths off. If she complies nothing happens. If she doesn’t the cop writes her a $500 ticket and says “have a nice day.”

          If her boyfriend comes out and sees the cop he asks the cop what’s up. At this point he bitches out his girlfriend for costing him $500.

          You see the difference a badge makes? If he decides to physically attack the cop it’s a different game. The officer has several legal options including the use of lethal force

          You are treating this as everything held equal. But everything isn’t equal is it? The cop has authority and if you go physical with him it is much higher level of aggression.

          Don’t be SYI. The first letter stands for skilled. See Nassim Taleb for the meaning of the second to letters.

        3. avatar Jack says:

          Really?

          Please provide a statutory or case law citation for your assertion.

        4. avatar jwtaylor says:

          tdinva,
          All of that is irrelevant. No matter if I am in my uniform or not, I am not allowed to kill someone who is 15 feet away, unarmed, following my commands, retreating and posing no immediate threat.
          This is not a grey area.

        5. avatar tdiinva says:

          I am going to simply this for you. As I said below there are a lot more steps to cop on the ground than Dreyka on the ground. If it gets to cop on the ground there is going to be justification for the use of lethal force. You are first order thinking. This incident goes down a different path for a cop almost certainly terminating with a ticket. The next most likely outcome, but way down in likelihood, is an arrest for disorderly conduct/interfering with a police officer. The only way this ends in a gunshot is of McGlockton does something meriting him getting shot.

        6. avatar jwtaylor says:

          “If it gets to cop on the ground there is going to be justification for the use of lethal force.”
          That’s just not true. There’s nowhere in America where that is the law.
          What you are advocating is incredibly dangerous. You should not believe it. No American should believe it.
          I want to be clear, I am, right now, a POST certified police officer. Whether I am in my uniform or not, the fact that I have been knocked down is not all that is required for me to use deadly force. If my attacker is retreating, unarmed, following my commands, and is no longer a threat, I don’t get to execute him. This is not fuzzy policy. This is not a grey area. I will, justifiably, go to jail for that. It is illegal.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I said elsewhere that I’ll bet the reason he has a carry license is because he was constantly getting his ass kicked because he was being a jerk. I have heard reports of people like this, particularly about handicapped parking for some reason, even though the “meter maid”, as you put it, did not have a car. Just hanging around reserved parking and berating people. Some kind of personality disorder, I am sure, but not illegal. Normally would be cured by repeated whuppin’, didn’t work on this guy. Dead guy had a personality disorder which caused him to solve all his problems with his fists. Probably justified, here, but still illegal and cause for justifiable DGU.

  33. avatar Ralph says:

    “Florida Parking Lot ‘Stand Your Ground’ Shooter Charged”

    Based upon the screen shot, I’d say that this is more of a “Sit Your Ground” case.

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

      Except, he wasn’t the one who initiated the ‘sitting’ action…

  34. avatar Model 31 says:

    I don’t see how SYG applies to Drejka when he initiated the confrontation with the girlfriend about a parking spot that he didn’t own and her being in it was none of his business. I don’t know what was in his mind, but Drejka started this and should have expected blow back. Common sense should tell anyone that a random stranger isn’t going to roll over when confronted.
    Drejka had no authority to police the parking lot as he was not the duly appointed Oracle of the parking lot. There were no victims that he was protecting from imminent and grievous harm. He created the situation for himself.
    A person would need qualified immunity to mount a successful defense to this homicide. Drejka set into motion the initial confrontation of a singular event that continued until deadly force was applied. There can be no self defense for an aggressor.
    If Drejka had minded his own business then I could see SYG working but then there wouldn’t have been an assault nor a deadly force incident.

