Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

‘Stand Your Ground’ Did Not Kill Markeis McGlockton

Michael Drejka’s decision to shoot was inconsistent with Florida’s self-defense law.

Markeis McGlockton and Michael Drejka both overreacted during their brief, fatal encounter in the parking lot of a Florida convenience store last week. McGlockton overreacted by pushing Drejka to the ground, and Drejka overreacted by drawing a pistol and shooting McGlockton in the chest.

Although it is hard to see how Drejka's use of lethal force could have been justified, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri declined to arrest him, claiming his hands were tied by Florida's Stand Your Ground law. But that is not true, and Gualtieri's misrepresentation of the law has renewed misguided criticism of Florida's approach to self-defense, which contrary to popular misconception does not give a free pass to armed hotheads who claim to have fired out of fear.

The incident that ended in McGlockton's death began when Drejka approached Britany Jacobs, McGlockton's girlfriend, as she sat in her car outside the Circle A Food Store in Clearwater. Drejka was upset that Jacobs had parked in a handicapped spot, and the ensuing argument attracted the attention of McGlockton, who was in the store buying candy for his 5-year-old son.

Video from a surveillance camera shows McGlockton emerging from the store, walking straight up to Drejka, and pushing him down. Within five seconds, Drejka, sitting on the ground, draws a gun and fires once. McGlockton staggers back into the store, grabbing his chest.

After collapsing in front of his son, McGlockton was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Drejka, who has a concealed carry permit, told police he fired because he was afraid McGlockton was about to attack him again.

"We're precluded from making an arrest in this type of a situation," Gualtieri claimed at a press conference the next day. "Stand Your Ground allows for a subjective belief by the person that they are in harm's way," the sheriff said, and "we don't get to substitute our judgment for Drejka's judgment."

To the contrary, the law requires police and prosecutors to assess the judgment of someone who uses deadly force, which he is allowed to do only if he "reasonably believes" it is "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." It is not enough to claim you shot someone because you believed he otherwise would have killed or maimed you; that belief has to be reasonable in the circumstances.

The video shows McGlockton backing away when Drejka draws his gun. Even assuming that McGlockton was not done with Drejka after the shove, Gualtieri conceded that Drejka "probably could have" fended McGlockton off simply by brandishing the pistol. The implication is that Drejka did not reasonably believe shooting McGlockton was necessary, which means there was probable cause to arrest him.

Gualtieri obscured that point by erroneously asserting that the Stand Your Ground law, which was enacted in 2005, established a "largely subjective standard" for the use of lethal force. The question, he said, is not "what I would do, what you would do, what the public would do, what someone else would do." What really matters, he suggested, is "the person's subjective determination of the circumstance they were in" and "the fear that they had."

Not so. Because a shooter's assessment of the situation has to be reasonable (even if it ultimately proves to have been mistaken), it does matter what other people would do in the same circumstances. In that respect, Florida's criteria for self-defense did not change in 2005, and they are similar to those that apply throughout the country.

The signature feature of Florida's Stand Your Ground law, as the moniker suggests, is that people attacked in public places do not have a duty to retreat. But that rule, which most states have adopted and Gualtieri said he supports, did not figure in the sheriff's decision.

Gualtieri emphasized that someone who legally uses force in self-defense is immune from arrest under Florida law. But he never satisfactorily explained why that description applies to Michael Drejka.

© Copyright 2018 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Unless your turn your back to leave the scene after pushing someone to the ground, the person that was injured can reasonably think that you might hurt the, furtehr. Stand your ground laws allow the victim to kill you in self-defense.

    Lesson: dont push people down and bring your bad attitude to a gun fight.

    Reason staff: self-defense does not require that a victim be pummeled by a gang to defend themself. They need only have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    *hurt them further....

  • Rat on a train||

    hurt the Fuhrer?

  • Pat_||

    It is not a stand your ground case and the left wing fascists think it is.

  • Left Libertarian||

    Did you even watch the video? He was retreating.

  • Juice||

    Didn't look like he was retreating to me. It does look like he was surprised and puzzled by the sudden presence of the gun though. I doubt he was about to continue attacking, but who knows.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He was not retreating.

    See how he runs away after being shot. That is how one retreats.

    McGlockton clearly didnt think the guy he pushed had a gun or would shoot him. He was wrong on both accounts.

  • Pat_||

    Exactly. The guy who was shot was not retreating in the video. He is continuing to threaten

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Based on what I saw in the video, I don't agree with the shooting but the shooting victim was not in retreat even after being presented with the wrong end of a firearm.

  • ThomasD||

    I'm not sure I would have fired at that moment. When I practice its usually draw, sight picture, trigger. So either would have fired sooner, or probably not at all.

    The thing is, prior to 'stand your ground' Florida was a 'duty to retreat' State. But that duty meant you could reasonable retreat from the threat. Being on your ass and your assailant standing a few steps away, facing you, makes retreat a non option. Nor do I see any indication the attacker was himself retreating or de-escalating.

    So even with the old law the prosecutor would still have to demonstrate that the shooter's reported beliefs and actions are either a lie, or unreasonable given the circumstances.

    Seems to me the Sheriff does not like the new law and is using a non-clear cut case to grind his axe.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If government defers to the victim defending themselves, then that's good.

    That is literally what the Constitution is all about. Government deferring to the rights of Americans in 9/10 situations.

  • Curt2004||

    So all those cops shooting unarmed citizens were completely justified then? Can't have it both ways.

  • MichaelL||

    Curt2004 It seems to be the way most prosecuting attorneys see it, when dealing with the police! Worked out for the disabled guy! "What's good for the goose is good for the gander"!? My dad taught me what his did before him. "If you are going to point a gun at someone, you better use it, or you might be eating it"!

  • The Colorado Idiot||

    ThomasD, where you said:

    "Seems to me the Sheriff does not like the new law and is using a non-clear cut case to grind his axe."

    That was *exactly* my first thought also.

    I think he knew he could use this to gin up fauxtrage over the law, in order to get it removed from the books.

  • BambiB||

    Florida law requires a prompt legal review - with a judge - where the prosecutor has to show by clear and convincing evidence that the shooter did NOT act in self-defense. The former model was to arrest anyone who shot anyone for any reason. The abuses of prosecutorial power created the new law - and it's a reasonable one.

    This case is a difficult one. The shooter was clearly attacked - but was the attacker acting to defend his girlfriend? After the attack, the attacker appeared to be retreating - or was he simply considering his options for a renewed attack? The shooter appears to have plenty of time to evaluate the situation and make a reasoned decision - but he's just been violently pushed to the ground by someone considerably bigger than himself and the few seconds it takes him to draw and fire didn't happen in the slow-motion replay that WE all get to see. The standard for lawful use of self-defense in Florida permits deadly force to prevent death or great bodily injury. Would a reasonable man in the same circumstances do the same thing?

    I think this is a very tough case. I expect the shooter to be charged, because public opinion will demand it, and I expect him to be found "not guilty". Alternatively, he may plead guilty to a lesser crime.

    In the final analysis, the attacker ran the risk of encountering deadly force when he attacked. It's not going to be easy to second-guess the shooter as a matter of law.

  • Floozy||

    Almost seems like the sheriff was applying the police office standard for shooting, which is that if the officer says that he felt he was in imminent danger, that is usually the end of the discussion on the matter. It should not be, for anyone, the end of the discussion, since having people with guns who are quick to feel deadly threats is a problem, whether or not they wear a badge.

  • syzito||

    He was backing up before any weapon was displayed and he was not attempting to assault Drejka any further. This was murder plain and simple. Drejka was known at this store for harassing other customers at other times. He was a busybody trying to control everyone and everything and he was armed. He is the very picture of someone that doesn't possess the brain power to own a weapon because he is a danger to society. He should be charged and imprisoned for life.

  • Pat_||

    Nonsense. he did not retreat. He still presented a proven threat (he had just assaulted the guy). No jury in the world would convict of murder in this case because NO murder occurred. It was a guy defending himself against a violent criminal. it is not even a "stand your ground " case

  • Fred Zuccini||

    Didn't look like retreating to me. Standing over and more like encroaching. There was more reason to shoot here, than I've seen reported in recent police incidents.

    I don't think Drejka should have confronted McGlockton over a stupid handicapped parking space. When you carry, you should avoid creating a scene like this so you can avoid making headlines like this altogether. But then keeping your hands to yourself is another good way to avoid getting shot.

  • JFree||

    He didn't confront McGlockton over a parking space. He confronted a woman and two very young infants who were cornered in a car. Loudly enough so that a bystander went into the store and said there's someone messing with a woman in a car outside. Which is why McGlockton went outside - leaving his 5 year old in the store - and then ran toward his car.

    If McGlockton had been armed would he have gotten the same benefit of the doubt for shooting the guy threatening his kid and girl? No effing way.

  • Vernon Depner||

    If McGlockton had been armed would he have gotten the same benefit of the doubt for shooting the guy threatening his kid and girl?

    Yes, if Drejka had physically assaulted the woman, as McGlockton assaulted Drejka. You don't seem to be able to distinguish between irritating someone and actually putting your hands on them.

  • JFree||

    So what you're saying is that as long as you're armed, you are free to intimidate someone until they lash out - and then you are free to kill them without consequence.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Or even if you're not armed, if you can take them.

    Yes, you are free to say things to people that might make them angry, and if they attack you, they are at fault and you have a right to defend yourself. "What he said pissed me off" is not an excuse for physically assaulting someone.

  • Star1988||

    You've managed to convince yourself that pissing someone off with words is perfectly fine, and in no circumstances justifies any kind of contact. Yet a simple shove gives your combatant free reign to execute you???

    Being pushed down is not that big a deal. Ever play sports? Being verbally threatened can feel much, much more dangerous. This is total insanity - summary execution after a simple push is OK? And you give people free reign to make verbal threats to your wife and kids?

  • Vernon Depner||

    pissing someone off with words is perfectly fine, and in no circumstances justifies any kind of contact.

    Correct. Speech and physical assault are fundamentally different. Offending with words never justifies a physical attack.

    Yet a simple shove gives your combatant free reign to execute you???

    A physical assault gives you the right to defend yourself. If your efforts to defend yourself result in the death of your attacker, he is at fault for initiating the attack. Calling the attacker a "combatant" implies a false moral equivalency between the attacker and the defender.

    In this particular case, calling the attack a "simple shove" is ridiculous. Drejka was slammed to the ground by a much larger and much younger man. This was a potentially injurious attack.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Being pushed down is not that big a deal.

    Bullshit. I've seen people hospitalized as a result of being shoved to the ground.

    Ever play sports?

    The physical contact that takes place on a sporting field, ring or court is consensual and therefore irrelevant to this discussion.

    Being verbally threatened can feel much, much more dangerous.

    Yes, specific credible threats are a different matter from speech that merely annoys or angers. If someone is walking toward you with a baseball bat yelling "I'M GOING TO KILL YOU" you are under no obligation to wait until he takes a swing to open fire.

    This is total insanity

    Yes, it is insane to suggest that using physical force to shut someone up is OK and that they have no right to self-defense if you do so.

    summary execution after a simple push is OK?

    Armed self-defense after being slammed to the pavement is OK. If you're worried about people you slam to the pavement to shut them up killing you, then don't slam people to the pavement. The vast majority of Americans have no difficulty following that practice for their entire lives.

    And you give people free reign to make verbal threats to your wife and kids?

    No. As I said, reacting to credible threats is different from merely using violence to silence someone who is saying something you don't like.

  • Star1988||

    You've managed to convince yourself that pissing someone off with words is perfectly fine, and in no circumstances justifies any kind of contact. Yet a simple shove gives your combatant free reign to execute you???

    Being pushed down is not that big a deal. Ever play sports? Being verbally threatened can feel much, much more dangerous. This is total insanity - summary execution after a simple push is OK? And you give people free reign to make verbal threats to your wife and kids?

  • MichaelL||

    In the end, your opinion still stinks! I thnk part of it is the fact that a disabled person has more fear for any threats that knock him to the ground, where the person has a problem with getting back up on his feet. It's like standing over a wounded animal!

  • Pat_||

    @ Star1988. What are you talking about? McGlockton committed ASSAULT. No one was "executed." You don't think slamming down someone on the concrete is

    Star 1988 you are suggesting a legal regime where people can just run around throwing people on the concrete which absolutely CAN result in grievous injury or death.

  • swampwiz||

    BINGO! There should be the requirement of anyone that carries to go about his business without carrying on a ruckus as much as reasonably possible. Complaining about a parking spot is not reasonable.

  • Steve-O||

    Both of them acted inappropriately. That said, I could much more easily see myself in McGlockton's shoes than Drejka's -- Rushing to the scene and shoving some cranky old asshole who was hassling my wife and kids versus deputizing myself as parking enforcer and screaming at a lady and her kids for idling in a handicapped space ALL WHILE CARRYING A GUN.

    What most people who carry will tell you is that having a gun on them reminds them to be polite, keep a cool head, say out of bad situations, and deescalate any confrontations. Not this asshole. He gives everyone who carries a bad name and should be culled from the herd.

  • bernard11||

    Didn't look like retreating to me.

    There are some fine schools that help blind people.

  • Whorton||

    Lets not forget, the act of brandishing a firearm is a felony. In spite of the sheriffs protestation, that Drejka, "probably could have" fended McGlockton off simply by brandishing the pistol." is legally questionable at best.

    One can also make the argument that others have made in that McGlockton merely steps back, he does not withdraw. Given that we were not in Drejka's position, (on the ground after having been violently shoved from BEHIND without warning and without provocation) additional acts of violence would have been a reasonable assumption.

    McGlockton foolishly played the tough guy with the wrong dude, and paid for it with his life. Were I on a jury in the matter, not only would Drejka walked, but I would have found in his favor to the toon of 1 million dollars for the unprovoked attack. . . (Yeah, I know, couldn't do it BUT)

    I have no sympathy for McGlockton, and anyone that believes he was a victim, seriously needs to reevaluate their morals.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The sentiment reflected by this comment is part of the reason conservatives' aspirations will continue to be crushed by better Americans as our society continues to improve.

    Which one of you guys is Jason Spencer?

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Look, another banal comment from the local idiot. As before he nor only abuses everyone else of being v Republican, but states how it will all be fixed once his team is in the Presidential Superbowl.

    The funny thing is that basically nothing for fixed when his guy was in power. Yeah, don't mention healthcare and shit like that. If you have even a tiny honest bone left in your beta male body then you'll realize before you type a ridiculous reprisal to avenge Obamacare that it is indefensible.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    My phones keyboard killed that grammar. It had been sacked.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "...will continue to be crushed by better Americans as our society continues to improve."

    The banner of the progressives. It's for our own good, and you'll happily drag us kicking and screaming into your dystopic future.

    Don't count on it. Just yesterday, "the ultra-liberal and frequently overturned U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit just ruled that the Second Amendment protects one's right to carry a gun openly outside of the home. " Apparently they can read the writing on the wall, and have finally learned to recognize when they are going to be overruled.

  • Augustine||

    Absolutely not at all reasonable. Family of CCW carriers and we all watched it the first time and all five of us agreed that it was obvious the guy pushed him down and backed off. He was not continuing the attack. No reasonable person would've thought that.

  • Vernon Depner||

    But AFTER you've attacked someone the reasonableness of your victim's fear of attack is no longer in question.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I would not have shot that guy at that point but I would have been ready to put one in his head if he took one step forward. I was not there and had not been pushed down by an aggressive guy over illegally parking in a handicap spot.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Please sell your firearms to someone responsible. You are making the world less safe by continuing to carry. Or, take some self-defense classes, because it's clear that your fear of physical confrontation can too easily overwhelm you.

  • sarcasmic||

    Really? One must be a badass karate champ before they can be allowed to carry? Does that mean old and sick people shouldn't be allowed to own guns?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I didn't say "allowed". I asked him to consider that he doesn't have the temperament to carry responsibly. I didn't suggest that government should forcibly take his weapons away from him.

    Old and sick people may have the temperament.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tell me, how much abuse must one take to show proper "temperament?"

    Wait until your arm is broken? Until your rib cage has been kicked in?

    Please enlighten us.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    That's easy. When it's REASONABLE to conclude that your life is in immediate jeopardy, and retreating is not an option. There are plenty of gray areas. This wasn't one of them.

  • dchang0||

    Perhaps Drejka believes he has/had the temperament to carry responsibly.

    In fact, my bet is that he feels even more justified to be carrying, that his response was appropriate and that it saved his life.

    You asking him to give up his guns is not going to do a thing.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I didn't ask Drejka. I asked Mr. Shoot First Ask Questions Later.

  • bernard11||

    his response was appropriate and that it saved his life.

    This is utter bullshit.

    The guy is a murderer.

  • Pat_||

    When it's REASONABLE to conclude that your life is in immediate jeopardy,

    Except that is not the test in ANY of the 50 states, even in states without stand your ground. Reasonable fear of "grievous injury" is and being slammed on the concrete is exactly such a threat -- moreover Drejka was not merely threatened with it, he was a victim of it.

    No prosecution in any state would prosecute this case

  • ThomasD||

    "Or, take some self-defense classes"

    I have. They involved firearms.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I am going to go out an buy another gun today, just because you mentioned firearms.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    How many more people do you have to kill until you learn that you and firearms aren't a match made in heaven?

  • JFree||

    Only one. But I doubt he's considering suicide.

  • Wearenotperfect||

    JSJ
    Take a deep breath and hold. I'll check on you in a few days flipping moron!

    CCW instructors are very clear in their direction to always avoid confrontational situations. Drejka breached that threshold when he made the choice to become the parking police for a day.

  • Whorton||

    "pushed down by an aggressive guy over illegally parking in a handicap spot."

    Obviously an innocent mistake of a polite conversation over parking etiquette.

    -Sorry loveconstitution1789, not picking on you, that comment begged a response.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Absolutely not at all reasonable. Family of CCW carriers and we all watched it the first time and all five of us agreed that it was obvious the guy pushed him down and backed off. He was not continuing the attack. No reasonable person would've thought that.

    It's really easy to judge such things sitting in the comfort of your home instead of on the ground with your attacker looming over you.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "It's really easy to judge such things sitting in the comfort of your home instead of on the ground with your attacker looming over you.". Exactly; everybody's an arm chair Monday morning quarterback looking at the replays, but no one has the least f'n idea of what it looked like from ground level after you've had your ass sacked. McClockton committed assault and battery [a crime by the way] in that he unnecessarily, physically, attacked Drejka. It would have been nice had he just brandished the weapon and ended to scuffle there, but when you decide to deal with someone [even a jerk] by hitting or pushing them, you are setting the chain of events into motion. When someone decides to use lethal force, it is quite likely that the situation is not going to end prettily. I hope for Drejka's sake he has concealed carry insurance because while he may not face criminal charges, he will most certainly be sued for a huge amount of money.

  • Jay Dubya||

    "It would have been nice had he just brandished the weapon and ended to scuffle there"
    I was always taught that the only time I should brandish a firearm is when I am prepared to use that firearm, and that the use of a firearm is always lethal force. In english: other than cleaning or training, you take out a gun to kill someone (or something)
    Pulling out a firearm does not de-escalate a violent situation. During a shoving match, pulling out a gun escalates the intrinsic violence of the situation & degree of threat to an enormous degree. A shoving match can often be de-escalated using word. The best approach, presuming the goal is to AVOID violence and not show everyone what a big man you are, is to apologize & leave ASAP, regardless of whose at fault.
    Pulling out a gun *immediately* transforms a dick-measuring contest into a life-or-death situation. A person with a gun pointed at them doesn't know what the carrier's intentions are. Add to this the reasonable assumption that someone who shoves another grown man in front of his own children (as in this situation) is possibly not a rational thinker. Its taking a heated situation & throwing a fkng flamethrower on it.

  • Jay Dubya||

    Then there is the presence of children to consider. The shooter was literally surrounded by infants during this incident - two in the car, one in the store. There are VERY few situations in which it is reasonable to discharge a firearm in the presence of a child (esp from a prone / non-ideal aiming position like on your back after being sacked). The shooter is *extremely* lucky that he did not injure or kill a child. The shooter easily could have missed & sent a bullet through the store window ("Be sure of your target and what is beyond it."). Furthermore, the shooter was not in an ideal shooting position - his line of fire was pointed directly at what appears to be an empty metal cage for propane tanks; a round could have hit that cage & sent a shell fragment into the car, into a child. The shooter made a decision that put his own physical well being above that of the children surrounding him. He decided that the risk posed to him by a shoving match with a man justified not just the killing of that man but putting that man's children in a situation with a significant risk of death.

