FL:Stand your ground law under fire for parking space dispute murder

[mojo84]

Where are the proponents of call 911 and be a good witness?

If he couldn't mind his own business, he could have made his displeasure known and moved on. Instead, he chose to stand there and berate her until her boyfriend came to her defense. Maybe self-appointed parking cops need to reevaluate their own actions.

[bblhd672]

Normal people don't provoke an argument over a parking violation and threaten to use deadly force.

You don't like his behavior. Thats obvious. It's also obvious he doesn't like people parking illegally in handicap parking spaces. He had as much right to criticize her parking as you do to criticize his behavior.

No one has a right to threaten to use deadly force over a parking violation.

That's true and in the video I saw, the guy who did got shot.

My post was about the shooter’s previous actions not what is on the video.

At the convenience store Friday, customers filed in and out, buying cigarettes, lottery tickets and sodas, many of them familiar with details of the shooting. Mustafa Hashen, a clerk and witness, said both men were regulars.

It wasn’t the first time he saw Drejka in a fight with another customer. A couple of months back, Rick Kelly stopped by the store, parking his tanker truck in the same handicap spot.

The details to Thursday’s incident are similar: Drejka walking around the truck checking for decals, then confronting Kelly, 31, about why he parked there. The fight escalated, and Drejka threatened to shoot him, Kelly said.

"It’s a repeat. It happened to me the first time. The second time it’s happening, someone’s life got taken," Kelly said. "He provoked that."

Normal people don't provoke an argument over a parking violation and threaten to use deadly force.

[Paladin]

And now roll the legacy media fake news:

ABC News Tries To Gin Up More Outrage Over Florida Shooting

Markeis was a gentle giant. Markeis, he was a man above all men..

"Men above all men" do not have THREE illegitimate children.

It is completely irresponsible for ABC to publish and promote these lies that incite disorder and violence. Markeis wasn't gentle or defending anyone. He attacked to support Britney Jacobs' self granted entitlement to not be questioned about illegally parking in a handicapped space. Nothing more, nothing less.

Programming Inciting “Imminent Lawless Action.” The Supreme Court has held that the government may curtail speech if it is both: (1) intended to incite or produce “imminent lawless action;” and (2) likely to “incite or produce such action.” Even when this legal test is met, any review that might lead to a curtailment of speech is generally performed by the appropriate criminal law enforcement authorities, not by the FCC.

link

I think the FCC/law enforcement should be looking closely into what ABC is doing here.

[BBYC]

Normal people don't provoke an argument over a parking violation and threaten to use deadly force.

You don't like his behavior. Thats obvious. It's also obvious he doesn't like people parking illegally in handicap parking spaces. He had as much right to criticize her parking as you do to criticize his behavior.

No one has a right to threaten to use deadly force over a parking violation.

That's true and in the video I saw, the guy who did got shot.

My post was about the shooter’s previous actions not what is on the video.

If you want to post links to those other videos, I'm willing to watch them and have a discussion about them.

[BBYC]

Maybe self-appointed parking cops need to reevaluate their own actions.

Maybe they do. Jerks who park illegally definitely need to reevaluate their own actions.

[WTR]

No, he was not standing his ground. It was more like revenge for getting pushed down. The guy was backing away after the gun came out. If he had made an aggressive move forward then it would be justified.
I’d say 2nd or 3rd degree murder, certainly not first degree.

We don’t know what was said ( at least I don’t). A threat may have been made. However, I do think it looks bad just watching the video.

[dlh]

All of this stand your ground discussion reminded me of another case I had not heard about in awhile---I call it the "popcorn shooter case."

That case is also a big mess:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/cri ... _168666185

Getting back to the O.P. case, I would add that judges routinely instruct juries that there may be more than one cause of an event---clearly that happened here. Stay tuned to both cases.

[mojo84]

Maybe self-appointed parking cops need to reevaluate their own actions.

Maybe they do. Jerks who park illegally definitely need to reevaluate their own actions.

I do not disagree. She shouldn't have parked there. How many times have you confronted and chewed someone out for a traffic or parking violation? Of you have done it, do you make a regular habit of it?

[BBYC]

Maybe self-appointed parking cops need to reevaluate their own actions.

Maybe they do. Jerks who park illegally definitely need to reevaluate their own actions.

I do not disagree. She shouldn't have parked there. How many times have you confronted and chewed someone out for a traffic or parking violation? Of you have done it, do you make a regular habit of it?

I don't get involved in stuff like that, although I have made unflattering comments about other drivers/parkers to my friends.