    1. avatar JOHN B THAYER says:

      Mr. Drejka did not initiate a PHYSICAL confrontation. He got into a VERBAL argument with the driver of an illegally parked vehicle. He was then attacked without warning by a larger man two decades younger than himself. He was on the ground, without the opportunity to retreat. Mr. McGlockton had a record of arrests, convictions and imprisonment, which gives us insight into his character.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        By what authority did Dreyka have to initiate the verbal confrontation. Was he a handicapped person needing the parking place? Was he a driver of a handicapped van? Was he private security hired by the strip mall? He was none of those things. He had no authority what so ever. Therefore, he initiated the sequence of events that led to the shooting.

        1. avatar marcus says:

          YES!!!

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          By the authority of the 1st Amendment. We are all free to say what we want to. We are not free to lay hands on another. Very clear line of demarcation, dead guy was the physical aggressor, not guilty.

        3. avatar tdiinva says:

          Your lack of constitutional knowledge us striking. This isn’t speech, it’s action. He took it on himself to play cop without the authority to do so. See my answer to JW above for further explanation.

    2. avatar Bob h says:

      Except verbal altercation with one person does not equal violent altercation from a third person. I’m not sure legally the ass arguing over a parking spot “brought it on himself” when he’s blindsided onto the concrete.

      Absolutely true if the shooter hadn’t been an ass, he wouldn’t have been attacked. And if the attacker hadn’t initiated physical violence, he’d probably still be alive. It happens hundreds of times a day, the wrong lunatic meets the wrong psychopath and mayhem insues. Case in point, every road rage incident you’ve ever seen.

      1. avatar Model 31 says:

        I think the jury will see it as one long event and not a series of events, 1st -verbal, 2nd -assault w/self defense.

        1. avatar marcus says:

          And that, Sir, is going to be precisely, IMHO, the exact issue that will be raised at trial. Good call, Sir.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        If that is the case, definitely not guilty, he was not even having a stupid conversation with dead guy, was physically attacked from behind without warning, for no reason.

  35. avatar GS650G says:

    The shooter should have called the cops on te handicap parking violation and the dead guy should have kept his hands to himself. No one have been killed or charged.
    If people can’t behave on both sides then legislatures are going to treat us like elementary school kids. And they like that position of power.
    And then the trouble really starts.

  36. Readers interested in the law of the State of Florida should NOT rely on this article for anything, it is full of misstatements of the law and how the law applies to this incident.

    “State Attorney Bernie McCabe’s decision to charge Drejka signals that prosecutors believe they can show by “clear and convincing” evidence that a stand your ground defense is not applicable in Drejka’s case.” WRONG

    “State legislators revised the law last year to put the onus on prosecutors to disprove a stand your ground claim instead of on defense attorneys to prove one.” WRONG

    “Several questions must be considered in deciding whether someone can be protected under the law when they use force: Was the person acting lawfully? Did the person have a right to be there? And was the person in reasonable fear of serious injury or death?” WRONG

      1. avatar JOHN B THAYER says:

        Markeis McGlockton is described in the charging document as a “human being”, something I would vigorously contest.

      2. avatar Jack says:

        Thanks for this. If the other incidents with this guy prove to be true, then this guy had no business being armed. Also, it’s interesting that the other incidents follow the same pattern. If I were the defence attorney, I would be fighting like hell in the evidentiary hearings to keep those other people/incidents out of court. If the defence attorney doesn’t succeed on that, his client is probably toast (if he wasn’t already) as the jury will find some way of convicting this guy of something to get him off of the street and guns out of his hands.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          It would take one hell of a defense attorney and an awful sleepy judge to get the previous official complaints thrown out. Two previous brandishing reports to the police? That’s going to be admissible.
          The other eye witness accounts that he had previously threatened to “blow someone’s head off” at this exact location for parking in a handicap spot will be almost as impossible to get thrown out.
          Four separate reports of these kinds of incidents establishes a very strong pattern, I don’t think a judge would dismiss it.