  • Jay Dubya||

    That is an unjustifiable position IMO.
    I find myself instinctively wanting to take the side of civilian shooters in many of these types of high profile shootings. The public & a great deal of the press instinctively sides against the shooter, regardless of circumstances. Courts routinely find that legitimate self defense is a criminal offense; these same courts ensure that law enforcement are not held accountable or even the most egregious, video-taped incidents of cold-blooded murder. The last century has seen a continuous winnowing of the intrinsic right of self defense enshrined in the second amendment, replaced instead with the anointment of a "professionalized" police force. So I've developed a test - would I think this would be a good shoot if the shooter was a police officer? I find myself answering that question with an emphatic no. The shooter's continuum of force is all fucked up, and he actively placed three infant children into a gun battle over the sort of non-injury sustained in a friendly pickup game of basketball.

  • Jay Dubya||

    With that said, there are (or ought to be) significant and separate issues to be considered when making the determination whether an individual who makes a claim of self defense can be held criminally culpable for an act of violence beyond what I have pointed out here. Other comments in this thread have noted how the subjective experience of an individual during an assault might alter what could be considered rational within certain constraints. I would also add the discrepancy in how civilian claims of self defense are treated differently than civilian law enforcement claims of self defense (in reality, police are also civilians, if not in their own minds). Standards for self defense are a patchwork of nebulous bullshit; the same self defense incident would be handled in a near infinite array of different ways from state to state, county to county, etc.
    tl;dr - this was a bad shoot. but im not entirely certain it is or should be an illegal shoot. self defense laws are fucked in this country.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Great Monday morning QB, ain'tcha, Jay Dubya?

    I bet you're a whiz at yesterday's crossword too.

  • dchang0||

    Re: "the sort of non-injury sustained in a friendly pickup game of basketball."

    If in a game of pickup basketball someone you were not playing basketball with came out of the bleachers (equivalent of coming out of the store) and shoved you down onto the ground, would you respond in the same way as if someone you were playing with accidentally collided with you and knocked you down?

    It was not "friendly" as you put it, and that makes a huge difference.

  • Whorton||

    Jay Dubya,

    So, by your reasoning, the man should have just let McGlockton beat on him based on the fact that children were near? Get outta town!

    He fired one shot after being violently slammed to the ground FROM BEHIND without provocation. The direction he fired was not in the general direction of the children. Of course he made the decision to put his "own physical well being above that of the children surrounding him" as there were NO CHILDREN SURROUNDING him. They were in the car.

    He did not start a "Shoving match" with anyone. He defended himself after being feloniously assaulted.

    As for putting the kids in danger, I would submit that a man who would physically launch an assault on an innocent man, in front of a girlfriend that feels entitled to disregard the laws of a civil society and park where ever she damn well feels like it, should have had his children taken away.

    The shooters continuum was not all intercoursed up. He did not pick the circumstances, and the legislature elected not to put additional constraints on self defense in the event children are present. I am guessing you would disallow a woman a pistol to defend herself from a rapist at 3Am because there is a baby sleeping in the same room.

    For shame!

  • retiredfire||

    "...a girlfriend that feels entitled to disregard the laws of a civil society and park where ever she damn well feels like it..."
    Does anyone wonder why she parked in the handicapped space. The video shows there were spots right in front of the door, while the one she chose was quite a distance away.
    Expecting a confrontation?

  • JFree||

    I am guessing you would disallow a woman a pistol to defend herself from a rapist at 3Am because there is a baby sleeping in the same room.

    Actually Stand Your Ground did not apply to a woman who feared her abusive spouse - who was in fact coming after her and ADMITTED that he was coming after her to harm her - when she fired INTO A WALL. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison for aggravated assault.

    Because a)she was black and SYG in practice simply doesn't apply to blacks to justify anything and b)because she fired into the wall as a warning rather than into a human body so SYG doesn't apparently apply in that case either.

    IOW - SYG only justifies INTENT to harm. It is the worst form of legal arbitrariness.

  • Vitae Drinker||

    No, it's because she left the scene of the confrontation to retrieve a firearm then returned to confront said ex with a gun. Had she killed him, it would have been premeditated murder.

  • mr simple||

    Are you sure this chain of events wasn't set off when Drejka accosted the McClockton's wife? That can also be assault in many jurisdictions. Is the man not allowed to defend his family? Also, fatalist reasoning like this is just dumb.

  • ||

    So talking to the wife of a guy is assault? And the guy was defending his family? Fuck you retard. He jumped to agression. Get killed for being an asshole.

  • JFree||

    He wasn't talking to her. He was at minimum yelling at her so loudly that a bystander went into the store saying There's a guy messing with a woman in a car outside. That's why he went outside and ran towards his car. Because both the bystander and he perceived a threat.

    Apparently 'stand your ground' only applies to the guy who is most lethally armed - and who knows it - and who picks a fight knowing that.

  • retiredfire||

    "Messing with" doesn't necessarily imply yelling.
    His body language, from the video, doesn't seem particularly aggressive.
    Why does "girlfriend" get out of the car, just as McGlockton approaches?
    If she felt threatened, she could have closed the window, locked the door, and stayed seated - but she doesn't. She gets out and Drejka is distracted just as McGlockton blind-sides him - adding to the confusion that would ensue from such a vicious attack.
    Not justified to pull the trigger, but everything Drejka does, before McGlockton turns away, including pulling out the gun, was within his rights.

  • JFree||

    "Messing with" doesn't necessarily imply yelling.

    Yelling is implied by the fact that a bystander (possibly the one in front in the video) heard it who then went in the store. Messing with is obviously how the bystander interpreted what was happening - and that merely means that Drejka not the woman was interpreted as the threat. And all of that happens well before the video since that is why McG went back outside in the first place leaving his older kid inside the store.

    Why does "girlfriend" get out of the car, just as McGlockton approaches?

    Idk - but she had two infants in the back seat. Getting in between the threat and one's kids is step 1 in defending one's kids and you can't defend them sitting in the front seat. Likewise, it could easily be that they started crying if there was loud aggressive noise - and a kid crying creates an instinctive subconscious reaction in a parent

  • Real Books||

    Drejka may not have been the one yelling.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    He was the one who initiated the confrontation. She may have been yelling back, but the confrontation wasn't her choice.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Not justified to pull the trigger, but everything Drejka does, before McGlockton turns away, including pulling out the gun, was within his rights.

    No it wasn't. If you start yelling at someone's wife and kids (and who knows what he was yelling, but I suspect it wasn't very civilized), then you can fully expect to be physically confronted by the husband. Not only is this a reasonable expectation, but it's something we as Americans actually glamorize (rightly or wrongly). There are dozens of examples of protagonists in movies and television, for example, who have done exactly what McGlockton has done. That reflects what societal norms are when you accost somebody's wife and kids.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Oh dear god—you think television shows reflect "societal norms" in real life? No wonder then that you have the idea that it's normal for adults to physically assault people who say something that offends them.

  • JFree||

    No wonder then that you have the idea that it's normal for adults to physically assault people who say something that offends them.

    You apparently think its normal for an armed man to verbally accost a woman sitting in a car - over absolutely nothing that concerns him - for long enough for at least three cars to pull into their parking space whose customers then go into the store (those spaces are all empty when he starts in on his tirade) - and loud enough for at least one of those cars passengers to overhear the abuse from a distance and deem it as a threat to the woman.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Even in that situation, no, it is not normal for an adult to open the conversation with physical violence.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "Talking to..." I love how you guys have to paint things in an unrealistic light just to make your point. You might just be wrong if you find yourself having to exaggerate...

  • Pat_||

    Are you sure this chain of events wasn't set off when Drejka accosted the McClockton's wife?

    You can "accost anyone you want, it is not a crime or a threat.

    WTF is the legal definition of "accost." Accosting is NEVER grounds for justifiable homicide -- ASSAULT and BATTERY is the most common grounds.

  • dchang0||

    You and your family have the benefit of: 1) not having been just pushed down by the person who was shot, 2) different viewing angle, 3) ability to talk amongst yourselves to influence your decisions (includes nonverbal cues).

  • JFree||

    That benefit of being able to second guess the decision-making - after the fact - by objective third-parties - is why the common law decided long ago to have COURTS decide on whether an action is reasonable or not and on whether the ensuing act of homicide is justifiable or not.

    Except in Florida - where all it takes now is some magic words uttered by the one with the smoking gun - and it won't even get to court for the determination absent some political pressure.

  • Mcgoo95||

    Florida can suck a dick. Seems being brain dead is the prerequisite for being a sherrif there...

  • See.More||

    He was not continuing the attack. No reasonable person watching the video after the fact would've thought that.

    FIFY.


    Now, what a reasonable person, surprised by being suddenly, unexpectedly shoved to the ground, shocked with adrenaline pumping, would think as he looks up his assailant? I can't say and I don't believe anyone else can either unless they lead with, "when I was in that situation..."

  • Whorton||

    After the man was slammed to the ground FROM BEHIND without warning or provocation. . .McGlockton took a step back and as far as I can see, was preparing to pull a knife or gun.

    Sorry Augustine, from the perspective of THIS CCW carrier family, he was justified in shooting the tough guy who was obviously looking for a fight.

    I'm willing to wager that McGlockton had a felony record.

  • Wearenotperfect||

    Agreed!

  • retiredfire||

    "Family of CCW carriers and we all watched it the first time and all five of us agreed that it was obvious the guy pushed him down and backed off."
    Blind people, like your "[f]amily of CCW carriers" should not be carrying guns.
    Look at that video, again. The first thing done by McGlockton, after pushing Drejka to the ground, is a step FORWARD.
    That justified the pulling of the gun and, it was after that, that McGlockton turned away.
    The actual shooting, which followed the "backing off" was not justified but don't muddy that water by claiming none of Drejka's actions, prior to pulling the trigger were unreasonable.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    They absolutely were unreasonable. If McGlockton wanted to beat him up, he'd have done more than "step forward". He'd have already been on top of him.

    Most "fighting etiquette" is that you don't pounce on a guy on the ground btw. It's unusual for someone to do so in that circumstance, so it's unreasonable to expect that they would kill you. As I've said before, the numbers are quite clear on this issue. We can't cite the less-than-1% of people engaged in physical altercations who are killed as justification for deadly force. It's just not reasonable.

    I've been pushed to the ground before, and it never occurred to me that my life was in danger. I could see an armed pussy freaking out though.

  • Pat_||

    If McGlockton wanted to beat him up, he'd have done more than "step forward". He'd have already been on top of him.

    McGlockton ALREADY beat him. And you have never been in a fight or trained in CCW or close quarters. Stepping back is EXACTLY what you do before pulling a knife or gun.

    McGlockton initiated the violence with a criminal assault and battery. With the surface being concrete it absolutely does rises to potential grievous injury.

    McGlockton was a violent nasty pussy who committed a major assult.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Sorry, no, this was manslaughter at least.

    The shooter in no way had a "reasonable" fear of death or serious bodily injury.

    I may be a 62 y/o WM and 45+ year Life Member of the NRA but I can see that pretty easily.

  • Azathoth!!||

    I may be a 62 y/o WM and 45+ year Life Member of the NRA but I can see that pretty easily

    But what you can't see is that you're a damned near perfect Captain Hindsight.

    You know everything the guy who'd just gotten attacked didn't know--and that makes you superior.

    Ass.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    A$$ yourself.

  • Pat_||

    you created the account and called yourself a gun owner for the single purpose?

    Being slammed to the concrete is exactly the type of assault that Is grounds for reasonable fear of grievous injury

  • Azathoth!!||

    I may be a 62 y/o WM and 45+ year Life Member of the NRA but I can see that pretty easily

    But what you can't see is that you're a damned near perfect Captain Hindsight.

    You know everything the guy who'd just gotten attacked didn't know--and that makes you superior.

    Ass.

  • JFree||

    They need only have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.

    Oh bullshit. They need to be white so that they can pick fights over petty bullshit with blacks who won't likely fight back (the woman and kid in that car). So that if something does happen and they get a response, they can kill in response with no fear of arrest or being second-guessed in a court.

    Too bad McGlockton wasn't armed. Because he would have been justified shooting the guy who had his wife/kid cornered in a car with no escape.

  • Pat_||

    McGlockton was a THUG. And you bring race into it, per capaita to per capita blacks shoot, attack, assault and kill whites at a 70% higher rate than visa versa.

  • Arkyhog||

    "Stand your ground laws allow the victim to kill you in self-defense."

    It's up to the jury to decide who is the original aggressor, and that will be used to decide whether Stand Your Ground is a legitimate defense. It may depend on what Drejka was telling the woman, and whether he was threatening bodily harm when McGlockton came on the scene. It also may depend on whether a jury believes McGlockton was withdrawing when shot whether SYG can be used as a defense.

  • HillTown Trader||

    If someone has shoved me to the ground and is looming over me; I am going to assume that he is probably coming in for round two, probably with a boot to the ribs.

    Whatever the law says, I'm scared and I'm pushing back.

  • Left Libertarian||

    Clearly murder but at the very least manslaughter. Trumptards and ruskie bots in coming in 3..
    2...1.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Not murder.

    Don't commit violence against people and expect them not to defend themselves.

  • mr simple||

    Why does this not apply to Drejka, too?

  • dchang0||

    It does, except Drejka didn't escalate to violence first but second, meaning he was on defense, not offense.

  • mr simple||

    Not when he was yelling at the wife.

  • perlchpr||

    You're really going with "words are violence" here?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Words are not violence, dude.

  • ||

    So yelling at his wife is a justification for trying to pin the guy down and then just stop only when you see the gun? Get shot pussy boy. I routenely carry several knifes. I know all to well how people can be so agresive and turn back 180 degrees as soon as they see me pull a blade. Get fucked. You escalated it. Just as i can be shot for escalating a fist fight to a knife fight with the wrong guy. You can be shot for pushing someone yelling or speaking with our wife.

  • ||

    So yelling at his wife is a justification for trying to pin the guy down and then just stop only when you see the gun? Get shot pussy boy. I routenely carry several knifes. I know all to well how people can be so agresive and turn back 180 degrees as soon as they see me pull a blade. Get fucked. You escalated it. Just as i can be shot for escalating a fist fight to a knife fight with the wrong guy. You can be shot for pushing someone yelling or speaking with our wife.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    I vote for Trump (well at least against Hillary).

    But as my comment above confirms I think the shooter is guilty of manslaughter at least.

    Care to re-write your blanket condemnation of Trumptards?

  • Pat_||

    This would not have been prosecuted in any US State. Are you saying all the Dem AGs are "trumptards"?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Step 1: hang Drejka from a lamppost.
    Step 2: invite the townsfolk to come and spit on his carcass.
    Step 3: keep calm and carry on.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Step 1: hang McGlockton from a lamppost.
    Step 2: invite the townsfolk to come and spit on his carcass.
    Step 3: keep calm and carry on.

    You misspelled McGlockton. I could tell because you said 'carcass'. McGlockton's victim isn't dead. He had a gun that McGlockton wasn't expecting.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    A well documented salutary effect of hanging someone by the neck is that they tend to become a carcass some time soon afterward. Feel free to bone up. And insofar as hanging by the neck until dead serves as an evocative metaphor for a lengthy prison sentence after being tried and convicted of manslaughter for being stupid, insecure and emotionally unstable enough to think that being knocked down and "loomed over" is grounds for summarily executing someone you are securely holding at gunpoint, I said exactly and precisely what I meant to say.

    I note that your fears about "Monday morning quarterbacking" apparently do not extend to you and your fellow tribals' Monday morning quarterbacking about whether or not McGlockton's actions warranted a summary death sentence for the unspeakably monstrous offense of shoving someone who'd been yelling at their girl and then standing still.

    If only there were some means of legally determining whether someone has committed a crime or not after it has been committed. But then, I suppose that would be Monday morning quarterbacking too.

  • ||

    They may not have warrented it but he escalated the situation,society is not better off with him in jail. Not a perfect reaction but then again dont push people to the ground if you dont want to get shot.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Society would, actually, be better off with an irresponsible, emotionally incontinent CCW holder in jail, as an example to the rest of what happens when you fail to respect the rights of others in the course of exercising your own. Just as it would be better off if the sentence for shoving someone in the course of an argument wasn't immediate execution, sans trial or appeal.

    And if you, like Azathoth & Co., think that Drejka's side of the story deserves a fair hearing, then I couldn't agree more. So let's give him one. With luck, it'll be one for McGlockton, too.

  • Azathoth!!||

    I note that your fears about "Monday morning quarterbacking" apparently do not extend to you and your fellow tribals' Monday morning quarterbacking about whether or not McGlockton's actions warranted a summary death sentence for the unspeakably monstrous offense of shoving someone

    "Whether"?

    I'm not dealing in 'whethers'.

    I'm dealing in facts.

    Fact--McGlockton attacked Drejka. This fact is not in dispute.

    Fact--Drejka shot McGlockton after McGlockton attacked Drejka. Again, this fact is not in dispute.

    Fact--Self defense (not SYG) is legal in Florida.

    See? No supposition, no 'whether' no 'did it warrants'. Facts.

    YOU are making assumptions that Drejka knew that a shove was all McGlockton was going to do. That McGlockton WAS only going for that one shove.

    But there's no way to know that. That's why you're standing there with your ass hanging out.

    I don't care what 'might have been'. only what verifiably happened. And that is that one many attacked another and was shot for it.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Fact 4: using lethal force in self-defense in Florida is only legal if the threat surpasses a certain threshold of potential harm. Id est: you cannot shoot someone for slapping you.

    Fact 5: you cannot shoot someone you are holding at gunpoint if they are standing still and making no aggressive motions.

    So your basal error is thinking that "one man attacking another" is all you need to know; because not all attacks justify lethal force. The actual questions are whether the attack was dangerous enough to warrant lethal escalation, and whether said escalation was needed to prevent further attacks.

    And that's where you and your fellow amateur ESPN analysts make your assumption: namely, that Drejka somehow "knew" McGlockton intended to keep attacking until serious injury was inflicted, and somehow "knew" was going to resume his assault even after he successfully drew his pistol and pointed it at him and McGlockton responded by ceasing his assault and standing still.

    If Drejka had only drawn, that would've been fine. And if McGlockton had then been stupid enough to keep attacking, even shooting him would probably have been justified. But he didn't keep attacking... and yet Drejka shot him anyway. Despite having experienced no worse injury up to that point than a shove.

  • ||

    What if Drejka were a cop? LEOs seem to have a much lower legal threshold for fear than mere mortals. If it was wrong for Drejka to shoot then it should be equally wrong for all the LEOs who go ballistic on much flimsier causes for alleged fear - and then get a free pass for murder.

  • kV||

    Ah, but you've failed to take into account the special training LEOs receive that makes it possible for them to see into a man's heart of hearts and just know that the perp has bad intentions. In fact, this training is so deeply engrained into LEOs that some of them can even react instinctively based on physiological cues alone: more shit streaming down leg = higher risk = empty clip into perp/dog/threat = make it home safely.

  • sarcasmic||

    More often than not cops kill people not because the person was a threat, but because the person failed to obey.

  • Longtobefree||

    Damn right.
    The training is for the senior cop to yell "get on the ground!" while the junior cop yells "don't move!".
    Got them either way. Failure to comply, resisting arrest, or both.

  • Shakes||

    If he was a cop, it would have been his business where people park.

    If he hadn't been armed, would he have been bothering the lady?

  • dchang0||

    If it were a cop in plain clothes, I'd treat the cop no differently than Drejka.

    If it were a cop in uniform, I'd give the cop MORE justification to shoot, because a person walking up and shoving a uniformed cop to the ground should be expected to know that the cop is armed with a gun and that overcoming that higher deterrent probably means the shover intends to do the cop serious bodily injury.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Gualtieri appears to be a white Republican.

    The victim appears to be black.

    The shooter appears to be white.

    This equation seems relatively straightforward. Each participant fulfilled his role in a conservative context.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Since you want to go with ignorant stereotypes based on race, how come the black guy didn't pull his illegally owned gun!?

    Democrat response is that all guns should be outlawed.

    Libertarian response is we should ensure that black people feel as comfortable as white people to conceal and carry.

  • JFree||

    Libertarian response is we should ensure that black people feel as comfortable as white people to conceal and carry.