My point is that it's legal for him to criticize her law breaking. Maybe not smart. Maybe not polite. But legal.

However, it wasn't legal for her to park there. It also wasn't smart or polite. It also wasn't legal, smart, or polite for her man to physically attack anyone.

[rotor]

Old guy (shooter) turns out is 47 which I don't classify as old. When you have a history of threatening people with a gun because of a handicap parking violation and then eventually shoot and kill one of them you are guilty of murder as far as I am concerned. Nobody can convince me that this crazy shooter was not guilty of murder. Give him a chance and he will be doing the same thing again. This is not stand your ground. This is incite and kill because you can.

[WTR]

I was confined to wheel chair until my brain rewired and I learned to walk again. I know how much my Wife and Mom needed to Utilize the HC spaces when they took me somewhere. I have politely asked if a person knew they were in a HC space. I’ve also informed an able bodied driver that it was illegal to leave grandma in the car while they utilized a HC space to run into the store. I’ve even had an idiot flash his gun at me and tell me he was a man and did whatever he liked. I’ve always been polite though.

[Paladin]

I was confined to wheel chair until my brain rewired and I learned to walk again. I know how much my Wife and Mom needed to Utilize the HC spaces when they took me somewhere. I have politely asked if a person knew they were in a HC space. I’ve also informed an able bodied driver that it was illegal to leave grandma in the car while they utilized a HC space to run into the store. I’ve even had an idiot flash his gun at me and tell me he was a man and did whatever he liked. I’ve always been polite though.

Wow!

[Paladin]

Old guy (shooter) turns out is 47 which I don't classify as old. When you have a history of threatening people with a gun because of a handicap parking violation and then eventually shoot and kill one of them you are guilty of murder as far as I am concerned. Nobody can convince me that this crazy shooter was not guilty of murder. Give him a chance and he will be doing the same thing again. This is not stand your ground. This is incite and kill because you can.

Very much disagree. The "history" you are taking as fact is as quoted by low life that feel they have a right to park in handicapped spaces. Their words are self-serving at best. I have shown Jacobs to be a liar. If Drejka had "incite and kill" all masterfully planned as you suggest, Drejka would not have ended up attacked from behind and only drawn his weapon while laying on the ground. If he wanted to kill McGlockton, Drejka would have shot McGlockton more than once. Drejka fired one shot. Single gunshot wounds are often survivable. Drejka let McGlockton retreat. Drejka never layed a hand on Jacobs.

Those are the facts. This was a dispute that ended badly. Don't let liars and fake news make you believe differently.

[rotor]

Old guy (shooter) turns out is 47 which I don't classify as old. When you have a history of threatening people with a gun because of a handicap parking violation and then eventually shoot and kill one of them you are guilty of murder as far as I am concerned. Nobody can convince me that this crazy shooter was not guilty of murder. Give him a chance and he will be doing the same thing again. This is not stand your ground. This is incite and kill because you can.

Very much disagree. The "history" you are taking as fact is as quoted by low life that feel they have a right to park in handicapped spaces. Their words are self-serving at best. I have shown Jacobs to be a liar. If Drejka had "incite and kill" all masterfully planned as you suggest, Drejka would not have ended up attacked from behind and only drawn his weapon while laying on the ground. If he wanted to kill McGlockton, Drejka would have shot McGlockton more than once. Drejka fired one shot. Single gunshot wounds are often survivable. Drejka let McGlockton retreat. Drejka never layed a hand on Jacobs.

Those are the facts. This was a dispute that ended badly. Don't let liars and fake news make you believe differently.

The shooter threatened a guy named Kelly for the same type of incident in the past. One does not patrol handicap parking spots, fight with people that are illegally parked and threaten to shoot. Neither of us know what is in his heart but when one repeatedly does the same thing and threaten people with a firearm I look at them as deranged. Obviously the DA in this case agreed with the shooter but if it looks like a duck and you know the rest. I don't know what liars you are talking about.

[BSHII]

This does not have anything to do with the "stand your ground" law, and it is irresponsible of the Sheriff to misinform the public by saying it does. All the "stand your ground" law does is remove the common-law duty to retreat before the use of deadly force in self-defense. Every other element of a valid self-defense justification still has to be present.

In the video, the shooter was blindsided and knocked down. He was certainly in no position to attempt to retreat if his attacker was still a threat. Even prior to "stand your ground," the duty to retreat does not require a person to attempt to retreat if he cannot reasonably do so safely.

The only question is whether, when he pulled the trigger, he reasonably believed that doing so was necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm. That is arguable based on the video, but the answer is the same whether the "stand your ground" law exists or not.