  37. avatar Gralnok says:

    This is stupid in so many ways. Neither Glockton nor Drejka were behaving properly. However, when it comes down to it, Drejka, despite being an asshole, had the right to defend himself. Now, because Drejka was provoking the incident, I’d say the charge of manslaughter is appropriate. I didn’t agree with any charges in prior posts, because I thought that, even if someone provoked an attack, they could still defend themselves. I realize now I was mistaken. Even though Glockton shouldn’t have shoved the guy, because Drejka initiated the altercation, he cannot claim self defense.

  38. avatar doesky2 says:

    The only question I would have on the jury is would the DA have charged a cop if a cop was the one that was pushed to the ground and returned with fire.

    The answer is NO, so the shooter walks.

    Same laws for everyone.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      False: A police officer has the authority to enforce the handicapped parking restriction. Drejka does not. Entirely different situation.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Dead guy did not park the car, nobody was hassling him about parking, this is a smokescreen. If he attacked a cop (doing his job) from behind, for no reason, without warning, and knocked him to the ground, and the cop shot him dead, the cop would walk. So will this guy. Exact same situation.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          You are dense. There are a lot more steps between cop on the ground and Drejka on the ground. McGlockton is probably in cuffs before it get to cop on the ground. But if it gets the far the officer would have justification to shoot. Do you really think McGlockton would run up to the cop and knock him down for handing a ticket? If anything, McGlockton knocks his GF to the ground for costing him $500. And if he makes the effort to assault a police officer he is going to try to finish the job since he is going away for a long time anyway. People react differently to a wannabe metermaid and guy with a uniform, badge and gun.

          Cop vs Drejka is not symmetric.

  39. avatar Warlocc says:

    Someone said it on the other story. This is a case of two assholes colliding.

    If Drejka were being charged with being an asshole, I’d say guilty. Disturbing the peace, verbal assault, harassment, he’s guilty of all of these things.

    However, attacking him gives him the right to self defense, that’s how our laws work.

    1. avatar Jack says:

      Please never become a lawyer.

  40. avatar jeff says:

    This guy was an unhinged wackjob looking for an excuse to shoot someone. There are multiple documented instances where he threatened people with a gun for petty arguments. Its very easy to find this stuff, dont make excuses for irresponsible keystone cops. There is no argument with this guys history and video he should be convicted.

    1. avatar jeff says:

      The gentleman does NOT represent a responsible carrier. He was looking to shoot someone. Multiple previous documented incidents.

      Its always easy to find stuff on thug life when momma said he was a good boy. its just as easy to find stuff on Drejka showing he was a responsible carrier and was actually quite unhinged.

      Incident 1 – Woman was driving too slow through a school zone so Drejka presented a gun and threatened her. When confronted by police he stated he had a gun in the car but did not show it and stated people in the other car were showing him rude hand gestures.

      Incident 2 – Person chose not to drive through a yellow light while Drejka was behind them. Drejka honked and yelled at the driver while presenting a gun out of the window and telling the driver to come back to his car. Drejka denied presenting a gun but stated he had one in the car. This was documented by police.

      Incident 3 – Another incident where Drejka confronted someone parked in a handicapped spot at the same store the actual shooting took place. An argument ensued and Drejka used racial slurs and threatened to shoot the person he was arguing with. the person left and defused the situation when Drejka went back and started rummaging through his car. Drejka then called the other drivers employer (assume he was in work truck) and told his boss he was lucky he didn’t blow his employees head off.

      This is what you want to defend? Sorry but he is just as big a scumbag and deserves what he gets just like the thug life whose momma said he was a good boy….even though he shot people. NO DIFFERENCE.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        those previous incidents will be his undoing….surprised those “brandishing” episodes didn’t get his permit revoked

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “Multiple documented instances” being twice, both in 2012. I don’t think that’s going to fly. Now, let’s see dead guy’s rap sheet, if we’re going to roll like that.
      OTOH, I can’t argue the shooter does not DESERVE some shit, just that he is guilty of nothing in this case.