    % of homicides ruled as justified in stand-your-ground states

    White shooter-white victim - 3.51%
    White shooter-black victim - 16.85%
    Black shooter-white victim - 1.40%
    Black shooter-black victim - 3.16%

    There may be some subtle reasons for the differences that aren't included in the study - but one thing is obvious:
    SYG and/or conceal carry doesn't actually do much for blacks. Yes they may survive which is obviously important. But they ain't gonna ever be seen as doing something in self-defense where that has a consequence in keeping them out of prison. The status quo itself is a damn good indicator that a major purpose of these laws is to a)make sure whites don't go to prison for killing blacks and possibly even b)don't even have to explain their actions in court. Which is almost a neo-Jim Crow type thang.

    There is very good reason why blacks are not as comfortable as whites if this sort of stuff - with no reform - is deemed 'libertarian'.

  • Vernon Depner||

    The differences are very easy to explain—Blacks commit violent crimes at many times the rate that whites do; and whites committing violent crimes against Blacks is rare. When people defend themselves against criminals, the criminals defended against will be greatly disproportionately Black, because violent criminals are greatly disproportionately Black.

  • JFree||

    Congrats on failing to understand the ACTUAL statistic in question.

  • Pat_||

    % of homicides ruled as justified in stand-your-ground states

    White shooter-white victim - 3.51%
    White shooter-black victim - 16.85%
    Black shooter-white victim - 1.40%
    Black shooter-black victim - 3.16%

    You fail stats 101. you realize -- per homicide by race cohort committed that this means blacks benefit 57% MORE from this law? And per aggravated assault it also means blacks benefit more often from self defense claims than whites?

  • No Longer Amused||

    From the crappy video quality I really could tell skin color.

    Why would you assume political parties from skin color?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    As $parkY points out below, Drejka has confronted multiple people about not being handicapped and illegally parking in a handicapped spot.

    He wants people to not park in handicapped spots and does not seem to care who does it.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    According to the story, he also "confronted" a random driver on the road in a road rage thing in which he also pulled his gun.

    The common thread doesn't appear to be parking spots - it appears to be that Drejka is an asshole with a short fuse who's always armed and looking for a fight.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    As I said, the immunity applies to this shooting. He was clearly pushed in the video. He drew a pistol and the aggressor didnt walk away. See how fast he walked away when he was shot? He should have dont that 2 seconds earlier.

    If Drejka was brandishing a firearms without legal cause, then arrest him for that. I am sure that if Drejka was a violent problem, the police would have nabbed him up like they do all sorts of people.

    What you call 'looking for a fight' seems like wanting everyone to follow the rules and publicly shaming them. Thats not violence. He has not threatened violence on anyone that I heard.

  • ||

    He can't have two seconds of being surprised? He can't be hesitant to run away and leave his girlfriend to face the armed maniac alone?

    A shove is definitely an assault, and wasn't at all justified, but honestly it's the least serious kind of assault you can make on someone. Anyone who shoves you chose not to punch you, tackle you, kick you, etc, because they're less likely to hurt someone that way. The right response to getting shoved would have been to walk away and call the cops.

    Also, if you start a confrontation and then pull your gun, you threatened violence.

  • dchang0||

    Re: "He can't have two seconds of being surprised?"

    Did McGlockton give Drejka any notice before shoving him? Based on the video, Drejka didn't even turn his head to look at McGlockton before McGlockton shoved him, so it is likely McGlockton didn't even give him verbal warning before escalating to violence.

    Re: "Also, if you start a confrontation and then pull your gun, you threatened violence."

    VERBAL confrontation. Words are not violence, unlike what the Social Justice Warriors believe. The shove escalated from nonviolence to non-lethal violence. Drawing the gun escalated from non-lethal violence to lethal violence.

  • JFree||

    Did McGlockton give Drejka any notice before shoving him? Based on the video, Drejka didn't even turn his head to look at McGlockton before McGlockton shoved him, so it is likely McGlockton didn't even give him verbal warning before escalating to violence.

    He did give notice. He shouted Get away from my girl as she was getting out of the car (or maybe just before - maybe that's why she felt comfortable opening the car door and getting out). You're right that Drjka didn't respond to that - nor did he give the woman space to get out of the car (which isn't necessary but would certainly be 'normal' if it were just a conversation rather than an intent to intimidate) - and in fact he raised his right hand to point down at her. Which I assume is when McG actually speeds up a bit on the video just before he shoves D.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    A shove is actually battery.

    Assault is verbal threats of violence. "I'm going to kill you", for example.

    Self defense laws do not allow you to start violence and then pull a gun and claim self-defense.

  • ThomasD||

    "Self defense laws do not allow you to start violence and then pull a gun and claim self-defense."

    That's not entirely true. It is possible to enter into mutual combat (which is still criminal for both parties) and, at some point during the encounter if one of the combatants does legitimately believe the violence has escalated to lethal levels (e.g. the other guy pulls a knife) he could then resort to lethal force to end the conflict.

    It's gonna be a tough sell to any court/jury, but the possibility exists.

  • Mcgoo95||

    Also too bad there wasn't audio. I'd like to hear what Itchy McTriggerfinger was saying to the woman in the car.

  • Horny Lizard||

    So most likely an asshole who spent his whole life admonishing the inner city kids to settle fights with their fists shoots a guy in the chest the damn first time he sniffs a fight.

  • Mcgoo95||

    Real tough guy. What a fuckin pussy.....yells at a woman for two minutes and then can't back up his words. Of course I have no idea what he was saying to her but whatever it was, it pissed off her husband/bf whatever. Can't fight like a man, shoot like a coward. Hope he gets sued to hell and back since it's unlikly the law will provide any justice.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Dejka didnt start the violence, McDeadguy did.

  • ||

    Exactly.

  • swampwiz||

    Drejka started the commotion by accosting the occupants of the car, irrespective of whatever parking violation they were guilty of. The law should be that when you carry, you try to avoid a commotion as much as reasonably possible. This incident is on the same moral level as Zimmerman-Martin.

  • ||

    I have met retards like you before. You all so eager to punch my face into a mush till the very second i pull one of my knifes. Sure his response was not perfect but the guy only retreated when the saw the gun and the agression was initiated by the motherfucker pushing him.

  • ||

    he saw

  • Vernon Depner||

    You're right about the law, Jacob, but wrong about this case. No, it is not a "stand your ground" case—the sheriff is wrong. It IS a clear case of self defense. Drejka had ALREADY been assaulted, so there is no question about the reasonableness of his fear. The sheriff was correct under Florida law to not arrest Drejka and to pass the case up the state attorney for review.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Without stand your ground that wouldn't have been considered vastly escalating the situation?

  • Vernon Depner||

    No. Using force AFTER you've been assaulted is self defense. Even without a "stand your ground" law, there is a "duty to retreat" only if you merely FEAR attack. Once you HAVE BEEN attacked, your use of force is self defense. It's like that in every state as far as I know, whether they have a "stand your ground"-type law or not. What is unusual about Florida is that in most states (I believe this is still the case—maybe it's changed recently) someone who shoots in self defense is still arrested and charged, but can then use self defense as an affirmative defense in court. In Florida, the burden is on the state to prove that the use of force was NOT self defense, once a self defense claim is made, and the suspect is not arrested or charged until that determination is made by the state attorney. That is where the Drejka case is now—he's not out of the woods; the state attorney could reject his self defense claim. But I don't see why that would happen, since this is a clear case of self defense.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Vernon, they dont want to understand that "Stand your ground" was a self-defense legislative fix to people defending themselves without having been physically attacked.

  • ||

    No, being assaulted doesn't justify the use of deadly force. The use of deadly force is only justified to prevent imminent death to yourself or others, or prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. Pushing someone is simple battery, and not a felony.

    For that matter, from this reading (and from common sense) self defense after you've been assaulted is only legal if you reasonably believe that the assault will continue. If someone pushes you and walks away, you don't get to go chase them down to push them back and claim self defense.

    Here's the florida statute on use of deadly force:

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

  • ||

    Link: https://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/ florida-assault-and-battery-laws.html

  • dchang0||

    Quoting the law doesn't help (nor hurt) your case. Everything here hinges on the word "reasonably" in the law. Some here believe that was a reasonable use of deadly force, others do not.

  • Curt||

    No, it also hinges on the words "prevent imminent death or great bodily harm". It's not about whether he could reasonably believe his use of deadly force might prevent being kicked or spit upon or looking like a bitch in front of his girl.

    Yes, "reasonably" is very important. But so is the rest.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    If you are BEING assaulted you can defend yourself.

    If you have BEEN assaulted you have to call the police.

    Sometimes there may be a gray area in making that decision.

    Looks pretty clear to me here though - he was NOT BEING assaulted.

    Ergo he is guilty of murder in some degree.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Do you have vision problems? He WAS being assaulted. Does the next blow have to actually be in contact with your body in order to justify self-defense with you?

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Yes, you actually have to be BEING assaulted.

    Someone standing there is NOT assaulting you.

  • Vernon Depner||

    So, if someone walks up to me and stabs me, then pulls the knife out, I am not entitled to use force to defend myself because at that point he is just standing there holding a knife and is not assaulting me?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Do I need to time my shots or blows to those moments when the knife is actually in my flesh for it to count as self-defense? Or is there a time limit? How many seconds before self-defense expires and I have to call 911 and let the police handle it?

  • AZ Gunowner||

    how many years before you'll actually develop the ability to reason?

  • AZ Gunowner||

    the more severe the initial assault then the more gray the issue becomes.

    if he stabs you and runs away, you can't pursue him and kill him.

    if he stabs you and stays there threatening you with a knife then yes.

    if he pushes you down and "stands there", probably not.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    so there is no question about the reasonableness of his fear.

    This only holds true for pussies. There was no reasonable expectation that his life was in jeopardy. People get into fights every day.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Dont push pussies down, they might have a gun..

    Dont push old ladies down, they might have a gun.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Dont push pussies down, they might have a gun..

    Dont push old ladies down, they might have a gun.

  • sarcasmic||

    So when someone who is literally twice your size starts beating on you you're supposed to just take it, because people get into fights every day?

    You do know that a person can be killed with one punch? Doesn't happen every day but it does happen. Or someone could be knocked or shoved to the ground, hit their head on something, and die?

    You might be Jean Claud van Badass, but that doesn't mean you can tell anyone who is not that they can't be armed.

    Almost sounds like you're a bully who wants to push people around with impunity, and because of that want them to be unarmed.

  • ThomasD||

    And the standard in Florida is fear of death or great bodily harm, which includes things like broken bones or sexual assault.

    Being violently shoved to the pavement can easily cause a broken bone, so meets that standard.

  • Longtobefree||

    Being on the pavement also makes retreat a very difficult maneuver.

  • mr simple||

    Pushing someone down is not beating on someone. You're being hysterical. How about, don't accost someone's wife and kids if you don't want to be pushed away? The fall clearly didn't kill him and he had no reasonable assumption that his life was in further danger.

  • dchang0||

    Re: "pushing someone down is not beating on someone. You're being hysterical. How about, don't accost someone's wife and kids if you don't want to be pushed away?"

    Well, by your logic, we could say to McGlockton: "How about, don't push someone down if you don't want to be shot?"

    McGlockton escalated from verbal non-violence to non-lethal violence. Drejka escalated from non-lethal violence to lethal violence. You focus on the threshold that was crossed going from non-lethal violence to lethal violence, but in a supposed-to-be-civilized society, the threshold that goes from verbal non-violence to non-lethal violence is just as important a threshold not to cross.

  • markm23||

    If Drejka had hit his head wrong when he fell, he'd be dead. The chances of that happening in any particular case are slim, but there are many, many manslaughter cases arising from one push and a bad fall. Any hard shove is potentially lethal violence.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    The chances of that happening in any particular case are slim, but there are many, many manslaughter cases

    This is contradictory. You acknowledge they're slim, so "many, many" is a deceiving statement because you're not accounting for the vastly overwhelming majority of cases where somebody DOESN'T die from a bad fall during a physical altercation.

    Basically, you were right the first time. You can't live your life by "if lightning strikes" standards. That's called irrationality.

  • ||

    Honestly if he'd "started beating on him" he'd probably be alive right now, because Drejka wouldn't have had time to get out his gun, aim and shoot. He pushed him once, hard, and then started backing away for two second between the gun getting pulled and him getting shot.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    starts beating on you

    No hypotheticals please.

    Doesn't happen every day but it does happen.

    It very, very rarely happens. And to act according to rare events is to act unreasonably.

  • JFree||

    Actually he's wrong about the law. 'Stand your ground' has successfully been used in a slew of crappy cases - including chasing the victim in a car before shooting them - shooting someone for doing cartwheels - a jealous husband shooting his wife's lover in a jealous rage - a guy who shot a guy who he claimed was stealing his JetSki

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Can anybody say 'reciprocity'? I'm guessing not.

  • No Longer Amused||

    Blindsided, knocked to the ground, and he only backs off partially when he see's a gun? What's going to happen when he tries to get up? A kick to the face and a continued beatdown?

    Shooting his attacker might well have been the only thing that saved him.

  • Horny Lizard||

    It's broad daylight. He initiates an aggressive confrontation with a women over parking spaces. He's probably crazy carrying a concealed and playing Sheriff in the parking lot. He's pushed from behind. He falls. He commits manslaughter.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He killed a violent asshole.

    Self-defense.

  • Mcgoo95||

    Or...he's a violent asshole looking for an excuse to shoot someone. Regardless, he's a pussy that can't fight like a man.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Maybe. He forced a violent asshole to push him down.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Seriously, have any of you people ever been in a fight? What you describe hardly ever happens, and there's no reason to believe it would have happened here.

    This is why the left always has us by the balls on the gun issue. Because people who are afraid of physical confrontation resort to making bad decisions when you give them a gun. Just because you're too much of a chicken shit to defend yourself doesn't mean you should buy a gun. It means you should avoid confrontations with people that might result in physical altercations. It's a nice self-policing mechanism!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We get it. You be a tough guy (from behind you computer).

    Lefties like you need safe spaces in real life but you would use your pink belt to ward off real attackers.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    We get it. You be a tough guy (from behind you computer).

    I really can't get over the fact that you admit IN PUBLIC that you're afraid for your life if someone pushes you. You must have been a real treat to deal with in grade school.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    You don't know what a violent asshole will do next. I guess only a pussy doesn't want reconstructive facial bone surgery.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    You don't know what a violent asshole will do next.

    That's where you're wrong. There is a reasonable expectation that we DO know what a "violent asshole" will do next. A very small percentage of physical altercations are actually life threatening. The numbers bear this out.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    So as long as he left the old man breathing it's cool. Fuck off.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Or in the case of an old man shoved to the pavement, a hip replacement or broken pelvis or back surgery.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Hip replacement and a broken pelvis are not justification for killing either.

    The penalty for shoving is not and should not be death.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Hope that works out for you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Machine Chips, JSJ is too scared to attack someone himself. He is fine with violent assholes starting fights.

  • sarcasmic||

    Spoken like someone who goes around shoving people, and doesn't want to get shot for it.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Wait. So which am I? Am I the bully you're suggesting I am? Or am I the scaredy-cat loveconstitution is suggesting I am?

    I'm used to loveconstitution being a neanderthal, but I'm very surprised by your stance on this and your use of strawmen and ad hominems.

  • Bearded Spock||

    "Hip replacement and a broken pelvis are not justification for killing either"

    Okay, now I am 100% certain that you are either trolling or you no clue what you are talking about, or both.

    In most states, deadly force is justified if a person reasonably believes he is in imminent danger of death or severe bodily injury. And a hip replacement or a broken pelvis would most certainly qualify as a severe bodily injury.

    Rape or attempted rape is usually considered to be justification for deadly force, even though the victim may only suffer a few bruises.

    Based on your posts in this thread I'm persuaded that you're one of those loudmouthed jerks who likes to push people around, and you're a bit worried you might end up like Mr McGlockton someday.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    In most states, deadly force is justified if a person reasonably believes he is in imminent danger of death or severe bodily injury. And a hip replacement or a broken pelvis would most certainly qualify as a severe bodily injury.

    So to sum up your stance, if you are in fear of being pushed to the ground, then killing someone is an appropriate response. And I'm the troll.

  • ThomasD||

    "Hip replacement and a broken pelvis are not justification for killing either."

    In Florida a reasonable fear of either is justification for use of lethal force.

    Self defense law never justifies killing, only enough force sufficient to stop the threat.

    If that force also results in death that is unfortunate, but not criminal.

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    If he's so old that's a likely consequence of being shoved to the ground, he's too old to be anything but worthless vermin and should have the decency to suck-start his pistol.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Bye bye violent criminal.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I am not Drejka. I wouldnt need a gun to whip that guys ass.

    If I needed a gun, I would have put a bullet between McGlockton's eyes. I am that good of a shot.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    You romanticize killing to a pathological degree.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    You romanticize violence to an ignorant degree.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    ...says the guy defending the act of killing someone. Your pretzel logic is astounding.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Dont violently attack people and there be zero violence.

  • sarcasmic||

    Don't go around shoving people who are half your size to the ground if you don't want to get shot.

    That was easy.

  • Mcgoo95||

    Don't go being an asshole if you don't want to get shoved....

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We have your position now.

    You're okay with starting fights if someone says something that you dont like but is not a threat.

    Come to Georgia and Florida and push people around tough guy.

    We would love to see a video of you too.

  • Mcgoo95||

    We all know your position too asshole

  • Azathoth!!||

    Seriously, have any of you people ever been in a fight?

    Clearly, you haven't. You are demonstrating that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

    And you keep doing it, all throughout the thread.

    Sad.

  • Mcgoo95||

    Thanks Trump

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Thanks weak thug.

  • Mcgoo95||

    welcome

  • Mark22||

    You obviously want to live in a world ruled by physically violent thugs.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Drejka missed an opportunity to de-escalate once the gun was drawn and McGlockton reacted to it.

    However, McGlockton did assault him, and it was reasonable to fear that McGlockton was intent on continuing.

    It would be helpful to know what Drejka was saying to the woman and whether McGlockton had reason to fear for her safety. If Drejka initiated hostilities, then he can't claim self defense.

    If Drejka wasn't threatening her, then this is a tragedy, but not a crime. In my opinion.

  • Vernon Depner||

    If she was afraid of Drejka, why did she get out of the car?

  • Heraclitus||

    Being trapped in a car creates reasonable fear. Better to get out and feel like you have more options.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Carnac the Magnificant, everyone!

  • Augustine||

    Thy guy had a history of starting conflicts and anyone, especially someone with a gun, who goes around acting like a parking spot vigilante was probably dying to shoot someone.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yeah. being a citizen that shames people into not hogging a handicap spot so a real handicap person can get the spot is a vigilante.

    I am glad Lefties dont get to make the rules anymore.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Yes, it quite literally fits the definition of the word "vigilante".

    Vigilante: a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority.

    That's the definition of the word when you google it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Any citizen can point out others breaking the law.

    It is however illegal to initiate violence against another without legal justification.

  • dchang0||

    Here's another definition:

    Merriam Webster:
    : an arrest made not by a law officer but by a citizen who derives authority from the fact of being a citizen

    Wikipedia:
    A citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official.[1] In common law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval England and the English common law, in which sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers.

    Drejka COULD have gone further than merely arguing with the woman. He could have actually arrested her.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Words can have more than one definition. Attempting to make an arrest is not essential to the use of the word.

  • Mark22||

    Nagging lawbreakers isn't "undertaking law enforcement".

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Markeis McGlockton and Michael Drejka both overreacted during their brief, fatal encounter

    The irony is that Drejka shot him with his McBerettaton

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nice one Leo.

    You really know how to hit your target audience.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Yep, he scored a bull's eye with that comment.

  • MasterThief||

    I'm gonna start from a stupid position and say both sides are at fault here. The encounter was initiated by the shooter. Violence was initiated by the victim. The shooter inappropriately escalated the violence.
    I support stand your ground, but this doesn't appear to be an example of where that law should apply. It didn't look like the shooter was being further pursued after the initial push. The victim was retreating when he was shot. I'd suggest that the shooter doesn't have the temperament necessary to carry responsibly. He was confrontational to begin with and was excessively quick to resort to lethal force. I want to see murder charges for him. If the sentence is slightly reduced because he didn't initiate the violence, then I'm not too bothered.
    Everyone has the right to self-defense, but within that right is a responsibility to not use excessive force when possible.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Well stated.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The aggressor was NOT retreating. At the very least he was standing there. He retreated after he got shot.

