Sheriff called parking spot shooting legal under ‘stand your ground’ laws. Prosecutors disagreed.

Okay the girlfriend was parked in a Disabled Spot and wasn't disabled the shooter pointed this out to the woman rather loudly, I would have I'm in a wheelchair and the fact their children were there wouldn't have stopped me. And I'm armed the main difference is I would have used Pepper Spray, Taser and a Knife and would have stopped when the man wasn't a threat before calling 911. And being disabled I can use superior force against a fit adult if I feel its needed and I would assume a moving adult male is a threat until he is not moving in some cases I'm alone and have no support or people around.

And yes I would have called the woman some colorful names perhaps that doesn't give her man a reason to lay a hand on me the second he does that its assault. I would respond depending on the threat posed to me.

The man did start the assault, the shooter was defending himself if the hooter was disabled he may have decided there was still threat I would have not shot him but I don't use guns I find that they limit my self-defense options.

 

I'm not sure why this is so difficult to sort out.

When the guy gets shoved to the ground, he is fully within his rights to pull the gun.

But seeing the gun caused the other guy to back up. Still fine. Keep him there and call the cops to report the assault.

Instead he shot him when there was no obvious danger to his person. If the guy took a step towards him even with the gun trained, then fire away. But he stepped back. That's the crucial moment. No imminent danger, so the guy should get 2nd degree murder.

 

I agree. Also points out the fact that every bullet comes with a lawyer.

 

I don't have a problem with people confronting sh1theads who wrongfully park in handicapped spots. It is an ******* thing to do (parking there). I can just say, with my CCW, if I am carrying, I most certainly am NOT going to initiate a confrontation, especially over something like a parking spot.

 

Incident #1 - Three months before McGlockton's shooting, Drejka, who is white, threatened to shoot a black man for parking in a handicapped space at the same store where McGlockton was shot confronting Drejka, according to the complaint. The man's boss told detectives Drejka later called him to complain about his worker, telling him "he was lucky that he didn't blow his employee's head off," the complaint alleges.

Incident #2 - In another incident, an 18-year-old man told Pinellas County Sheriff's deputies in 2012 that Drejka flashed a black handgun at him during a road-rage incident. The teenager told deputies the altercation started when he stopped at a light that turned had yellow, and Drejka, who was behind him, allegedly honked and yelled at him, and pointed the handgun at him from his driver's-side window, according to the complaint.

Incident #3 - On Dec. 12, 2012, a woman told Largo, Florida, police that a man in a black Toyota truck, later identified at Drejka, pointed a gun at her and her passengers.
"When Largo Police talked to Michael Drejka, he stated that the female driver was driving too slowly through a school zone," according to the complaint. Drejka denied pulling a gun on the woman, and police let him go when they did not find a firearm in his truck, the complaint says.

These show a pattern of aggressive behavior and a propensity to utilize a gun for intimidation purposes. They paint a picture of a man that may have WANTED to shoot someone and was just looking for an opportunity to do so. I am sure that the prosecutor will have behavioral experts testify to such. While it is possible that a Judge might not allow his past actions as being relevant, the fact that his past actions closely mirror the shooting incident, I suspect that most Judges will allow it.

 

I don't have a problem with the manslaughter charge. He fired one shot into the guys torso. It could be reasonably argued that the intent was not to kill the guy but to incapacitate.

 

it's hard to say, that was not really a retreat, it could easily been seen as repositioning himself - but the reality is, maybe he was scared and accidentally shot, maybe due to adrenalin or the shock from the recent attack and trying to get up, we won't know until the trial - I do not see a guilty verdict, but do not feel sorry for the legal issues he is going through either

now, maybe a civil suit the family could sue and win

 

but that proves nothing in this case, I agree the guy was a jerk and should not of owned a gun

but the assault is what gave him the right to shoot, nothing matters except what occurred that day in a court of law

he never fired the gun in the past as it never escalated that far, which could actually prove he feared for his life as well, kinda works both ways

court of public opinion is different, that I agree with you 100%

this guy is like a bad cop that tries to escalate situations, then when someone gets violent kills them - at that point the cop is justified in the shot, but we can all agree it was wrong and could of been prevented and he should be fired as he is not cop material

I would avoid being violent unless there was no choice as it can end badly even if one feels they are in the right

 

I agree. I dislike able people parking in the handicap.....and at one time in my life, I might have make a quick off-hand comment to the driver. However, I was also taught to "mind my own business" and that some things may not be what they appear. Today, I might take a picture of the car in the spot and mail it to the police (i would not expect the police to respond to a call). Let them take care of it.