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        Not 2, four. 2 were just official, and 2 others were just filed reports. 3 of the 4 included brandishing a firearm and another was a threat to “blow someone’s head off” at this exact location for the exact same thing.

  41. avatar Jack says:

    For those of you who failed your 1L year (i.e. your first year of law school) and are confusing the Florida “Stand Your Ground” Statute with the general law on self defence or are otherwise making broad general arguments that have nothing to do with the FL statute, below is the relevant text of the statute.

    776.012 USE OF FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
    A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

    (1) He or she reasonably believes that 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; or

    (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

    776.032 IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND CIVIL ACTION FOR JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE.
    (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

    (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

    (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

    1. avatar marcus says:

      Ahhh, Jack, I regard your post as “breath of fresh air.” Thanks for putting it up here so that folks can be advised that the Black Letter Law matters (hmmm, BLLM, a new group 😀 ). More important is the case law that follows from it, and, even more important than that are the jury instructions in the instant matter. IIRC, though I’m not a lawyer, very few Law schools even teach Self-Defense law. Anyway, GOOD post, Sir.

      marcus

    2. avatar Jamesfromlakegeneva says:

      Jack – thanks for the overview of the Florida Stand Your Ground Law, especially (1) He or she reasonably believes that 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;

      Now that Drejka has been charged a jury of his peers can decide if his use of deadly force was reasonable in this situation.

      Bottom line – the only opinion that should matter is that of the jury.

      1. avatar Jack says:

        I’m not a FL lawyer, but I understand that as a technical matter what happens is that the defence lawyer can motion to dismiss to the judge at a pre-trial hearing. If the judge agrees then the case will be dismissed, if not then the jury will decide the same issue at trial.

        FWIW, you should all read the charging affidavit posted by marcus (many thanks marcus) above. I’ll repost it here.
        https://www.scribd.com/document/386120319/Drejka-Charging-Affidavit-180813#from_embed

        My guess is that the judge allows this to go to trial, and that this guy has an uphill battle on his hands if it gets to trial. The fact that the prosecutor does not appear to have overcharged, may indicate that he is gearing up for a trial and is unlikely to plea this case out. This would be consistent with a highly political case or a test case. FWIW, I don’t know how many stand your ground test cases have been tried in FL, but if this is one of the first, it’s probably an appropriate case to show/test the limits of the law.

        FWIW, the relevant bits of the FL manslaughter statute:

        782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—
        (1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

        Please note that if the death is caused by a firearm (or other deadly weapon), the felony is upgraded from a 2nd degree to a 1st degree felony.

        On the political point, as gun right supporters, I don’t think it’s helpful to claim that legislation passed in our favor is unlimited and covers clearly irresponsible (if not blatantly criminal) behavior. If we want to be considered the responsible ones in the room, then we have to act accordingly. If Mr. Drejka is found by a jury of his peers to have acted in a criminally irresponsible way, then we should welcome his conviction.

  42. avatar marcus says:

    Your welcome, Jack. One minor adjustment: while the media has characterized this shooting as a “Stand Your Ground” case, from a legal perspective, it is NOT. SYG simply removes the requirement of a defendant to retreat. Drejka on his knees what in no position whatever to retreat, especially given that the ‘duty to retreat’ carries with it the caveat “can be done in complete safety.” But then, the media has never know squat about how to understand self-defense black letter law, no never mind case law and jury instructions, the last of which is the single most important determiner of outcome in a given case.

    In this case, as Andrew Branca has spent considerable time and energy (and yes, I am a student of his, although I derive no consideration endorsing what he teaches), this is a case as to whether or not: Drejka was “without fault,” i.e., was Innocent; whether or not the attack was imminent, i.e., at the moment of his decision to use deadly force, there was no other option he could have used (if all you have is a hammer, etc.), whether his response was proportional to the offered threat (cf. the prior post above who did a helluva good job of reporting on what Branca teaches about proportionality, level of offered threat, as to the use of force employed). And last, when viewed from the perspective of the “reasonable person,’ under the conditions as perceived by Drejka at the time of his use of force, was Drejka’s decision “reasonable.” BUT, that reasonableness must be viewed from two positions: what is “subjectively reasonable,” ie., as perceived by Drejka; and, what is “objectively reasonable”, i.e., as seen from the juror’s perspective (juror= reasonable person).