    We dont know what was said by the aggressor nor if he made a slight move toward the guy with the gun.

    Lesson: dont push people down and then not run away when the pull a gun to defend themselves.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    No, after he got shot he ran away. Before he got shot he retreated.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Doesn't look that way to me.

    I have zero interest in either outcome, so objectively the aggressor was not retreating.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    so objectively the aggressor was not retreating.

    Um, you don't know what objectively means, do you?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Oh $parkY, I objectively object to your unreasonable objectification of the objective.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I have zero interest in either outcome

    Bullshit. I knew exactly what your response would be in this thread before I even clicked the comments button. You're a "bitch deserved it" kind of guy.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You think you know me so well troll.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Looks like a witness a few feet away also confirmed it for police.

    If the aggressor was simply standing there and was heard saying that he would take that gun away and kill the guy with it, thats a threat of death after being injured.

    Deadly force authorized!

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    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."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Drejka could have confronted every person in the history of that gas station. He never committed violence against anyone.

    This incident Drejka was pushed to the ground and feared for his life. McDead-Guy never retreated which he could have.

    At least that shows that Drejka didnt care what color the aggressor was. He confronted various people about the handicap spot.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    This incident Drejka was pushed to the ground and feared for his life.

    Because he's a pussy.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Maybe he is a pussy. That actually adds more credibility to his real fear of death or serious bodily injury.

    Drejka never pushed this aggressor. Drejka does not have to be a black belt and use non-lethal force to defend himself. The law allows Drejka to defend himself with a gun. He did.

    Lesson: Dont push people and bring stupid to a gun fight.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Being a scaredy-cat doesn't add credibility. It just means that he is more likely to unreasonably assume that his life is in danger because he was SHOVED.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Find your victim as you find them.

    Dont push people.

  • ||

    The way to protect yourself in this situation does not require a black belt. You protect yourself from someone who shoved you and the stood their watching by apologizing, walking away, and then calling the cops.

    And if you're scared of confrontation (which is reasonable) and don't know how to deescalate (reasonable) you don't go around yelling at and threatening strangers.

  • retiredfire||

    You keep making the claim that McGlockton "stood there (their?)", when the video shows him taking a step towards Drejka after the shove.
    I can't tell when Drejka pulls the gun, but it seems as though, something makes McGlockton turn away from this initial post-shove move.
    I know it feeds your narrative to say McGlockton just "stands there" after the battery, but it simply isn't the truth.
    I do agree, though, that pulling the trigger, after McGlockton begins to turn away, wasn't justified.
    I am really interested to know where the bullet struck McGlockton - directly in the front of the chest or from more of a side entry.

  • dchang0||

    Re: "Because he's a pussy"

    Let's say Drejka was a little, frail old lady and McGlockton shoved her down. Would you say "she's a pussy" then?

    Probably not. So why a different standard for men than little old ladies?

  • dchang0||

    * different LEGAL standard

  • Mcgoo95||

    "Let's say Drejka was a little, frail old lady and McGlockton shoved her down. Would you say "she's a pussy" then?"

    Let's say McGlockton was a little old lady that pushed Drejka. Is it still okay to shoot her? Works both ways.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Let's say Drejka was a little, frail old lady and McGlockton shoved her down. Would you say "she's a pussy" then?

    Why are you answering questions for me? The answer is yes, I would say the same thing about a little old lady. It's not who he is that's important, it's his behavior. And his behavior was to shoot someone in response to shoving with no apparent or reasonable expectation that the man was going to beat him up.

  • Mcgoo95||

    ^This. Dude was itching to shoot someone.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    The guy is a douchebag parking space vigilante accosting people who wrongly park in handicapped spaces just itching to use his gun on someone. Clearly a libertarian hero.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Who knows if he is a Libertarian or not.

    There is one less non-Libertarian aggressive piece of shit out there now.

  • mr simple||

    TIL if a man defends his family from assault, he is an aggressive piece of shit that deserves to be shot and killed.

    Is Drejka your dad or were you just bullied a lot as a child?

  • dchang0||

    Re: "man defends his family from assault"

    Assault is physical violence, not verbal non-violent argument.

  • dchang0||

    Correction: loveconstitution1789 is right: Battery is physical violence; Assault is the threat to do physical violence.

    My position stays the same, though. Fight words with words, even if the words are scary.

  • Ben of Houston||

    Well, that does certainly change things. Can you please provide the citation to where you found what the witness said.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He's not providing a citation to give quotes of what he thinks are important to his position.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    It's one of the links in the article.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Hit the brief, fatal encounter link at the beginning of the article then go down to the closing paragraph of that article.

  • Ben of Houston||

    That was referring to a prior incident,

    However, I will agree, that does change my opinion of Drejka significantly. It does show his character as a dangerous person willing to instigate fights and threaten deadly force.

  • ThomasD||

    " Before he got shot he retreated."

    At the moment he was shot he was still within striking distance of his victim.

    Before that moment he attacked the victim.

    The assault was therefore ongoing at the moment of the shooting.

    Maybe he never got the opportunity to successfully retreat, but you cannot blame the victim for not waiting to find out.

  • MasterThief||

    I'd have to watch again, but the way I remember seeing it was that the victim didn't continue pursuit and was fully retreating once he saw the weapon drawn. Maybe I misinterpreted some body language, but until a repeat view that is how I saw it

  • _Nobody_||

    You missed the obvious. If the police question whether the shooter "objectively feared for his safety," people and more importantly judges might start to do the same the next time a cop shoots a non-violent non-resisting citizen.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There was video and evidently a witness. If there had not been video things would be different.

    Cops should not be shooting unarmed people unless they are defending themselves. Especially since they have training and non-lethal weapons to subdue an unarmed aggressor.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    oh they've already crossed that line a long time ago.

    the cops can kill you if they are "a-scared" and even if a prosecutor charges them the jury will almost surely let them off.

    See the Phil Castile case.

    Or the Tempe, AZ case where the cops terrorized a man crawling on the ground for 5 minutes before shooting him.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sorry Dude but Arizona's gun rights protections are not what they used to be. I assume its because of Californian's fucking it up.

    If you're the aggressor and hurt someone in the South and the victim is armed, we are fine with you shooting them dead. Its why Atlanta thugs dont last long hurting people outside the city limits of Atlanta.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    I don't see where your reply in any way addressed my post.

  • early_hominid||

    A good law is one that fits the character of the people subject to it and either encourages their better nature or moves society in a more just or equitable direction. This case provides some evidence that Florida's stand your ground law is a bad fit for the people of Florida and is therefore part of the problem. It encouraged Drejka to become a parking lot vigilante and killer and it is also apparently too complicated for the Sheriff charged with enforcing it to understand or apply correctly. I think you are too quick to exonerate the law.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There is nothing wrong with publicly shaming people that are shitty people. They didnt seem to be handicapped and parked in a handicap spot.

    Drejka evidently public shamed the illegal parkers and then McGlockton escalated the situation by pushing Dejka to the ground. Drejka drew a pistol to defend himself.

    McGlockton could have de-escalated the situation by walking away. He chose not to.

    There looked to be a witness a few feet away.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    There is nothing wrong with publicly shaming people that are shitty people.

    Of course there is. Her move was a dick move, but he argued with her like a little bitch for several minutes. Call her out and move on. Don't be a busybody. Nobody likes a mouthy bitch.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Luckily, you dont get to make the rules.

    Its a free country, so public shame people all you want.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Thank christ civilized people don't follow your public shaming advice.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Come to Georgia and Florida and push people around and see what happens.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Ah, Georgia and Florida. Explains everything.

    Since you're into public shaming so much, you'll be delighted to know that Drejka's life is now ruined. He will be publicly shamed into bankruptcy and will never be free from his infamy. Ask George Zimmerman.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No he wont. Lefty trolls like you never leave your mom's basement.

    Drejka will be fine.

    Go ahead and push him though. We would love to see you on video.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Actually he will probably get charged eventually.

    After all they did charge Zimmerman who was actually in the process of defending himself when he shot.

    No, this shooter's life is ruined even if the jury lets him off.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Thank christ civilized people don't follow your public shaming advice.

    Are you on drugs?

    There are, like, 50 articles about lefties whining that the right is using the public shaming techniques they've been using to ruin people's lives for decades.

    There's a good chance the victim (Drejka) IS a lefty--they LIKE screaming at ableists who take things not meant for them.

    AND they tend to be stupid with guns when they get them

  • ThomasD||

    Wasn't there some lady in the news the other day for making a stink over someone else being in the neighborhood? Maybe at Harvard?

    And then there was the lady harassing the kid selling water without a permit.

    Both assholes, but since they were never violent assholes nobody got shot.

    That's the difference here. Someone initiated actual violence against another. And that other ended the violence.

  • mr simple||

    No the initiator in this case also ended it.

  • ThomasD||

    The initiator of the violence? I don't think so, and apparently neither does the Sheriff. Do you have some knowledge of the encounter that no one else has?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Did I say that lefties are civilized? Why do you conservatives always set up false dichotomies? If you're not a raging conservative, you must be a "lefty", "progtard", or "dem".

  • Mark22||

    If you misbehave in "civilized" Northern European countries, people will nag you until you follow the rules. The reason that works out as "calling out and moving on" in civilized countries is not because people aren't insistent, but because the target of the nagging would be so mortified that they would immediately comply.

    Nagging and ostracism is how civilized countries stay civilized.

  • Vernon Depner||

    The sheriff is correctly following the procedure for self defense cases under Florida law. The actual "stand your ground" provisions of Florida law are not relevant to this case. The sheriff simply misspoke when he referred to Florida's procedure for self defense claims as "stand your ground". It's not.

    We saw this same confusion in the George Zimmerman case, which was also not a "stand your ground" case.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    True. Both Zimmerman and Drejka are on the ground with the attacker on or looming over them when the gun comes out. Hard to stand your ground when you've been knocked down.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    The diff is that Zimmerman was actually under attack and in "reasonable" fear for his life.

    This shooter was not.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Drejka had ALREADY BEEN ATTACKED. That settles the question of the reasonableness of his fear of attack. I'm puzzle as to why so many commenters here aren't getting that. The question of whether ones fear of attack is reasonable is relevant only when force is used to PREVENT an attack. After the attack has commenced, there is no question.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    He had BEEN attacked. YOUR words.

    He was not BEING attacked.

    That is the difference between self-defense and murder.

  • Vernon Depner||

    And the attacker was still right there looming over him. He did not follow McGlockton home and shoot him. The is the difference between self-defense and murder.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    I assume you are referring to Zimmerman.

    But that didn't happen there either.

  • Vernon Depner||

    No, I was not referring to Zimmerman.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    then what was your point?

  • ThomasD||

    Even harder to retreat. In both cases the attacker had the initiative, so the attacks were both ongoing at the moment of the shooting.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "Attacks"

    Fuck me running

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Obviously the better nature of people that you endorse is to attack people out of nowhere. got it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    FL 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.—
    (1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened 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 or threatening to use 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.

  • Ben of Houston||

    You don't have a right to self defense against police while they are arresting you. If you shoot at a uniformed policeman who has identified themselves, you can't claim that you are defending yourself.

    Now, No-Knock warrants do have an out. If you can reasonably believe that the person is a violent intruder and not an officer, then you can shoot them.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Florida has more related parts of that chapter of laws.

    You can defend yourself against anyone: Police, Secret Service, the Military, a King....

    The burden is on you to show that your life was in danger of death or serious bodily injury without legal justification.

  • TxJack 112||

    Law Enforcement is totally different and you know it. Self Defense does not apply to a police officer in uniform. In addition, police do not come into a residence or building shooting. Even with a no knock warrant, the moment the building in breached, they identify themselves and yell they have a warrant. If they entered the building and started shooting without identifying themselves and had no warrant, that would be totally different but that would never happen. No police officer chooses to have a violent confrontation so your scenario is a moot point.

  • DJK||

    Did you even read the cross-cited sections? Those define whether one "uses or threatens to use force as permitted...". The relevant one here is FL 776.012:

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

  • DJK||

    So, to use deadly force, you need to reasonably believe that you are preventing: a) imminent death, b) great bodily harm, or c) the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

    a) It's pretty clear that there is no imminent threat of death.
    b) This is much mushier as "great bodily harm" is not well-defined. However, it seems unlikely this is the case in the context of a) and c).
    c) It's pretty clear that there is no imminent commission of a forcible felony. Simple assault is a misdemeanor.

  • DJK||

    Of course, there is room to argue over whether the killer reasonably believed any of a), b), or c). That's a question of fact, not of law. We have juries to try matters of fact. Maybe there's only a 50/50 chance the jury would convict (I'd handicap it at better than 80/20). A competent prosecutor should still indict.

  • DJK||

    This dude got off extremely lucky. With just about any other prosecutor, this goes down something like this. Killer is arrested. Killer is charged with 2nd degree murder.

    Prosecutor knows the state has a strong but not airtight case. Prosecutor offers a plea deal for voluntary manslaughter. If the killer accepts, he does 6 years in prison and loses his gun rights for life. If the killer doesn't accept, he goes to trial and hopes he gets a favorable jury. Even if he doesn't get convicted, he is pretty much bankrupted fighting the charges.

  • DJK||

    The killer here made about the worst possible decision and got lucky that he got a prosecutor who apparently doesn't know the law. If you do the same thing, it is very unlikely that you will be so lucky. Take a CCW class with a qualified instructor. Talk to a firearms lawyer. They will help you to understand when you can and can't and should and shouldn't use deadly force.

  • DJK||

    Oh. And I should note that the killer here isn't even out of the woods yet. There will almost certainly be a wrongful death lawsuit. The killer will almost certainly lose. He will almost certainly be bankrupted. Totally worth it to avoid maybe getting pushed again, right?

  • Rich7553||

    Really?

    776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.—
    (1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened 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 or threatening to use 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.

  • Mark22||

    An elderly man on the ground facing an aggressive, violent youth? I think there is clearly a risk of "great bodily harm" and "imminent threat of death".

    Again, I don't know the details of this case: the state of health of the man, his mental state, etc. That's for a jury to look at. But there are certainly plenty of contexts in which the use of deadly force in self-defense would be justified given this video.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Elderly? Dude was in his 40s.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    he was afraid McGlockton was about to attack him again

    The shooter was the pussiest of all pussies if he called that an "attack". Although I'm a 2nd amendment absolutist, I really really wish that pussies would avoid the allure of buying guns. Seriously. Your fear can get the best of you and you end up making bad (and sometimes fatal) decisions when you're afraid.

    The other lesson here is mind your fucking business if someone does something uncouth. Yeah, she was kind of a dick for parking in a handicapped spot, but why does that have to be this pussy's business? And why does he have to keep arguing with her? If he insists on calling someone out for it, call them out and move the fuck on. I'm glad the pussy doesn't have to go to jail for this, but I know everything I need to know about this guy just from watching this video.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    One less aggressive asshole.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    More proof that conservatives love celebrating death. You should really be ashamed of yourself.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So you're assigned to troll this thread today, huh?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Remember how you didn't know what the word "vigilante" meant? You also don't know what the word "troll" means. I suggest you google words before you use them in public.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What's your argument?

    That Drejka used excessive force? That Drejka shouldn't shoot unarmed people who violently attack him? That Drejka started the fight?

  • DJK||

    The argument is that the law everywhere in the US, including FL, requires that one reasonably believe that they or another will be imminently killed or imminently suffer great bodily harm unless they use deadly force. That is at best a stretch here. A simple misdemeanor assault was committed. There was no indication that there would be elevation to a forcible felony. There is not a single jurisdiction in the country that gives one the right to use lethal force in response to such an action. The law requires proportionality. Drejka got extremely lucky not to face charges. Even so, he will likely be bankrupted by the civil suit that will surely follow, which the plaintiff will almost certainly win.

  • DJK||

    It seems that your argument here is that every bar fight could end with someone pulling a gun and shooting someone and you'd have no problem with that. Do you really want to live in a world where put who show inclination toward the most extreme violence are the ones who get off while those who committed lesser violent acts are punished (through death)? That's a very odd theory of justice.

  • dchang0||

    Re: "Do you really want to live in a world where put who show inclination toward the most extreme violence are the ones who get off"

    I'm paraphrasing heavily here--Nicholas Taleb recently pointed out in an interview that the people who tend towards violence usually get killed themselves early on by other violent people.

    He's right. Nature has a built-in mechanism to limit extreme violence: other extremely violent people tend to go after them.

    Otherwise, we would not be alive today; mankind would have killed each other off thousands or millions of years ago.

  • dchang0||

    Also, a reminder: criminal violence has been on the decline since the 90s. Reason occasionally reminds us of that. Yes, there has been a slight uptick in the last few years, but overall, we are still waaaay down.

    The world is getting better.

  • Mcgoo95||

    "It seems that your argument here is that every bar fight could end with someone pulling a gun and shooting someone and you'd have no problem with that. Do you really want to live in a world where put who show inclination toward the most extreme violence are the ones who get off while those who committed lesser violent acts are punished (through death)? That's a very odd theory of justice."

    Yes that is what he's saying. Careful, or he'll call you a lefty because he speaks for all libertarians and people who are *right.

  • Mark22||

    Do you really want to live in a world where put who show inclination toward the most extreme violence are the ones who get off while those who committed lesser violent acts are punished (through death)?

    I want to live in a world in which people who initiate phyiscal violence (even "lesser") have to fear severe consequences.

    I don't want to live in a world in which people can deliberately commit "lesser violence" secure in the knowledge that the law only allows "lesser violence" in return.

  • dchang0||

    Re: "I want to live in a world in which people who initiate phyiscal violence (even "lesser") have to fear severe consequences."

    You mean, NOT Baltimore.

  • Mark22||

    For an small, older man who was shoved to the ground and is facing a much younger, taller, and heavier opponent, "great bodily harm" or "fear of death" are perfectly reasonable fears.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    The key word being "shoved", no, they're not perfectly reasonable. Maybe to somebody who has been shoved for the first time in his life, but not to normal people.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So JSJ will not respond but DJK and McGoo95 will for JSJ.

    Okay.....

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I apologize that I'm just returning to the thread now. Some people have shit to do.

  • ThomasD||

    Yes, that is exactly what is going on here. 'Celebrating'

    I used to consider you worthy of consideration. That sort of slander changes things.

    Go fuck yourself troll.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    There's really no need to get so angry with someone because you disagree with their politics.

  • jollyollie||

    As quick as you are to judge this man a "pussy" and use vulgar language, your opinions are a worthless as your life probably is.

  • Mcgoo95||

    Too bad you can't shoot him..

  • Nardz||

    You seem to have a lot of sand in your vagina

  • Bearded Spock||

    Pro tip: don't violently assault people for no reason, and you won't get shot. Quite simple, really.

    Why do I get the impression this is a difficult thing for you?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Correction: don't shove people*

  • ThomasD||

    "he was afraid McGlockton was about to attack him again"

    Since he never got out of striking distance there was no 'again' about it - the initial attack was still ongoing.

  • TxJack 112||

    You are the type of person who should NOT have a gun for a number of reasons. You might want to consider the guy who was shoved to the ground is DISABLED and that is why he was upset about an able bodied person parking in a handicapped space. Second, your characterization of him is precisely the kind of stupidity that makes gun owners look insane, so if you truly are a "2nd amendment absolutist" (whatever the F--k that means), please stop trying to help us, we dont need more idiots arguing for gun rights who are clueless, foul mouthed, jackasses, we have enough already.

  • DJK||

    Ah, the good old no true Scotsman canard. If we don't support one's "right" to escalate an encounter by shooting someone, we must not be 2nd Amendment advocates. That's some incredibly flawed logic.

  • dchang0||

    "absolutist" became "advocates."

    Nice sleight of hand there. The canard would have held if you didn't reduce that.

  • dchang0||

    * canard would have been true (and thus not be a canard)

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    1) It doesn't matter why he was upset that she parked there. Harassing somebody about it for several minutes is not an appropriate response.
    2) I have an opinion about gun rights that happens to be the same as yours. That doesn't mean I'm trying to "help you."

  • Mike92||

    No wonder people with a certain view of the world fight so hard to repeal SYG laws, since it seems nobody bothers to actually read the statute and apply it to cases like this. The shooter got it wrong, the sheriff got it wrong, most of the commenters on this page CLEARLY don't get it right, and even Reason seems to miss the point in this article.