Why I would handle it different today: My sister was taking my mother (mom has a handicap parking permit) to get her prescription at a store. Mom wanted to talk to the pharmacist herself. My sister was in her car and forget to get the placard from mom's car. Sister pulled into a handicap spot to drop mom off and then she was going to go find a regular parking spot. She was confronted by a man as soon as she pulled into the spot and while mom was getting out of the car.

Point is, things may not be what they seem. Confronting people over a parking spot is childish. We are not a society with a citizen police force and it i the police's job to evaluate the situation and to write a citation for the driver if merited.

 

Drejka manner was threatening to the woman. Everyone at the store heard his anger including the boyfriend who did what he could to end that immediate threat. That is where it should have ended. Drejka could have filed a complaint of an assault which likely would have been dropped after McGlockton claims that he only meant to push Drejka away from the car, not onto the ground. Being punched is a violent assault, being pushed is not

 

It certainly proves something in this case. There is precedence in court law of ruling against people that are determined to be "looking for a fight". While this case may hinge on what the shooter said during the confrontation, his words could be used against him as "Fighting words". His past actions of aggressive confrontation would add support that he was a man intent on provoking reactions from others that would allow him to resort to violence. All the prosecution needs to prove is that the shooter used the system to create a situation where he could shoot somebody. The reactions of the by-standers certainly showed that his actions were so out of the ordinary that it caught their attention.

 

had it been the man doing the assault defending himself in court, yes, the previous alleged cases would be allowed, but not in this case as he is the one on trial - this would be prejudicial to his case as it had nothing to do with the current case

could he be charged with harassing the women, possibly.. that would be a different case though

also the fact that they parked in a handicap spot, would not lend well to their case as he was upset cause they were doing something illegal

 

Well, a Judge will decide that, not us. From my knowledge of law (I slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night) chances are that it will be allowed. The shooter is the one that started the direct confrontation, not the man that initially committed assault.

 

will be interesting to see how it turns out, I think it's good going to trial as it will get more media coverage which may prevent this kinda thing in future even if he is found not guilty in the end

plus any information from the trial would be able to be used by the family in a civil case which is where I think he will lose

I am not a lawyer either, but seems defendants can bring in information on a victims or witnesses past but not visa versa - unless the defense brings it up first.. maybe a lawyer here can answer

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404

I only know this as I used to be a court tv watcher and saw cases like this where stuff we talked about online were not allowed in court

 

Per your link:

This is what I am saying. It can be admissible to prove intent (i.e. the shooter was confronting people in order to get a reaction so that he could use force).

 

yes, the one committing the assault would have a good defense based on that, but this is based on the assault and the defended is the shooter, not the one that assulted him

 

only if his defense is stupid enough to bring it up first, my bet is he does not take the stand and the defense is careful not to bring it up first

the defense will focus on experts and the video is my belief

 

He can only be judge by this act.

 

Just because one person committed physically assault first, that does not necessarily make them the aggressor. The shooter initiated the confrontation. He is the one that confronted the person that parked illegally. His actions were definitely aggressive to the point where it caught the attention of by-standers. I'm not 100% up on Florida's Stand-your Ground laws anymore (changed after Zimmerman), but most States do not allow Stand Your Ground if the person "Standing" is the aggressor.

 

That is not what the law says.

 

"(A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;"

it's hard to get past convictions in, let alone past accusations

 

(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. On request by a defendant in a criminal case, the prosecutor must:

(A) provide reasonable notice of the general nature of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial; and

(B) do so before trial — or during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice.

 

As there is no video, I can only respond to his demeanor. It's very calm, almost nonchalant. And in comparison to the husbands, very reasonable.

Now, if it can be proved he set the whole thing up just to shoot a hot head black man, I'll side with conviction of 1st degree murder, but that's going to be a very high bar to clear.

However, one poster brought up a salient point, the husband’s retreat after the push down. It does provide a suggestion of evidence that this guy was looking for an excuse to shoot, at least someone, if not specifically a black man.

Still, all and all, the husband’s attack was not justified. The question is, did warrant death. Probably not, but still legally sanctioned.

 

His demeanor was not calm, it was confrontational as can be seen by all the pointing at the women and the reactions of other customers. Eye witness accounts of what they heard will be the deciding factor. This went on for about a minute. I don't believe that color has anything to do with the shooter's actions.

 

Well sir, I think having a weapon may have made this guy a little bolder than he would have been without it but when to shoot or not sort of falls into a personal category. Yes, I watched the video.