    That the Prosecutor has apparently charged with manslaughter, that would likely mean “voluntary manslaughter.” Under VM, the prosecution, in a real sense, gives to the defense, “Yes, I think your guy really did honestly, subjectively believed (Subjectively Reasonable) himself to be in the presence of a deadly force event.” BUT, the prosecution will say, “that’s not enough; he also had to be “Objectively Reasonable” in his use of deadly force.” And OR is for the trier of fact to determine based upon, ultimately, what the jury instructions will order the jurors to consider.

    In PA, which is where I am, where a defendant has Subjective Reasonability going for him or her, but loses on Objective Reasonability, that will arguably reduce a murder charge to Voluntary Manslaughter, since PA would likely characterize the use of force here as a case of Imperfect Self Defense. My guess (and it is that) is that the Prosecution wants to avoid losing on a Murder charge, but winning on a VM charge. Since there is a weapons enhancement charge under FL’s 10-20-30 statute (I don’t have the cite), if Drejka is convicted, he’ll do whatever the sentence is for killing McG plus 10 years, IIRC.

    marcus

  43. avatar marcus says:

    My mistake: FL’s sentencing enhancement law is called 10-20-Life and is referenced here:

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.087.html

    I apologize for the error. I should have looked it up before incorrectly referencing it. Grrrrr

  44. avatar ALSCV says:

    A good reason to get rid of Senator Nelson and others. This prosecutor must be a liberal anti-2A person. What the prosecutor and others don’t know is what did thie one who was killed say to the shooter? Did he threaten him, was he in fear of his life? Not guilty!

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Yeah, actually, they do know. There were multiple witnesses, and Drejka himself said that the McGlockton didn’t say anything to him at all. The only person that said anything threatening was the shooter. Read the affidavit.

  45. avatar JF says:

    So it is ok to beat the shit of of someone for whatever reason. And, your answer to the victim is to man up. Maybe you also feel that the trial should be trail by combat; a good fight never hurt anyone.

  46. avatar Hannibal says:

    Good. Not only the right call, but the obvious call. I’m not saying he’s guilty, but there is more than enough evidence to reach probable cause and let a jury decide. This is not a case of someone defending themselves from an attack. This is a case of someone shooting someone after an attack.

    Legally defensible? Quite possibly, and it’s a shame the media is doing so much to pollute the jury pool (along with the family and their lawyer that loves these cases for the publicity). But the prosecution will have a strong case.

    Everyone in this case acted like a moron. Everyone should face some consequences .

  47. avatar Mark J Costello says:

    I have a concealed carry permit, and live in Pennsylvania, a State with even stronger stand your ground laws than Florida. Here is my problem. The aggressor was the aggressor. He pushed this man down. But he then started walking backwards. There is no audio I can hear. I didn’t see the aggressor jump on him when he was down, or even move in his direction.

    The use of deadly force should be a last resort. I don’t believe it was here. I believe this man was waiting for his opportunity to shoot someone, and took it when the moment presented itself.

  48. avatar Bruce Clark says:

    After the initial push to the ground it doesn’t appear that the threat had escalated to justify a use of deadly force. Of course, they censored and stopped the video way too early to make an educated guess. But from what I saw, it doesn’t look like the shooter was justified in firing his gun.

  49. avatar DBFloyd says:

    Unfortunately, this whole story makes one wonder if defending yourself in any situation is worth the fallout. Well, of course it is until some hack takes you down for the PR. With regard to having SD insurance, would someone kindly post the case file(s) where SD Insurance actually saved the day?

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