    If you're serious about wanting to understand what happened here, try this exercise:
    1) watch the video, 2) read the Florida statute, especially section 776.041 , and then 3) watch the video again.

    As a CCW holder, I personally would like to see a prosecutor (preferably one that isn't hostile to the pro gun rights belief) take this to a grand jury. IF this guy, who by several accounts seems to have a habit of picking fights at this very location, actually met all requirements of the use of force BY AN AGGRESSOR, then he'll get a "no bill" and continue on his way. If not and he's tried and convicted, then he should become the poster boy for everything Zimmerman was accused of, and then some. (And I'll keep my personal opinion about the shooter to myself.)

    Anything less, and nobody will see justice in this case.

  • Mike92||

    (ugh - word count limit!!)

    This isn't a left-right, black-white, pro-gun / anti-gun, D vs R (vs L) thing – or it shouldn't be. This is simply a matter of was it self-defense or (some form of) murder/manslaughter? As far as I'm concerned, there's enough doubt that a jury should probably get ALL of the facts and decide.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Florida and other states are tired of putting an innocent person through the hell of the criminal justice system just because some violent asshole attacks them and they defend themselves.

    Dont physical harm people. Problem solved.

  • Praveen R.||

    So youve never seen a fight in school or at a bar while growing up? Imagine if every one of those ended up with the guy who got shoved or pushed shooting the other person

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I didnt have a gun in school. As an adult, I have never started a fight. I have finished a fight where the person wanted to harm my family and brought stupidity to a gun fight. That person will never hurt anything again.

    Don't start fights. Dont violently attack other people.

    Its pretty Libertarian and easy to remember.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I love that you try to disguise your violent temperament as pacifism. It's easily the most entertaining part of these comments.

  • Mark22||

    I don't know where you hang out, but I actually have never seen a fight in school or at a bar. I believe anybody who initiates physical violence is irredeemably psychologically broken. McGlockton clearly falls into that category, and Drejka may as well.

  • dchang0||

    Re: "I don't know where you hang out, but I actually have never seen a fight in school or at a bar. I believe anybody who initiates physical violence is irredeemably psychologically broken. McGlockton clearly falls into that category, and Drejka may as well."

    You're lucky. I have seen or been in fights in schools and bars and outside of school too. It seems somewhat commonplace but not too common. And I'm especially cautious to avoid trouble.

    I suspect it has more to do with class than anything else; after I moved out of poor neighborhoods, I stopped seeing violence.

  • Mark22||

    Luck had/has nothing to do with it. My parents wouldn't have moved to a neighborhood where there was violence in school. And I don't frequent bars.

    The places where violent people hang out are fairly easy to predict and fairly easy to avoid.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    You shouldn't live life in fear. You also shouldn't seek out violence. There's a HUGE gray area in between, which is where most adults reside.

  • dchang0||

    Re: "Imagine if every one of those ended up"

    Straw man. Not every shoving match would end up ending in gunshots even if everyone did carry guns.

    I would expect that FEWER shoving matches would end up in gunshots AND FEWER shoving matches would start in the first place if everyone did carry guns. Even if a small portion of the population is highly irrational and lacks any sense of self-preservation, the vast majority of people would be more cautious if everyone carried guns.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I would expect that FEWER shoving matches would end up in gunshots AND FEWER shoving matches would start in the first place if everyone did carry guns.

    This is an interesting point. I agree with the second part but not the first. Could you explain why you believe the first is true?

  • Vernon Depner||

    If guys who start fights in bars start getting shot dead...what's the down side?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Imagine if every one of those ended up with the guy who got shoved or pushed shooting the other person

    Eventually assholes who start fights in bars would be exterminated, and decent people would be able to enjoy their evening out in peace?

  • Praveen R.||

    What if the guy who started the fight ended up on the losing end of it and then shot the other guy because he was in fear of his life?

  • markm23||

    If the shooter initiated the violence, he could not claim self-defense. But WORDS ARE NOT VIOLENCE!

  • Vernon Depner||

    Then he would be guilty of murder, because he was the aggressor. This isn't complicated.

  • Nardz||

    Mike, that's too fair a take for this board... You didn't even call anyone a pussy, nor violent aggressor!

  • Ben of Houston||

    I don't think he has the ability to meet that standard. He would have to have been completely unable to retreat and be presented with deadly force. That's a very high threshold on two fronts, neither of which are met.

    However, do you believe that he really met the standards of an aggressor? Starting a fight is one thing. Starting an argument is another. One does not necessarily lead to another.

    This was also in broad daylight in an open parking lot with other people around. It's a completely different situation from the Zimmerman/Martin case. I don't think that the it's reasonable to expect that an argument in this situation would escalate into violence, and Drejka was not being overtly violent initially. I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem clear cut that he would be considered the aggressor where self defense is concerned.

  • ThomasD||

    The standard in Florida is not "completely unable to retreat" nor "presented with deadly force."

  • Mike92||

    Look at it this way: if Drejka doesn't initiate the confrontation by bitching about the parking violation, then I think it's reasonable to assume he doesn't get knocked on his ass in the first place. Whether he deserved it or not, used physical violence first or not, nor what he "reasonably believed" would happen next, none of it is relevant if the State of Florida determines he's the one who started the chain of events that led to the shooting.

    But like everyone else, I wasn't there, don't know what was said at the point McDeadguy walked out of the store and decided to introduce physical violence. I just have a hard time accepting this as a clear SYG case. If you have to shoot your gun because you shot your mouth off, good luck with that self-defense claim.

    Zimmerman – completely different; not SYG. But will those opposed to CCW/guns care (or believe)?

  • Naaman Brown||

    There was a lot about Florida's Stand Your Ground law during the Trayvon Martin coverage even though neither George Zimmerman nor his lawyer invoked it. Tampa Bay Times had a data base on Florida SYG cases at the time. Roughly 2/3 of the accused were found to have acted in self-defense and acquitted, 1/3 were found not justified and tried on criminal charges. The greatest benefit was to low income blacks who are more likely to crime victims than whites; it meant the justified stayed out jail if the prosecutor did not press charges, the GJ returned no bill, or the trial acquitted on grounds of self-defense. Under the pre-SYG you were jailed on manslaughter until adjudicated, which for most working people means losing your job, your home, any savings.

    As the law works, if the investigating officer decides there is evidence that the hypothetical reasonable person would agree that the suspect had a reasonable fear of death or serious injury, the accused suspect can stay out of jail unless or until the prosecutor brings charges or the grand jury returns a true bill.

  • jollyollie||

    And you got this wrong. The guy on the ground had reason to fear his life was in jeopardy. Until it is you being pushed to the ground and you are lying in an inferior position to defend yourself and the probability of this violent attacker being armed and willing to use a weapon on you, you need to rely on the only law that protects you in this circumstance. The police are not standing with you. You could only have seconds to save yourself from murder. You make a choice. Just like the thug that chose to shove you to the ground did. He could have been polite. He could even have had respect for the law that says don't park in a handicap spot if you don't have a permit. But he was above that law, it did not apply to him. The common law of civility did not apply to him. Violating laws have consequences in a society. Sometimes you pay the price for doing so. They were many choices this thug made before those choices caught up with him.

  • Praveen R.||

    You dont get to shoot a person wbecause you got freaking shoved to the ground. Imagine how many people could be shot dead by that standard. You would have hundreds of people of dead each Saturday night at the different bars around the country.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    In Florida and Georgia you do.

    Yet, even with this 'Wild West' gun laws Florida and Georgia have lower crimes rates than similarly populated Lefty states.

  • DJK||

    Georgia has one of the higher gun murder rates (and murder rates in general) in the country. Florida is on the high side of average. There are conservative states with low murder rates, liberal states with low murder rates, conservative states with high murder rates, and liberal states with high murder rates. Research generally indicates that there is at best a low correlation between state gun laws and homicide rates. It's fine if you take this position. But don't make statements that are easily proven false.

  • Longtobefree||

    If by 'gun murder rate' you actually mean absolute count, Georgia is number 7 and Florida is number 3. (Something something population numbers) If you really mean 'rate' GA is 12th, and FL is 16th.
    (2010 data best I can do in a hurry)

  • dchang0||

    This is true, but in order to truly be honest, we need to consider inner-city versus rural areas.

    Georgia's violence is concentrated in Atlanta. In Florida it is Miami-Dade.

    Same in the leftist states--in California, nearly all the violence is in the cities, including medium-sized cities like Bakersfield and San Bernardino.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This is GBI crimestats for Georgia. GBI is like our state police investigator.
    Georgia Bureau of Investigations stats

    In 2017, Georgia had 701 murders. Atlanta (Fulton Co) had 124 of them and another shitty county next to Atlanta (Dekalb) had 98 murders. Murders mainly happen right around Atlanta and Augusta.

    Firearm mortality does not give suicide differences. So in 2016 Georgia had 666 murders and 1571 deaths from firearms. There were more suicides by gun than murders by gun.
    CDC firearm mortality

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Illinois had 1490 deaths by gun in 2017 and Chicago had 650 murders alone.

  • TxJack 112||

    He was attacked. Where he ended up is irrelevant. Sorry, I can use a firearm if I reasonably believe my life is in danger. You do not get to decide when or when not I am in danger for me, nor do I for you.

  • DJK||

    Good luck with that. If you use your firearm in similar circumstances in a jurisdiction that has an even remotely competent prosecutor, you're going to be facing 2nd degree murder charges. You're probably going to plead out to a mid-high degree manslaughter. You're probably going to do 5+ years in prison. And even if you get the most favorable possible treatment from the prosecutor or jury, you're almost certainly going to be bankrupted in the civil lawsuit. All because getting shoved was a bridge too far. I hope it was worth it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I would rather be alive then dead.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    You do not get to decide when or when not I am in danger for me

    Of course we do. That's the whole point. There are people who "believe their lives are in danger" simply because a person stepped onto their property. They may truly believe they're in danger, but that's not a reasonable belief and any action stemming from that belief is therefore an unreasonable action.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Actually a jury may indeed decide whether it was "reasonable" for you to think you were in danger and shoot someone.

    So, keep that in mind.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    You need a panic room. Murderers are not nearly as rampant as you think.

  • Azathoth!!||

    It's a long piece. And very wrong.

    SYG, as has been noted, refers to incidents of what is essentially pre-emptive defense.

    This was not that.

    This was a man shooting the person who HAD ALREADY attacked him.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    HAD. Past tense.

    You can only kill in self-defense - that means only if he IS attacking you.

    Big difference.

  • Vernon Depner||

    So, does the fist have to actually be in contact with your face in order for self-defense to be allowed? How many seconds after the last kick to your gut does your right to respond expire? Drejka was still on the ground. His attacker was still looming over him. The attack was in progress.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Well a jury might decide that no the attack wasn't "in progress".

    Doesn't look that way to me.

    And I'm a 62 y/o WM 45+ yr Life Member of the NRA. A whole lot of "reasonable" people might be on the same jury.

    Zimmerman was on the ground being beaten. Big diff here.

    The shooter has f-ed up his life for what looks like pretty slim reasons.

  • Vernon Depner||

    But was Martin's fist actually in contact with Zimmerman's face when Zimmerman pulled the trigger? If it wasn't, then, by your reasoning, Zimmerman HAD BEEN attacked but was not BEING attacked. He had no right of self-defense during the time between blows.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Don't be an a$$.

    Zimmerman was clearly being attacked (from the available evidence).

    This guy was NOT "being" attacked.

    He had been shoved to the ground and the other guy was standing there.

    That is not being attacked.

  • Vernon Depner||

    If you understood Florida law as you claim, you would know that the prosecutor CAN'T submit this to a grand jury until after the state's attorney's office has reviewed and rejected the self-defense claim.

  • jollyollie||

    Mr. Sullum,

    Until you have been in a situation where a much younger habitually violent anti-social thug with hate in his eyes violently pushes you to the ground and you fear that any second this animal may pull out an illegally obtained weapon and empty its content into your body, you should keep your mouth shut and go write an article on the flower show or some church doings. You are way out of your depth here.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    People like Sullum want the state to protect them and that's why they live in shitholes like California, New York, and mega cities.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "Hate in his eyes" Hahaha. Sounds like a phrase the left would use. You guys are truly cut from the same cloth.

    may pull out an illegally obtained weapon

    I also love it when conservatives hang their hats on the very laws that they claim to oppose.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    White men have 'hate in their eyes". Why cant black men 'have hate in their eyes"?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Huh? Who brought race into it?

  • Mark22||

    Conservatives have no problem with prohibiting individuals with criminal histories or mental health issues from owning guns.

    And the statistics are pretty clear: a vastly disproportionate number of murders is committed by young black males, while at the same time, the same demographic has the largest rate of illegal gun ownership.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Libertarians should be against any gun regulations as the Constitution prohibits them under the 2nd Amendment.

  • Mark22||

    Libertarians should be against any gun regulations as the Constitution prohibits them under the 2nd Amendment.

    In the US as it is now, we incarcerate people for crimes and then prohibit them from owning guns. The US isn't a libertarian society and those aren't libertarian policies.

    In a libertarian society, things would be more complex. Crimes wouldn't necessarily get you incarcerated, but they might get you effectively exiled from civilized society to some unowned piece of desert no sane person wants, and there you could then own all the guns you want. Or, a criminal might choose to accept private restrictions on their liberties in order to be allowed back into banks, onto roads, and into shops.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    What you just described is the height of collectivism.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I've said for a while that the only way a "libertarian" society can exist is with the possibility of exile, something not currently supported by international law.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Libertarian societies have existed without exile.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Conservatives have no problem with prohibiting individuals with criminal histories or mental health issues from owning guns.


    In theory, sure.

    But they're very much against any system that actually accomplishes that.

    So in practice, they're against prohibiting individuals with criminal histories or mental health issues from owning guns.

  • Praveen R.||

    joyollie, I have been in that situation. And i defended myself. Maybe men should learn to fight if they want to fight back. I saw the video. The guy already had his gun ready to fire. If the soon to be murdered guy made another couple of steps closer, there was nothing stopping him for firing away at that point. But he chose to not wait even that extra second. He was a coward who couldnt wait to use that gun.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yet there was a delay between drawing the gun and shooting. The aggressor never retreated.

  • TxJack 112||

    ever consider maybe the guy is disabled and unable to fight? You only have a video to look at and no other information about the people involved or the situation. Stop pretending you know everything about what should and should not have been done.

  • Heraclitus||

    Well, now we have a new way of looking at the world. Now we just assume that idiots yelling at you for trifling things might be armed and willing to use their gun at the slightest provocation. Better to get out in front of that one.

  • mr simple||

    Well, that's just racist.

  • Mcgoo95||

    "Until you have been in a situation where a much younger habitually violent anti-social thug with hate in his eyes violently pushes you to the ground and you fear that any second this animal may pull out an illegally obtained weapon and empty its content into your body"

    Good god the comentariat on Reason has really gone to shit. This might be the winner for stupidest comment in the thread....

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Great comments guys. Protect the 2nd Amendment against Lefties.

  • Mcgoo95||

    Fuck off asshole

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that a law enforcement officer doesn't understand the laws that he's expected to enforce. /sarc

  • dchang0||

    To me, this is the most disturbing part: that the law enforcement officer doesn't understand the law. McGlockton won't be shoving people any more. Drejka probably won't be shooting anyone any more, since the coming civil lawsuit will probably bankrupt him and at least make him far more cautious about drawing his weapon.

    But the officer will continue wrongly enforcing the law, day in and day out, making more victims.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He cannot be sued either.

  • ElliotYoung||

    "buying candy for his 5-year old son"..."after collapsing in front of his son...." Obvious attempts to curry emotional sympathy and obfuscate reason. Sad to see "Reason" writing this way.

  • Rich7553||

    Indeed. The same heartstrings were plucked in the case of St. Skittles the Hooded.

  • Mcgoo95||

    It's what happened dipshit.

  • dchang0||

    Yeah, but the media routinely selects what true events to mention while omitting other true events in order to fit a biased narrative.

    You can see this all the time if you read about the same event in a leftist media outlet vs. a right-ist one. CNN vs. Fox, for example. (Of course, both outlets can outright lie in addition to telling the truth; I'm only talking about selectively including truth right now.)

  • MasterThief||

    Yeah, I hate that sort of editorializing. I watched the video and decided how bad it was based upon what my eyes showed me. I see one initiating violence: bad. I see another escalating that violence and ending a life: double bad. I can say a pox on both their houses, but I'm going to sympathize a little more with the dead guy since it didn't appear to me that he was going to take it farther. If he hadn't been killed, then he should have been charged for assault.

  • ElliotYoung||

    Even if he could have fended him off by "simply brandishing the pistol", that itself would have been illegal. Brandishing a firearm, even if in self-defense, is a crime. If you are going to even pull out your weapon, you better have a reason to use it, or at least that's the way the law works.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Sssssh! you'll upset all the tuffgaiz and Captain Hindsights!

  • ThomasD||

    That's a semantic distinction you are missing.

    Yes, 'brandishing' is a crime in Florida, it is the illegal display of a firearm, a form of unlawful threat - ie. an assault charge. But there are all sorts of legal ways to display a firearm.

    So once you've been physically attacked, or are in fear of serious threat that same display of a firearm may be perfectly legal. At that point the display would not be the crime of brandishing. If it were a crime there would be no possible way to use a firearm lawfully in self defense.

    Maybe with the possible exception of hiding it in a pillowcase and using it as a sap.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Elliot, you have zero idea what you are talking about.

    It is perfectly legal to draw your weapon in self-defense and then tell the aggressor that you will "blow their fucking head off, if they take one more step". The aggressor leaves and the armed victim was still defending themselves but just did not use deadly force.

  • TxJack 112||

    If you can tell a person not to take one more step, then you are not in imminent harm and brandishing your weapon is illegal. Pulling a weapon is the action of last resort, not first option. You can just as easily tell the person you have a firearm and if they continue to move toward you, you will draw and fire. I suggest you check the law in your state. BTW, telling another your will "blow their F-ing brains out" is a terroristic threat and will land your ass in jail.

  • ThomasD||

    "If you can tell a person not to take one more step, then you are not in imminent harm..."

    No, or at least not a given according to the available facts.

    Does the person you are addressing have a weapon? Are they within usual effective range with that weapon? Have they already made specific and credible threats? Or committed actual unlawful violence upon anyone present?

    IANAL, but I am a former resident of Florida, had an FL CCW, and had training from LEOs on the specifics of Florida law. One of the things they stressed repeatedly, and we practiced at the range, was shouting STOP, STOP, STOP during the draw, and just prior to firing.

    Likewise a verbal threat may or may not be lawful based upon the attendant circumstances. Lethal force may also be used in Florida to stop any forcible felony. If you choose to threaten force prior to justified application of the force, then that is actually in your favor - you gave them a chance to choose otherwise.

  • ThomasD||

    776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
    (1) (use of non deadly force)

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

    (emphasis added)

  • Devastator||

    Yep I don't see anywhere in there where it says you "gotta shoot a mothafucka' if the gun comes out, somebody betta be dead when the cops show up" like some of the other Annie Oakleys in this thread are suggesting

  • ThomasD||

    Personally I think it unwise, when in public, to produce a weapon if the circumstances do not warrant immediate application of that weapon.

    But circumstances can change pretty fast, and choosing to apply a lawful threat, instead of lethal force, may be understandable.

    Threaten me and I may give you a chance to rethink, pose a threat to my wife or kids and I'm going maximum force in minimum time. But, either way, whatever happens follows entirely from the initial threat.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    "reasonably believes"

    Don't give a jury the chance to make the judgement of whether or not your "belief" was reasonable.

  • ThomasD||

    "Don't give a jury the chance to make the judgement of whether or not your "belief" was reasonable."

    As finders of fact the only way you could prevent a jury from doing exactly that is to never appear before one.

  • Devastator||

    Not if you can prove that you were previously attacked. There is leeway in the law. Otherwise it would say "if you pull your gun you gotta fucking shoot somebody or you're going to jail"

  • Praveen R.||

    What would have been reasonable was for that murderer Drejka to brandish his weapon and ask that McGlockton guy to stay put(and if you look at the video, you can see that step back once he realizes that guy had a gun). And then call the cops on the guy who shoved him and press charges for assault. He then can tell the cop that the guy also parked illegally in a handicapped spot.

    What we are seeing are guys itching for a fight(judging by his history ) and then finding every excuse to use deadly force. We are also seeing a bunch of cowardly men trying to act tough by using guns in a deadly manner because they lack the manhood to fight back or the wisdom to deescalate a situation they cannot win.

    Can you imagine how many bar fights can end in a shooting if we go by this guy's standard of reasonable?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yet it doesn't happen like your Parade of Horribles.

    Armed citizens make an area safer.

  • Praveen R.||

    So what if the woman had a gun and she shot the white guy as soon as she saw him reach into his pocket and say tha based on her experience angry white guys who reach into their pockets are about to shoot her or her boyfriend?

    Or if the black guy himself had a gun in his pocket and let's say the white guy delayed, then he just quick drew and shot him even though the white guy said stop or I will shoot because he can say the white guy was just as likelyto shoot anyway.

  • Praveen R.||

    So what if the woman had a gun and she shot the white guy as soon as she saw him reach into his pocket and say tha based on her experience angry white guys who reach into their pockets are about to shoot her or her boyfriend?

    Or if the black guy himself had a gun in his pocket and let's say the white guy delayed, then he just quick drew and shot him even though the white guy said stop or I will shoot because he can say the white guy was just as likelyto shoot anyway.

  • Bearded Spock||

    In this thread it has been revealing to see how many people are disturbed by the idea they can be legally shot for beating up someone.

    It's almost as if they enjoy physically bullying others, and are upset their monopoly on power has been overturned and they must obey the rules of civilized society.

    "God made all men; Samuel Colt made them equal."

  • Devastator||

    Not it's more disturbing to see how many irresponsible gun owners are on the look out to shoot someone at the drop of a hat. When I conceal carry I'm not out looking for trouble like this guy obviously was looking for. He didn't give a fuck about that handicapped space, he was looking to pull his gun and shoot somebody.

  • Rich7553||

    Oh look! The Amazing Kreskin is here!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Being violently attacked is not 'drop of a hat'.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    can be legally shot for shoving someone.

    FIFY

  • Praveen R.||

    Actually it is not about bullies getting shot. What if the shooter landed the first shove, but the other guy started to win the fight and the shooter got scared and decided to shoot him?
    What if the white guy called the black guy a nigger and then laughed and taunted him and the black guy took the bait and shoved him in the same exact manner? The white guy gets to shoot him even then? It is still the same principle. It doesnt matter he was a jerk for saying the N word. He could say I was in fear of my life.

  • TxJack 112||

    You have no clue what you are talking about or you would not make such idiotic statements. A gun is not used to "scare" people. Every person who carries a gun for self defense is told that if you pull it, you use it because the ONLY reason you pull it is you are in fear of harm to yourself or another. If you pull a gun, you shoot. People who pull out guns to "scare people" or "tell them to stay put" are the same people who are almost always killed with their own guns by criminals. Police use guns to arrest people, not civilians. In addition, if the guy wanted to "shoot" as you claim, he will be indicted by a grand jury. NEWSFLASH!!! Everyone who uses a gun for self defense, justified or not, is arrested, booked, arraigned and the case is presented to a grand jury. That is the law. You do not shoot someone and simply go home.

  • Devastator||

    Lies you don't have to shoot every time you pull a gun, that's dumb as fuck, it's fine to step back and take a defensive posture if you sense the situation has de-escalated. What you're calling for is just bloodthirsty pansy ass shit.

  • Ron||

    In California it is illegal to brandish a weapon in an attempt to scare someone off. You will lose your license if you do such. If you can prove that after brandishing a gun the attacker backed off then your okay but you can not display to scare and never claim that as a reason.

  • Devastator||

    I'd rather lose my license than shoot someone over getting pushed down, but damn straight i'd draw on someone who looked like he was out to get me. This guy had a history of looking to shoot somebody.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I would rather shoot an attacker dead than make a mistake and die.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Everyone who uses a gun for self defense, justified or not, is arrested, booked, arraigned and the case is presented to a grand jury. That is the law.

    That is not the law in Florida.

  • Devastator||

    Yeah this guy was itching to shoot someone, he had been spotted waving his gun out his car window before by witnesses. He should get some time for man slaughter at the very least.

  • dchang0||

    Re: "he had been spotted waving his gun"

    On the one hand you say it's good or better to brandish, on the other hand because he brandished before you say he has a history of looking to shoot somebody.

    You can't have it both ways.

  • Mark22||

    It was McGlockton who initiated the use of force and physical violence. And he only did that because he implicitly assumed that an elderly white guy wasn't going to be able to defend himself.

    I don't carry a gun and I don't know whether Drejka was legally justified in shooting McGlockton. But I am quite certain that I would rather live in a society in which men like McGlockton have to assume that they will get shot dead if they shove someone to the ground.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    But I am quite certain that I would rather live in a society in which men like McGlockton have to assume that they will get shot dead if they shove someone to the ground.

    That would be like assuming that you will get struck by lightning because you hear thunder. Sure, it happens. But that's not a reasonable assumption.

  • Mark22||

    That would be like assuming that you will get struck by lightning because you hear thunder. Sure, it happens. But that's not a reasonable assumption.

    Right now it's not a reasonable assumption: people like McGlockton can shove middle aged wimpy white males to the ground because it is exceedingly rare that middle aged wimpy white males defend themselves physically. I'm saying that I think it would be good if that changed. That is, McGlockton should have had the same respect for middle aged white males as he would for a 19 year old inner city gang member with a gun down his waist band.

    (No, personally, I'm never going to carry a gun.)

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I reject your utilitarian view of killing as a means to deter shovers.

    We also don't know that he shoved Drejka because he was small and white. I think it's quite likely that a lot of people would shove any stranger who is actively yelling at your wife and small children. To pretend that McGlockton acted in a way that's not consistent with how normal people behave is incorrect. McGlockton wasn't picking a fight, robbing someone, etc. He was defending his wife and kids who, from the appearances, were being accosted by a stranger. He didn't jump on top of the guy and start wailing away. He shoved him.

  • JFree||

    McGlockton should have had the same respect for middle aged white males as he would for a 19 year old inner city gang member with a gun down his waist band.

    But he shouldn't have the right to stand his ground on behalf of his own family? His girlfriend shouldn't have the right to stand her ground in defense of herself or her kids? The right of self-defense only applies to the one with the gun?

  • JFree||

    And McG also apparently shouted at the guy "Get away from my girl" well before he shoved him. From the video the guy ignored that - and raised his finger to point at the girl - which is when McG ran forward faster and shoved him.

    why does stand your ground only apply to the white guy acting as vigilante?

  • EscherEnigma||

    The right of self-defense only applies to the one with the gun?


    Well, yes.

    Consider if the shot had been non-lethal instead, and McGlockton had then pulled his own (hypothetical) gun and shot Drejka dead. Having just been shot, he could make a very credible self-defense claim, irrelevant to Drejka also had a self-defense claim in shooting first.

    And here's the fun part! If both had shot each other but lived, they would probably both be charged for assault. But since someone died, it becomes manslaughter or nothing, and Florida's deferential SYG law tilts the scales towards "nothing".

  • TxJack 112||

    The dead man attacked him pushed him to the ground. Anyone who has ever been in any fight knows when you are on the ground, you are in a very weak and dangerous position. The dead man decided to attack the wrong person and died as a result. Sorry, he died because he was an aggressive idiot.

  • Mark22||

    Good grief, why this compulsive need to second guess on-going legal issues? Why not reserve your outrage for when a verdict has been passed and each side has made their case?

    Looking at the video, I have no idea whether the use of force was justified, and if you pretend you do, you're not motivated by truth or reason, but by some kind of agenda.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Timelines.

    Waiting until the courts have settled it often means two to three (or more) years, by which point it will be difficult to give up any real outage if you haven't been keeping it in the news for years.

  • JFree||

    Good grief, why this compulsive need to second guess on-going legal issues?

    Because the way SYG is being interpreted now - the deliberate decision by the police to not process the incident makes it near impossible for the prosecutor to even bring a case which means there CAN BE NO legal issues. The whole thing becomes a way of bypassing the system in a manner that is very arbitrary - which is itself a serious due process problem

  • Vernon Depner||

    Incorrect. This is not a SYG case. The sheriff is following the prescribed procedure under Florida law for dealing with homicides committed in self-defense. Whether the case will proceed has yet to be decided.

    The whole thing becomes a way of bypassing the system...

    Yes, that's the point. Being indicted and tried for a serious crime can be a life-destroying process even if the verdict is not guilty. Florida legislators decided that it was wrong to put innocent citizens who acted in self-defense through that ordeal in order to establish their innocence. So, they set up a process for judging the validity of self-defense claims BEFORE indicting and trying those who claim self-defense. It's the right thing to do—more states should adopt this process.

  • JFree||

    Being indicted and tried for a serious crime can be a life-destroying process even if the verdict is not guilty. Florida legislators decided that it was wrong to put innocent citizens who acted in self-defense through that ordeal in order to establish their innocence. So, they set up a process for judging the validity of self-defense claims BEFORE indicting and trying those who claim self-defense. It's the right thing to do—more states should adopt this process.

    You do understand that that is EXACTLY the reason why the KKK and other lynching vigilantes had effective legal immunity during the Jim Crow era. If caught, claim self-defense or protecting the white wimmin from a rapist or somesuch - and hey presto that's enough evidence of innocence to not prosecute.

    Whereas in every non-kangaroo legal system, the mere existence of a BODY with indicators of foul play means the court (a formal third party adhering to strict known rules of due process) is required to adjudicate the FACTS of the case. Because one cannot ever just simply assume that a claim of innocence is actually true.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Nonsense. The KKK and lynching vigilantes had effective immunity simply because local police and prosecutors refused to arrest or prosecute them. They had no law or legal theory behind them—they just ignored the law and refused to prosecute.

    The Florida process does not "just simply assume that a claim of innocence is actually true." An investigation and hearing are required. If the claim is found to be debatable, prosecution can go forward. We saw that in the Zimmerman case. The Florida process protects citizens who have done nothing wrong, and merely defended themselves, from having to go through the ruinous process of arrest, indictment, and trial. Punishing victims for defending themselves is unjust if it can be avoided.

  • JFree||

    The KKK and lynching vigilantes had effective immunity simply because local police and prosecutors refused to arrest or prosecute them. They had no law or legal theory behind them—they just ignored the law and refused to prosecute.

    Which is like 100% different from refusing to arrest them (or prosecute them - still pending) - WITH an overt law behind them that they can obey and use as the reason for not arresting or prosecuting them.

    The Florida process does not "just simply assume that a claim of innocence is actually true." An investigation and hearing are required. If the claim is found to be debatable, prosecution can go forward.

    The 2017 amendment requires that the state prove a negative - clear and convincing evidence that the claim of self-defense is NOT true - at that hearing. Otherwise, no prosecution. Those are no longer considered to be elements of fact to be decided on at the trial itself. Overturning 1000 years of very settled common law about self-defense.

    Punishing victims for defending themselves is unjust if it can be avoided.

    The VICTIM here is the dead guy. The victim is ALWAYS the dead guy. THAT is the person whose natural right to life has been extinguished. THAT is the person who the state institutes adjudication proceedings for - to decide what happened to them. 'Self-defense' has NEVER been a denial of a homicide or some shell game about who the victim is. It has been about whether that homicide is justifiable.

  • JFree||

    I mean yeesh - you are almost saying that homicide is a victimless crime if the 'victim' is deemed to be the one holding a smoking gun

  • Devastator||

    Just had an argument with friends over this. This article is exactly right, and my friends were exactly wrong. The situation didn't call for a gun. The guy wasn't coming after him after the shove. he was retreating.

  • Rich7553||

    And you know this by looking at a single piece of video? Are you a lip reader too? How do you know that McGlockton didn't yell out he would kill Drejka after pushing him down? You don't. So put away your crystal ball and wait for all the evidence.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    By that logic, since we're not lip readers, we don't know that Drejka didn't threaten to commit a violent act against the guy's wife which prompted McG to shove him down. I mean, it seems unlikely, but so does your theory.

  • MarkInSF||

    Wait for all the evidence? The Sheriff declined to even pursue the case.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Incorrect. The sheriff sent the case to the state's attorney's office for evaluation of the self-defense claim, as is required under Florida law. If the self-defense claim is ruled to be invalid or questionable, the case can still be pursued. That's what happened with George Zimmerman. His self-defense claim was found to be questionable, so he was tried after claiming self-defense.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Actually, Zimmerman was the victim of political prosecution.

    The public outrage ginned up caused the prosecutor to file the charges.

    She should have been dis-barred for that since Zimmerman had clear evidence of self-defense.

    But, let that be a warning to all of us gun carriers.

    The State doesn't like you defending yourself.

    Quite often they will try to turn your act of self-defense into murder.

    Best to avoid giving them that chance if you can.

  • JFree||

    The sheriff sent the case to the state's attorney's office for evaluation of the self-defense claim, as is required under Florida law.

    The sheriff sent NOTHING to the state attorneys office. The state attorney is obligated to look into every homicide (and dead body is a prima facie homicide) but because the sheriff sent nothing the entire burden for the case is going to be on the attorney's office - and who knows what the failure to process the case by the sheriff actually does to any actual/potential evidence/etc. Without evidence - or with evidence that can be distorted into something else - it's impossible to have due process. The entire thing becomes arbitrary.

    And as an aside that arbitrary application of government process is also a violation of the republican form of government which the FEDERAL government is obliged to enforce upon the states (though I doubt that clause has ever actually been used).

  • Vernon Depner||

    The sheriff sent NOTHING to the state attorneys office.

    That is incorrect.

  • JFree||

    Then you have to state exactly WHAT he sent. Because the second Drejka uttered the magic words, the sheriff stopped gathering info. Unless you are asserting that the sheriff's office processed the scene and interviewed witnesses - while Drejka is sitting around free to leave at any time - and only at the very end asked Drjka what happened.

    If you actually read the stories - it was the MEDIA who asked witnesses what happened - which is where multiple witnesses said this guy was in the habit of being a parking lot vigilante (incl one threat of being shot for parking in that spot). That info will be hard to get admitted in court once the sheriff 'drops' the case.

  • Vernon Depner||

    In these cases, the case files and materials are sent to the state's attorney's office for their evaluation. You'll have to ask the sheriff exactly what was in the materials. They weren't sent to me, so I haven't seen them. FOIA if you're that curious.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The violent attacker was not retreating.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    He also wasn't attacking, he was standing there.

    And the shooter had his gun pointed at the guy.

    If he had moved towards him aggressively then shoot.

    But not until then.

  • ThomasD||

    Having already been attacked, and the attacker being still within striking distance, the victim was not required to wait for anything further before responding.

    Here is the example that was given to me by Florida law enforcement - it comes from their own training.

    You are sitting in your car, stuck in traffic (this is from back when duty to retreat in public was still the standard.) Your doors and windows are all closed. Someone directly approaches your drive side window armed with a baseball bat.

    He cocks the bat, ready to strike. Can you shoot him?

    Nope. The threat does not presently extend into the vehicle.

    He strikes the window, shattering it. Can you shoot him?

    Yep.

  • Darr247||

    You didn't watch the video, obviously. McGlockton is clearly moving towards his victim until the moment he sees the gun clear the holster and aim at him, at which time he stops... he doesn't actually retreat until the kinetic energy of the bullet hitting him in the chest pushes him back and spins him slightly clockwise.

  • Ron||

    Looks to me like both people were assholes in this case and one asshole ended up dead. Very much like the Treyvon Martin case, two assholes meet and one dies. the lesson here is don't act like you have police authority and on the other end don't go around pushing/punching people who aren't doing anything illegal other than being busy bodies.

    that said I'm surprised Drejka didn't have his licensed revoked for prior brandishing of a weapon

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Except in the Zimmerman case only one a$$hole assaulted the other.

    And Zimmerman shot in self-defense WHILE he was being attacked. And he did not provoke the attack.

    That makes it self-defense.

  • Michael Cook||

    I am 71 yrs old. I can relate anecdote after anecdote of men my age or decades younger who are attacked by aggressive males who were barehanded and the elderly victims suddenly died from their injuries.

    In Seattle when I escorted inmates to court before retirement there was a classic aggressive panhandler we called one-punch. You refused him and he hit you, hard. Victims were spending weeks or months in the hospital, several never full recovering from their injuries. Finally one died and our revolving door justice system at last very reluctantly made the prison racial statistics worse by sending one-punch away for good.

    At my age I do not owe a younger, bigger man a fair fist fight. There is no such thing in these circumstances. Thank God for SYG laws and my concealed weapons permit.

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    At your age you should have been dead for at least 6 years.

  • Rich7553||

    With your attitude, you should have been swallowed.

  • Longtobefree||

    Yep.
    'fair fight' means I walk away uninjured when it is over.

  • dchang0||

    Re: "there was a classic aggressive panhandler we called one-punch. You refused him and he hit you, hard. Victims were spending weeks or months in the hospital"

    I've got to be more careful around panhandlers if there are ones like this. (Unsarcastically and unironically) maybe I should get a CCW after all.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I would rather face a jury alive than be dead because I didnt defend myself.

  • Mcgoo95||

    and I would rather you go to jail for the rest of your life because you're a little sissy girlscout that doesn't like to be pushed but has no problem being an asshole.

  • Mark22||

    And there, in a nutshell, do we have the ideology of the left: glorify violence and thuggery while looking down their noses at law abiding citizens. Thanks for articulating it so clearly.

  • Longtobefree||

    Got through all the comments and not one about the inevitable result of Maxine Waters' call for confrontation.
    This is only the first; not the last.

  • Jerry B.||

    Of course, if Mr. Drejka hadn't had a gun and Mr. McGlockton had kicked him to death after pushing him down, this wouldn't be all over the national news.

  • Mcgoo95||

    If a monkey flew out of Mr. Drejka's ass and flung shit at Mr. McGlockton, it also probably wouldn't be all over the national news....or maybe it would. Who knows? You do, apparently.

  • Mark22||

  • Truthteller1||

    It's murder and a blow to the people that know the responsibility of concealed carry. This guy is provocative idiot who was looking for a reason to use his gun. This is not his first encounter with people parking in a handicap spot. Another George Zimmerman type psycho.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Except Zimmerman was being attacked. And didn't provoke it either.

  • bernard11||

    Yes. He did provoke it.

  • Vernon Depner||

    That's not what the evidence and testimony showed.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Yeah? How?

  • Mcgoo95||

    So in Florida (or any other state with a stand your ground law) I can go up to somebody I dislike call them a cunt whore bitch assface dogfucker, wait for them to take a swing at me or push me and then pop a cap in them? It's only a matter of time before "stand your ground" is ruled unconstitutional. It a stupid law made by stupid people.......it has a huge logic gap.

  • ThomasD||

    No, you can't.

    But on the internet you can safely create hyperbolic stawmen that have no bearing on the topic at hand.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Sullum send to think this is a decade ago and were still debating what the law "really" means. It isn't. We have plenty of precedent and case law in the sheriff's side here. Florida's law allows shit like this.

  • JB Say||

    Unjustified. Manslaughter at best. And I'm a 2A supporter with a license in TX.

  • josh||

    Can something this debatable really be considered reasonable?

  • majil||

    No hot heads may fire out of fear unless they are wearing the cool outfit the Thug Pigs now wear !
    Thug Pigs can shoot anyone anytime so don't you forget it !

  • ||

    Why did you have to push the person to the ground? Is society better off because for us jailing a guy who killed some psycho who push him down just for engaging with his girl? Should have not parked in the handicapped place,should have not push the guy. Does the guy deserve to die because he was an asshole? No but are we better off jailing this guy for his subjective defense? No.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "Engaging"

    More spin. Just call it what it was. He was yelling and initiated an argument with his wife and small children. Stop misrepresenting what happened. No matter which side you're on in this case, you have to acknowledge that Drejka was at the very least being a dickhead.

  • ||

    All people bashig mr mac. surely would not equally bash him if he was a police officer. You go tackle a police officer and he pull his piece and shots you. Open and shut case,you go tackle a ccw carrier. Everybody gives him shit.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    1) He wasn't tackled. He was pushed. This is significant because they were not currently physically engaged when the gun was drawn.
    2) A competent police officers is able to handle these sorts of scenarios without killing. It happens every day, and you don't hear about the thousands of police officers who are good at their jobs. You only hear about the incompetent ones. And this is unfortunate, because conservatives feel compelled to defend even the shitty ones.

  • The gouch||

    According to the videos I've seen there was no threat after the gun was brandished..

  • MarkInSF||

    Reading the comments, it seems like most people are totally fine with every single shoving or fist fight escalating into a homicide. You people are sick.

  • Henry Baker||

    Keep your fucking hands off other people or you're likely to get dead -- and justifiably so.

    People have a right not to be physically attacked by hothead scumbags.

  • Vernon Depner||

    This wasn't a "fight". It was an attack. Justice requires distinguishing between aggressors and their victims. You've probably been brought up to believe in "conflict resolution" nonsense, and that anyone who uses violence is in the wrong regardless of who initiated it. You people are sick.

  • ThomasD||

    Yep, criminally assault someone and you are responsible for what follows.

    The whole fight lasted a few seconds.

  • Vernon Depner||

    This wasn't a "fight". It was an attack. Justice requires distinguishing between aggressors and their victims. You've probably been brought up to believe in "conflict resolution" nonsense, and that anyone who uses violence is in the wrong regardless of who initiated it. You people are sick.

  • Mcgoo95||

    No but dipshits like you also believe it isn't possible to provoke someone enough that they want to kick your ass. Then you think it's okay to kill them. Fuck off
    \

  • Mcgoo95||

    That was supposed to be a reply to Henry Baker...

  • Vernon Depner||

    Dipshits like you believe it's not reasonable to expect adults to control their own actions and not initiate violence just because they've been verbally provoked. Yes, it's okay to use force in defense against someone who violently attacks you. Yes, in the adult world, you are presumed to be in control of yourself and are held responsible for your actions. Grow up.

  • Mark22||

    No but dipshits like you also believe it isn't possible to provoke someone enough that they want to kick your ass.

    Yes, and if you let yourself be provoked into violence, then the fault is entirely yours and you need to be prepared to deal with the consequences.

    Violence in response to words is never acceptable.

  • Mcgoo95||

    VD go fuck yourself and your fucking perfect world that doesn't exist you copsucking piece of shit. You grow the fuck up and realize that the world, and this country, in particular is full of assholes like you... now do you want to hit me? What if I said that or worse to your wife? I guess you're too civilized to want to hit or push someone who insults you or someone you love like I just did. I guess you'd just sit there and take it and a dumbfuck. Good thing you didn't push me or I'd just blow you away. You people live in some utopian fantasy where everyone is civil. In your fucked up world, every bar fight would end up in a fucking shootout.

  • Mark22||

    Outbursts like yours don't make me angry, they simply tell me that you're not worth listening to and that you're likely a psychopath with an anger problem.

    And I doubt that in "my fucked up world" every bar fight would end up in a shootout. Rather, people like you would quickly learn to control their temper. If not, you'd remove yourself quickly from the gene pool. Either way, society wins.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Thanks for handling that for me. I have nothing to add.

  • Mcgoo95||

    That's funny. I've never been in a fight in my life, although have been pushed to the ground before. I just don't have a boner for murder like you assholes. Fuck off

  • Mcgoo95||

    "....that you're likely a psychopath with an anger problem." I'm not the one that thinks it's okay to murder someone for being pushed.

  • ThomasD||

    No, it was still a fight (but not mutual combat) it started with a criminal assault and ended with lawful self defense.

  • Mcgoo95||

    No, it started with a man harassing a mans wife and children creating a conflict and ending with murder. Ftfy

  • ThomasD||

    You could say an argument started that way. But the fight started with a criminal assault.

    You do understand the NAP, right?

  • Mcgoo95||

    Unfortunately, you don't understand basic human nature.

  • Mcgoo95||

    "You do understand the NAP, right?" Obviously you do not. It non AGGRESSION principle, not non-violence principle, genius. Seems to me Drejka was acting aggressively before being pushed.

  • Henry Baker||

    The shooter was a busybody turd who was constantly chiding people in that parking lot.

    The attacker was a VERY LARGE hothead blackie with a chip on his shoulder for white people.

    They're both scumbags. Too bad there wasn't some scenario in which both of them got dead in this asinine incident. The world would be a better place.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Next time someone is screaming at your wife and kids, I hope you resist the urge to shove (not beat, not punch, not slam) them. You wouldn't want to be a "scumbag", would you?

  • ShotgunJimbo||

    Terrible for everyone involved. I keep thinking about this in terms of my family or my dad, in each situation.

    If someone was yelling at or harassing my family (I honestly dont give a fuck if I was parked illegally, you are outside my vehicle with my wife and children and I dont know if you are armed) and I was coming out of the store I would have something to say about that and want that threat gone.

    You may say "you dont know if he was harassing or threatening them"", and my response to any person with a family would be put yourself in the same situation, and someone you dont know, dont know if they are drunk or on drugs, and they are right by YOUR family, YOUR everything, encroaching on them. I would do something. I carry, so the situation might have been different I suppose. That stupid asshat should have minded his own business honestly.

    It's a sad commentary, but honestly the dead father should have acted differently. I don't know what his assessment of the threat was. But if he really thought he was a threat to his family, he shouldn't have just shoved him, he should have taken him down by whatever means necessary. And if it looked like he was merely being a pain in the ass and shaking his fist at someone parking illegally, then obviously it should be nothing more than a verbal confrontation, and shoving him forcefully to the ground would be extreme overkill.

  • ShotgunJimbo||

    Then I think about my dad. He is handicapped. He walks with a cane, he has bad hips, knees, and back. He is a wonderful guy, and honestly, a perfect fuckin american. He parks in a handicap space. He is also trained with multiple weapons (and previously martial arts, though age and wear/tear have lessened his abilities). He is an advocate of the constitution and 2nd amendment. He pretty much leaves people alone and would never get involved in something like this, but as he gets older, maybe he would get pissed and decides to say something to someone parking unnecessarily in a handicap space. If some guy came up to him and shoved his ass on the ground while he was scolding them for taking a handicap space, I would of course want him to put 2-3 in his chest, since it would be likely he would have a shattered hip, and if the situation went further, he would surely be maimed if not killed.

    Again this is a no fucking win situation. That guy should have never approached that family and hovered near their car. Maybe say something and then move on, otherwise you are asking for trouble (it seems he was). Same with the dead father. If you are going to escalate a situation from talking to physical violence, people might defend themselves, and this is a country where citizens are armed.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    All good points -- about your dad, from the sounds of it, he's smart enough to know his limitations and probably doesn't go around picking fights (even if he was inclined to do so when he was younger, which probably wasn't the case). This is actually a pretty effective self-governing mechanism. It keeps people who might otherwise be bullies in check. The guy in this case was a bully. Being armed removed the fear one might normally have by being smaller/weaker than the other guy. I guarantee he wouldn't have played parking vigilante if he wasn't carrying.

    I'm not suggesting we no longer let people carry. But we have to acknowledge that not everybody has the temperament or the brains to safely wield this responsibility.

  • ShotgunJimbo||

    I agree, I do feel that some troubled people think their CCW is a ticket to being a parking lot / neighborhood sheriff, and that if they didn't have that as a backup they would mind their business and never create the situation (I actually saw this in person the other day outside of Lowe's, though no-one died).

    EVERYONE that I personally know (maybe my buds are the good ones?) with a CCW is so much the opposite of this: having the respect that is owed to the responsibility you take up when you carry a life ending defensive tool in your wasteband. I feel like I am almost more averse to getting in a precarious confrontation when I carry because I was taught that it is a last resort, and a terrible thing that will stay with you if you unnecessarily end a life.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    That's my experience with most CCW as well. This sort of case puts those of us who support gun rights in a difficult position -- our first inclination when the democrats start yelling about gun control following instances like this might be to defend the shooter. But we can't play into their hands. When the shooter fucked up (or when the cop fucked up), we have to be ready to acknowledge that the shooter fucked up instead of being defensive. And I'm seeing a lot of defensiveness in this thread from the conservatives of the group.

  • JFree||

    Florida's law was written as a pure self-defense law. But it is enforced in a way that encourages both vigilantism and escalation of normal conflict. Both Drejka and Zimmerman are examples of the vigilantism problem. The 'I want to be a hero' fantasy. They both decided that they were going to be the enforcers of petty infractions that didn't even involve them and for which they had no enforcement authority. Start a confrontation - with the knowledge that you can use a gun to end it if it gets out of hand. Apparently a whole bunch of commenters have that same mindset - and conflate that with actual self-defense

    No surprise either that enabling vigilantism also has a big racial consequence

  • vek||

    Sorry, I have no sympathy for assholes like the guy who got shot here. He probably shouldn't have been shot, but I don't think Drejka should get it trouble for it. Somebody shouldn't have to be positive somebody else is going to kill them to use superior force back without repercussions. Keep in mind if he had stood up, one punched him, and he hit his head wrong he could have died too... Should he be prosecuted for that too? If you go around randomly assaulting people out of the blue, you're probably the kind of piece of shit who should not be alive. Harsh? Sure. But so what. The world is probably a better place without this fuckhead in it.

    Personally if I ever have to use a gun in self defense I plan to aim for the gut in most situations. It will likely not kill them, but it will sure as shit diminish them as a threat. The exception to this being if they also have a firearm on you, then you have to kill them. But in a situation where I'm afraid of getting gang beat, or stabbed or something a nice gut shot is the way to go. That way they hopefully survive and you at least don't have any wrongful death shit to deal with.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    A lot of woulda coulda's here. Yes, he could have stood up and got punched. Or maybe a piano would fall on him. Or maybe McGlockton would have raped his mouth. All kinds of possibilities. But none of them reasonable.

    Shoving occurs ALL THE TIME. The number of those shoving matches that turn into murder or serious injury is very very small, especially when you consider that Drejka was probably not going to engage in any sort of physical confrontation if he wasn't packing. So it's unreasonable to assume that something theoretically possible but extremely unlikely was going to occur.

    "The world is probably a better place without this fuckhead in it."

    I think this is an incredibly callous thing to say. You're better than that.

  • vek||

    Sure I kinda get your point. Besides what COULD have happened, we don't even know what DID happen. Homeboy could have been saying something like "I'm going to snap your fucking neck bitch!" for all we know. Or maybe the guy with the gun was talking about shooting the chick for parking in the handicap spot... We just don't know.

    As far as me being callous, maybe. But I really don't care. Frankly I think the world would be far better off without LOTS of people that presently exist in it. A huge percentage of the population is a waste of flesh that makes the world a worse place to live in... That's just reality man. Lots of shitty people exist.

    Not that I'm advocating we go out and mass murder assholes, idiots, etc, but I honestly just don't feel a lot of sympathy when those types of people die. It's like the Darwin Awards... I just can't feel that sorry for people who do things that are so incredibly dumb. Same thing with assholes like this. You don't just walk up to somebody and immediately push them to the ground. Even if the guy was talking in a scolding manner to your woman, a rational person would at least take a 5 second stab at defusing the situation. So should he have been shot? No. Do I mind that he was? Not a lot.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Even though McG initiated the "physical" aspect of the confrontation, we all acknowledge that this can be expected and justified based on some verbal behavior. If Drejka was repeatedly calling her a "nigger cunt", for example, then not a single person here would be surprised by McG's reaction. And I think most people would sympathize with it. So you're absolutely right -- there's some context that we're missing because we weren't there.

    At the end of the day, I will continue to insist it was a shove and nothing more. I see no evidence from the video, and there's no evidence from real world altercations, that Drejka's life was in jeopardy. I certainly understand why some people might become afraid in that situation. But if you're so easily scared, then you should be rethinking whether you have the temperament to carry.

  • vek||

    I'm not even saying it was justified. Pulling it may have been, to get him to back off for realz, but probably not shooting him.

    My main point was simply that I would feel little sympathy for this guy getting shot, ASSUMING the guy with the gun wasn't calling the chick a nigger cunt or threatening to break her neck or whatever. It's just my knee jerk reaction, but it is what it is.

  • BrianB||

    Let's face it, there are lots of gun fans who are hoping for a legitimate excuse to shoot someone.

  • swampwiz||

    The essential problem with "Stand Your Ground" is that it allows someone who's packing heat to start a confrontation, and then when the confrontee does any kind of physical "assault", the assaultee has the right to kill him. The law should be that anyone who is packing heat should refrain as much as reasonably possible from starting any altercation, and so this would include a self-appointed neighborhood cop or someone starting an argument over illegal parking.

  • Mcgoo95||

    According to many participating in this thread, it should not be possible for someone to provoke someone to violence through words or non-violent actions. You are correct, that is the essential problem with "stand your ground". It's also why movements like BLM exist.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Of course it's POSSIBLE to provoke an emotionally immature person to violence with words. But the escalation to physical violence is still entirely the fault of the escalator, and the consequences of their initiating the violence are entirely their responsibility. The only exception to that is if the words constitute a specific and credible threat.

    BLM exists because a large number of Americans believe that white people should NEVER defend themselves against Black criminals—that allowing them to get away with their crimes is a reasonable price to pay for protecting the safety of Black miscreants. Fuck that.

  • Mcgoo95||

    No BLM exists because of assholes like Zimmerman and the one in this story getting away with murder. You're not living in the real world. In your fucked up world, murder is acceptable if you were pushed for being an asshole. Fuck off

  • Vernon Depner||

    So, not allowing a criminal to beat you to death is being an "asshole" in your world. Sorry, mine is not the one that's "fucked up".

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Anyone who thinks that "beat you to death" is the logical conclusion from "shove" is a pussy. There's really no getting around that.

  • Pat_||

    Are you upset the pussy who slammed the guy on the ground got shot? You are defending the pussy.

  • Vernon Depner||

    You can tell that BLM prioritizes the protection of Black criminals by the way they beatify and trademark violent criminals like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, while giving far less attention to innocent victims of police violence such as Tamir Rice and John Crawford.

  • vek||

    Yup. It would be one thing if they only talked about the legit cases of abuse, but when they take up the cases of drug addled people being totally out of line, with a mile long criminal record... It just doesn't get me on board. There are lots of cases of police violence where the cops need to be crucified, but half the cases BLM has made a big deal out of the cops were at least somewhat justified. I would have preferred most of those guys got tased instead of shot, but when you go fucking with the cops and not obeying their commands in an already escalated situation... It's not exactly unexpected you might get your ass shot. That's why I'm always super nice to the cops I have to interact with, I don't wanna get capped!

  • vek||

    The truth is this is a messy and case by case issue. If some guy who is twice your size attacks you, and is continuing to be threatening, WTF do you do?

    I had a guy try to mug me a couple months ago, and by chance I had left my pepper spray that I usually have on me just for kicks in my car. He was a HUGE dude, I'm not. This guy was threatening to break my jaw. Fortunately he was a little drunk and an idiot, so I was able to basically dart away from him towards some other people... BUT if I had had my pepper spray, or a concealed carry permit, should I have shot him? I may well have, because this guy may well have beat me to death, or beat my so badly my face was disfigured for life or whatever.

    When somebody is being crazy and aggressive you don't know what might happen. People get put in the hospital over scuffed sneakers and shit dude... I escaped with nothing happening to either of us... But if he had ended up in a pool of blood he would have had it coming. Same is true in MANY of these cases. Not all, but many.

    I just can't feel bad for shitheads who go around doing stuff like that. Human lives are only precious when they're DECENT humans. If all the thugs and shitheads died tomorrow the world would be an AWESOME place. So every one of them that gets taken out of the equation, even if maybe they shouldn't have been killed, is not something I'm going to shed any tears over.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    emotionally immature

    Uh huh. Verbal confrontation can be no holds bar, but just don't shove anybody.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    barred*

  • Joe Bright||

    True. In Texas, a "stand your ground State", you are seen as threatened if assaulted and justified in self defense, unless you went out of your way to pick the fight, as this guy seems to have.

  • Azathoth!!||

    I don't think anyone here defending this guy has ever been attacked.

    Certainly no one is talking as if they'd experienced it first hand--because anyone who had wouldn't be saying anything as stupid as 'he was just shoved' or 'he should have known'.

    Things kinda get really different when someone hits you. Everything kinda wraps around the event and you slam into fight or flight mode. And it really feels different when it happens suddenly and involuntarily

    And if one of those 'modes' is cut off, the brain just slams into overdrive.

    And you act.

    And all of this, every decision you make, happens in less than seconds, in spaces of time you didn't even know existed before

    and one thought looms large--survive.

    Because, you see, you don't know that it was 'only' a shove or 'only' anything. The only way to know that is if there's no one there to hit, or if the attacker de-escalates immediately, loudly, and keeps you focused on that.

    It's REALLY easy to analyze this afterwards. It's not during.

  • Bob Meyer||

    I agree completely. I grew up in NYC and if you were knocked to the ground during an assault from a stranger, the assumption is that you are about to either be kicked to death or be mounted and pounded into the pavement.

    Street fights are about as scary as anything you'll ever experience. Looking up at his attacker, Drejka had no reason to believe that his life was not in danger.

    So for his critics I say when you get knocked to the ground by an angry stranger just lie there and see what happens.

  • JFree||

    It's REALLY easy to analyze this afterwards. It's not during.

    I agree. But the LEGAL issue requires analyzing the homicide afterwards - and that cannot be avoided. And realistically for a determination of justifiable self-defense a whole lot of counterfactual what-ifs SHOULD be considered.

    eg - what if the woman was carrying? Would she have been justified in shooting in self-defense if she thought she or her kids were being threatened? Does she lose that right of self-defense merely because she wasn't carrying? If that's the case, does the right of self-defense only apply to the mightiest not the rightiest? hahaha

    Traditionally the castle doctrine is an easy self-defense case because there is rarely a reason why someone is entering one's house without some sort of intent to cause harm. That does NOT apply to encounters in public - but those encounters in public are the sole application of SYG laws.

  • EscherEnigma||

    […] does the right of self-defense only apply to the mightiest not the rightiest?


    Sure.

    Consider this story. At it's barebones, you have Guy A is hassling the family of Guy B. Guy B shoves Guy A, defending his family from an aggressor. Guy A then shoots Guy B, having just been attacked.

    In the real story, Guy B then dies a bloody death and Guy A is likely to get away with manslaughter.

    But let's say that Guy B had, after being (non-fatally) shot, pulled out his own gun and shot Guy A. I think his own self-defense claim at that point would have been pretty air-tight, after all he didn't escalate to lethal force, the other guy did.

    Or what if Guy B's family had then acted, maybe the woman tackles Guy A, pulls his gun away and shoots him. I mean, she just saw him shoot Guy B, I think "I was afraid for my life" would be a pretty easy claim.

    So yes. To an unfortunate degree, self defense laws favor the survivor (the "mightiest"), not the one who was most justified (the "rightiest").

  • JFree||

    this is exactly how the counterfactuals do come in. Historically - before the SYG laws - the justice system had to parse through all the specifics and particulars of a case - to judge each claim of self-defense on its own merits as the judge, jury, lawyers, witnesses, evidence are best able to present their interpretation. Which is probably as it should be. Or is at least reasonable.

    What the SYG does - in FL now with a legislated change to the law in 2017 is change the burden of proof. From what was put in SYG in 2005 as a public space right to self defense (which itself was a slight tweak from the pre-SYG days where one is reasonably required to retreat in public rather than reasonably required to stand and fight). To a post-2017 PRESUMPTION that the exercise is reasonable once it is claimed - so the burden is now on the prosecution to provide clear and convincing evidence that the self-defense claim is flawed before the case can even be adjudicated. Where the state itself now incurs a civil liability if they even bring a case before the court system and lose.

    That 2017 change was already being litigated as to whether it could be applied retroactively. Now we have a very public example of vigilantism under the new law/statutes. My guess - Florida is about to witness an explosion in homicides - and the police/courts can do nothing afterwards.

  • EscherEnigma||

    At least as of 2012, the rate of "justifiable homicides" had already spiked in Florida following the 2005 law, so I'm not sure the rate is going to jump again.

  • JFree||

    What the 2017 amendments did, in effect, was eliminate the centuries-old common law notion that a claim of self-defense still requires a semblance of proof/evidence (which means its gonna go to court). Now it merely requires the fearfeelz and the assertion - and the burden thus falls on the prosecution to prove the negative.

    Kind of the How to Get Away With Murder amendment - which is unique to Florida. And now it is publicly known.

  • vek||

    Well MAYBE this will make sensible people think a littler harder before they start attacking people. I'm sure some innocent people will be killed, and many innocent defenders will be protected from prosecution that wouldn't have. The best outcome would be people realizing that people have the right to wreck your fucking world, so people may start acting a little better. If not then they get what they get.

    As I said above I have little sympathy for assholes who go around starting physical violence. Even if somebody is shit talking in 95% of cases it's best to just let it slide. I figured this out in elementary school after being a scrapper when I was really young... But most people don't have as high an IQ as I have, so seem to never figure it. If a few more overly aggressive assholes get taken out of the gene pool I won't be crying about it.

  • JFree||

    I'm sure some innocent people will be killed, and many innocent defenders will be protected from prosecution that wouldn't have.

    I doubt you can point to a single example where a legitimate self-defense claim has been turned into being railroaded into a prison sentence in a court. Certainly the NRA and the legislators who amended the SYG law in 2017 didn't cite any example like that. They made that amendment SOLELY in response to the Florida Supreme Court (and every other court that has ever ruled on the issue) making explicit that SYG, under common law, cannot provide immunity from prosecution but is merely a reason for acquittal. I would recommend you read that decision because it involves a case that stretches the definition of 'self-defense' much further than this McG one.

    Rather, rephrasing in your own words, they just upended and reversed Blackstone's aphorism from:
    Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer

    to
    Better that ten innocent persons die than that one guilty person face the embarrassment of a trial where they are acquitted

    solely by basically redefining who the victim is in a homicide. Apparently, the victim is now the one carrying the smoking gun. Whodathunk it.

  • Pat_||

    This would be a justifiable homicide in Washington DC which has no 'stand your ground"

    You are simply desperate to make this about SYG when it is not

  • vek||

    Maybe they're going too far, but it is an outright lie to say nobody has been prosecuted for legitimate self defense. People have been charged for shooting people who broke into their homes in the middle of the night. I'm sorry but somebody in my house in the middle of the night is going to die, because I don't know their intentions. In some retarded states where they don't have protections that are in favor of the defender they have been prosecuted for shooting somebody because it was found out after the fact they weren't armed, etc. Also in cases where the person was ostensibly leaving. Sorry but IMO if somebody breaks into your house, and even if they are trying to run away with some of your shit, I'm fine with a person like that being shot.

    I don't have a problem using force, even enough to kill them, on shitty people. I have zero sympathy for a home invader being shot trying to escape from the scene of the crime.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    But the police, the prosecutor, and possibly a jury ARE going to analyze it afterwards.

    Better be real careful because you might not like what they decide about it.

  • tomter||

    Do you think hurting them further would be a great choice?
    https://www.makemyassignments.com/au/

  • Richard Manfredi||

    An accident is two stupid people in the same place at the same time , or one very stupid person by themself .
    The handicap parking police should try to mind their own business. Even without ahandicap car sticker , one oesn't know if there is severe back pain,or some other problem which requires a quick temporary use of a space . There are two problems with physical confrontations . They are easy to start and hard to end . You don't know how ,or where they will end . He should have kept his hands to himself .

  • Joe Bright||

    Agreed. Don't touch people unless you are subject to a threat yourself.

  • bernard11||

    Read the comments, Jacob.

    These are your "responsible gun owners."

    The plain fact is that, as you say, McGlockton was backing away when shot, but the macho idiots won't admit it.

    Doesn't suit their fantasies.

  • Darr247||

    McGlockton was advancing until his victim drew. If you didn't see that, you clearly have not watched the video.

  • vek||

    True, but he did seem to be backing away after it came out. That said the version of the video I saw cut out the actual shooting section, so I don't know if he started heading back towards him in that second or two that got cut out. That would be MAJOR if he did.

    I still don't think the guy should have shot, but I don't think he should be crucified because he did either. Snap decisions happen.

  • Joe Bright||

    I disagree. Assault, in and of itself, always and categorically gives reason to believe one is in danger.

    Even so there is a mitigating factor and that is "what did he do to get assaulted?" Taking a matter into his own hands that was none his business was the problem. How and where the victim parked, unless the shooter was being blocked, was none of the shooter's business. That he did this demonstrates an attitude of aggression and this is what I would focus on as indicative of that aggression.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Assault, in and of itself, always and categorically gives reason to believe one is in danger.

    Nope. An analogy I used earlier in this thread: hearing thunder does not always and categorically give reason to believe one is in danger either. Just because something is physically possible does not mean it is rational to expect that outcome.

  • vek||

    Seriously? Thought experiment.

    If you walk by a guy on the street who has done nothing and said nothing to you, what are the odds he is going to break your jaw and kick your ribs in until you're on the verge of death? Basically zero.

    Now, a guy who has already physically attacked you and has you on the ground standing over you... The odds aren't 100% he's going to beat you within an inch of your life, but they're pretty damn high. And even if he wasn't going to try to beat you severely, maybe he would go in for several more kicks, or punch you in the face another half dozen times. Should somebody be OBLIGATED to get a mid range beating because they don't think they're going to be killed?

    Hell no.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Fair enough. Except for the part about no third-party determination of what happened—which you left out. And which Florida's law leaves out too, at least for practical purposes.

    Victim unarmed? That ought to be sufficient cause for an indictment and trial. I don't agree with your assertion, "The odds aren't 100% he's going to beat you within an inch of your life, but they're pretty damn high." I think you are reasoning that because the odds are multiples of what you could expect from a random stranger, that must make them high odds. But even one-hundred times nearly-zero is still a small number. You are arguing that it ought to be considered a large number. I suggest experience does not support your conclusion. You and others may disagree. The right answer is that any reasonable determination will be case specific, and fact dependent. That means you need a trial—not a fact-free, all purpose pre-judgment in favor of the shooter.

    Every shooting of an unarmed person which does not happen consequent to invasion of the shooter's home ought to result in a trial.

  • Vernon Depner||

    no third-party determination of what happened...which Florida's law leaves out too, at least for practical purposes...not a fact-free, all purpose pre-judgment in favor of the shooter.

    That is not an accurate description of the process in Florida. There will be an investigation and a hearing to determine the validity of the self-defense claim. That ruling can be against the self-defense claim, in which case there can be a trial.

  • Pat_||

    Every shooting of an unarmed person which does not happen consequent to invasion of the shooter's home ought to result in a trial.

    that is NONSENSE, not the case in any of the 50 states, and against all UK decent common law as well.

    The guy who was defending himself in this case was ASSAULTED, slammed down on concrete

  • vek||

    I go back to my point of should somebody be OBLIGATED to get their ass beat, even if it's just a few more kicks to their head/ribs/whatever, when somebody is attacking them? I say no. If you're going to assault somebody you need to understand that person might be able to beat you to death with THEIR bare hands if they're a badass, or they may have a weapon that can kill you.

    Nobody has an obligation to allow themselves to be beat because their alternative for defending themselves might be not favorable to their attacker.

    Sure, there should be the ability to question these things in court... And in ALL cases there is. If somebody is deemed to have been the aggressor they can always be taken to court, but protecting them from being prosecuted for possibly using what SOME people would deem to be too much force in such a situation is BS.

  • Toom Tabard||

    Dear Bernard11 (aka Dead-Thread fucker),

    Rules to remember:

    1) Stay out of people's business unless it is directly impacting you.
    2) Don't touch/push/stomp/slap someone who has not done it to you first.
    3) Use the weapon as a last resort only.

    Easy.

    Signed, Me

  • bernard11||

    Dear Toom,

    Tell it to Dreijka.

  • ||

    This was an extreme example of poor judgement by everyone involved. The victim should not have pecked a fight. The shooter probably should have left his weapon holstered. The Police should probably have charged the shooter, and let the DA and perhaps a jury decide what is justifiable.
    The sad truth is the worst use of judgement in this case was by the victim. Had he not rushed out and began the interaction violently, it's more than likely none of this would have happened.
    The reason the police should have charged the shooter would be to send the message that stand you ground rights will be scrutinized, and judgement will be questioned. To proceed further would be up to prosecutors, but another set of eyes would look at the matter.
    In the end, an armed society is a more polite society....

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    He didn't "begin the interaction". He responded to a man accosting his wife and kids. He was alerted by a bystander (who also thought Drejka's actions were over the top), which is why he ran out to address the situation without the stuff he bought in the store (or his kid who was still in there!). Note that his "violence" was a shove. There was literally no indication that he planned any further physical confrontation. The case is scary because many, many people are protective of their family and would have responded to a stranger in the same exact way. And that's not "bad judgment".

  • ThomasD||

    Note that his "violence" was a shove.

    Note that his 'violence' was indeed violence?

    Ok.

    I can tell you don't understand how words work. You might want to start with the meaning of 'literally.'

  • ThomasD||

    You should also consider that the legal standard here is not a 'literal indication' but instead a reasonable belief. Something that you surely cannot be ignorant of, having participated this much in the discussion.

    I get that you don't like that fact, and are choosing to ignore it. But isn't choosing to ignore relevant information the very essence of junk science?

  • Vernon Depner||

    My guess is he's been a bully all his life and has developed a sense of entitlement that those he perceives as weaker are his rightful prey to push around. That would explain why he has this bizarre idea that physically assaulting people for causing offense is something normal and to be expected. The idea of "pussies" leveling the field by arming themselves infuriates him—it just isn't fair!

  • Mcgoo95||

    Thomas D and Vernon Depner both have a boner for murder at the least, at the worst are racist assholes, it would seem. Fuck off!

  • vek||

    Entirely possible that he is a serial assaulter. Most normal people I know don't walk up to people and immediately assault them, even if they're going in to confront somebody about something. You USE YOUR WORDS first. Like an adult. If he had done that I suspect he'd still be alive and well.

  • Mcgoo95||

    In case you missed / didn't wtfv, the dude stood there and yelled at the his wife for 1:36 minutes to the point where other customers walking into the store noticed it and said something to the McGlockton who then went outside to see waht was going on. You can see that he wasn't alarmed until his wife or gf started to get out the car and something happened that provoked him to push him. Don't know what it was.

    "Entirely possible that he is a serial assaulter. " Also possible he's a kindergarden teacher asshole.

  • Wearenotperfect||

    You're right. Drejka confronted Jacobs by saying "move your fucking car", he used words to get his point across. Jacobs responded by saying "I park where I want", she used words to get her point across. Drejka, knowing he had been through a CCW class that specifically advised him to avoid confrontational situations should have taken the moral high ground and called the real parking authorities.
    Why does everyone who believes that Drejka was justified in his actions neglect the fact that he had made threats in the resent past and even brandished his weapon which one individual stated to authorities? This guy was out to "be handy with the steel" and would not be considered just "any jeek off the street" for one second longer, or two! I wonder how long he had been a CCW permit before all these reported altercations occurred, that could explain a lot.

  • Mcgoo95||

    Because it's considered to be a defining principle of libertarianism and because people have incorrectly invoked the Non-aggression principle (NAP) in this thread, It could easily be argued that the shooter violated the NAP for harassing the deceased man's wife and children. Here is the definition of aggression.
    ag·gres·sion
    əˈɡreSHən/
    noun
    noun: aggression

    hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.
    "his chin was jutting with aggression"
    synonyms: hostility, aggressiveness, belligerence, bellicosity, force, violence; More
    pugnacity, pugnaciousness, militancy, warmongering;
    attack, assault
    "an act of aggression"
    the action or an act of attacking without provocation.
    plural noun: aggressions
    "he called for an end to foreign aggression against his country"
    forceful and sometimes overly assertive pursuit of one's aims and interests.
    synonyms: confidence, self-confidence, boldness, determination, forcefulness, vigor, energy, zeal
    "he played the game with unceasing aggression"

  • Darr247||

    "Gualtieri conceded that Drejka "probably could have" fended McGlockton off simply by brandishing the pistol."

    Brandishing is illegal.
    If a guy much bigger than you knocks you to the ground and advances menacingly to the point where you think he's about to continue the attack, once you draw you MUST shoot or get charged with Brandishing, which will result in your gun being confiscated and your carry permit being revoked.

    Jacobs started it by parking in the spot without a permit, then continued it by not moving to one of the other open spots actually closer to the door, clearly visible in the video... then McGlockton escalated it by coming out and immediately beginning a physical attack, then escalating further by continuing towards the guy on the ground and not stopping until he saw the guy draw.

  • Wearenotperfect||

    Not the way I see it so sorry but I politely disagree.

  • Mcgoo95||

    "Brandishing is illegal.
    If a guy much bigger than you knocks you to the ground and advances menacingly to the point where you think he's about to continue the attack, once you draw you MUST shoot or get charged with Brandishing, which will result in your gun being confiscated and your carry permit being revoked."

    Oh jeez, much better to kill someone than have your gun confiscated and cc permit revoked. Fuck off

  • JFree||

    continued it by not moving to one of the other open spots actually closer to the door, clearly visible in the video

    So she was aggressive because she didn't move her car at the behest of some loudmouth third party who was just walking by, had absolutely nothing at stake, and no authority to demand that she move her car?

    And BTW - by the time the shoving/shooting occurs, those parking spaces are all filled with their passengers already in the store - which indicates that the guy was yelling at her for quite a long time - far far longer than any normal 'passerby' would be taking merely to point out or 'shame her' that she was parked in a handicapped spot. He was going to abnormal and definitely unreasonable lengths to pick a fight with her. To the point where she was, it could be argued (though prob not successfully), being falsely imprisoned in her car.

  • JFree||

    Jacobs started it by parking in the spot without a permit

    Of course. Because the penalty for doing that in Florida nowadays - while black - is extrajudicial execution of a family member. Golly gee. This sounds familiar.

    40 years ago - that parking spot would have had a sign whites only not handicapped permit only. But the notion that ANY white person has a presumed vigilante/deputized right to hassle any black person for petty reasons that don't even concern them personally still apparently persists strongly in a shit-ton of racist GOP commenters here.

  • Mcgoo95||

    Agreed. Seems to me the Reason commentariat is being hijacked.... either by racist nationalists or people trying to paint libertarians as racist nationalists.....fucking weird.

  • Pat_||

    that is nonsense. Only the left wing nuts are bringing in race. per murder committed by racial cohorts, blacks benefit from self define law much more than whites do.

    Vigilante acts are about third parties. It is a strawman to call this a "vigilante act" when the guy who attacked the defender is who was shot.

  • Mcgoo95||

    "Only the left wing nuts are bringing in race. per murder committed by racial cohorts, blacks benefit from self define law much more than whites do."

    What are you even talking about? Come on man, back up your claims.

  • JFree||

    Brandishing is illegal.

    BTW - brandishing is NOT illegal if one is faced with anywhere even remotely the same sort of threat that justifies discharging the weapon. If you discharge a weapon you by necessity have to pull it out of the holster first unless your intent is to shoot your foot off. NO one in history has ever been charged for pulling their weapon while failing to discharge it.

    Brandishing would be illegal if he pulled his gun out on the woman while yelling at her about her parking space - or while walking down the street facing no threat.

    There is not a chance in hell that in this video that brandishing would even remotely be considered controversial by anyone. It is the HOMICIDE that is controversial.

  • ||

    Sorry, but you don't get to violently assault someone because he said mean things to you. Why do you racists think that black men should not have to control their behavior?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Sorry, but you don't get to violently assault someone because he said mean things to you.

    That is the simple and obvious bottom line here. The logical contortions people are going through in this thread to excuse and normalize the initiation of violence are both amusing and disturbing.

    Why do you racists think that black men should not have to control their behavior?

    I guess they're just being "realists" in their minds. They just accept that the grossly disproportionate rate at which Black men commit violent crimes is a fact of life, which means that if more people start defending themselves against criminals, the criminals defended against will be disproportionately Black. As I said above, they've decided that allowing Black criminals to get away with their crimes is a reasonable price to pay to ensure that Black criminals will not be harmed or killed by victims defending themselves. Their racism is in assuming that promoting tolerance of Black criminals is a more realistic goal than convincing Black men to reduce their commission of violent crimes.

  • Mcgoo95||

    FUCK OFF SLAVER!!!!!

  • Mcgoo95||

    Name should be Vernon Derpner......derpity, derpity, derp is all I hear coming from you. Did someone pay you, asshole, to come here and try to paint libertarians as a bunch of racist, anarchist, back woods dipshits that can't conceal their murder boners (as many "progressives" believe libertarians to be)? If so, you're doing a fantastic job but please, go fuck off somewhere else...

  • Pat_||

    Wow, triggered much? Read the article. It is not a stand your ground case.

    And what are your OWN racists statements? African Americans benefit more from self defense law than do whites.

    The guy withe "violence boner" was the guy who got shot. he initiated the violence. why do you deny that when we can see it on the video??

  • Mcgoo95||

    It's murder boner. Come on man.....

    "African Americans benefit more from self defense law than do whites." Care to explain yourself?

  • Mcgoo95||

    "Wow, triggered much?" Assholes getting away with murder is about the only thing that does trigger me. Fuck off slaver.

  • MarkJ-||

    IMO This Murder,, and Murder it is, shows the major flaw in SYG law.

    Not for the first time we have a shooter who started the altercation pull a firearm, shoot, and then claims self defense.
    I could be wrong but I don't think this is what SYG laws were intended for.

    In this particular case the shooter, instead of calling the police about the possible misuse of a handicap parking spot. the shooter chose to start and incident with a woman, was pushed down, not even punched, and was not being attacked at the time he shot. The only thing he was in fear of was his false pride being injured.

    I support the concept of SYG but definitely not this wild abuse of it.

    Again, I support SYG but I do not support turning our streets into "Dodge City".

    Some of you seem to support this claim of S-D,, What would you be saying if the deceased's lady had pulled a firearm and put 5 into the shooter's head? She definitely had reason to fear for her safety, no doubt at all about that.

    How about a bystander, after he pulled his firearm was this shooter fair game for any passer-by that felt threatened by a shooter in a parking lot?

    How about if the deceased had pulled a firearm at the shooters draw and shot faster? You certainly have cause to fear when someone attempts to pull their firearm.

    Where is the line drawn? IMO you lose the right to claim self defense when you choose to instigate. Anything else makes this a game of fast draw.

  • Mcgoo95||

    "Not for the first time we have a shooter who started the altercation pull a firearm, shoot, and then claims self defense.
    I could be wrong but I don't think this is what SYG laws were intended for."

    Exactly. However, it seems sherriffs in Florida are too stupid to figure out how to correctly interpret the law.....or Florida's law's are horribly written. Whichever, Florida is someplace I will avoid...not that I ever wanted to visit anyway.

  • JFree||

    Florida's SYG law is uniquely crappy.

    Most SYG laws pretty much everywhere do one thing that is reasonable/legitimate (eliminate the legal 'duty to retreat' in public which can be interpreted excessively) while failing to do the one thing that is necessary when eliminating that 'duty to retreat' (you can't instigate/exacerbate the conflict - while then claiming protection from duty to retreat). It is an issue that IS unique to how an armed person behaves in public knowing that they are armed and the other person may not be. It is taught by pretty much every gun safety or CCW person - ie possessing a gun is not a license to be a bully and indeed the reverse is true. But at least every other state adjudicates all that in court and lets the court decide what is reasonable or not.

    What Florida has done, legally and uniquely, is take the adjudication decision for all that stuff out of the legal system - and put it in the fearfeelz mind of the person with the gun. Which also then makes it impossible to adjudicate what is actually 'reasonable' because it will never make it to court now if there's a question about whether its reasonable.

  • Mcgoo95||

    So, the genius legislators in Florida allow people who have guns to define what the words "reasonable threat" means all by themselves? Brilliant. Seems there is a huge conflict of interest here if the shooter also gets to be judge and jury. How can this not be an unconstitutional violation of the 5th amendment by denying due process to the family of dead guy?

  • Mcgoo95||

    Actually, I now realize that it is the sherrif that gets to decide what "reasonable threat" means and then gets to be judge and jury. Not sure if that's any better.....

  • Psychlops69||

    Concealed carry laws do not allow you to start an altercation and then shoot someone when you get your ass kicked. I'm not sure if Stand your ground applies when you instigate the situation to which you cant flee.

  • Vernon Depner||

    In this case, the person who initiated the violence was the one who got shot.

  • Mcgoo95||

    Since you can't read, he said "altercation" not violence. The person who initiated aggresion was the shooter, not the guy who got shot. wtfv

  • singaporeassignment||

    Mass communication assignment is newest thing for students of assignment help singapore. Singaporeassignmenthelp.com experts can easily avail the facility of liability assignment writing for students at lowest price. https://www.singaporeassignmenthelp.com/

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online