Stand Ur Gound
 

Bad parking, words, assault, shooting, death.

Things escalated quickly.

I saw that on the news. Took place in Clearwater. Guy pushed a man down who was carrying a concealed weapon. Argument over a parking spot and the girlfriend's parking job or something like that.

Just do not get the result that this shooting was justified. Seems like a ridiculous slippery slope.

Someone called someone out for parking in a handicapped spot who wasn't handicapped. Boyfriend defended girlfriend verbally who was sitting in the car in the handicapped space and then boyfriend pushed the other guy down, the pushed down guy fired on him.

Not good, any way you slice it. The not handicapped man/woman shouldn't have parked in the handicapped space. The man should NOT have called them out on it, the boyfriend should not have laid his hands on the guy even if he was ****ed, and the man shouldn't have killed him. Most of us would NOT have had this happen because, except for on this forum, we usually mind our own business, like our PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS taught us, and common sense urges us to do.


Please someone help me down from here.

If the man who was pushed down was over 65, I think the law may consider the shooting justified. Florida has strict laws about when someone can shoot another person, but when the person being threatened is elderly, it is easier to justify that his life was in danger.

Just do not get why it is OK to pull a gun in a shoving match. There are circumstances when I could see it being OK if the person shoved is in very bad health and could die from being pushed over, but that does not seem to be the case.

Facts should matter a great deal in these cases.

We don't know Counselor, but apparently it may be the law here. Laws are not always logical or in everyone's best interest.

Minding your own business unless it is a clear case of helping someone who is in danger or hurt is the best policy and often practiced by OLD people and smart new ones.

Florida Shooter Protected By Stand Your Ground Law

We must always ask ourselves; Do we want to have the last word or do we want our nose smacked in???(I say as I sit here protected in my kitchen)

Live and Let Live!

Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law - ABC News

Facts should matter with the law. Context is extremely important.

If you have not seen the video of this, there is one above. Granted this is slanted a bit in coverage.

I also say, laws be damned, if ANY creature ever threatened the life of my heirs and assigns, I could tear them apart and set them on fire.

Oxytocin. Amazing ****.

Bottom line, mind your own damn business.

Tough call on this one. That was an uncalled for rough shove to the ground. If the pushed down man felt further physically threatened I can understand why he shot the man who battered him.

Someone tried to carjack me in rural Eastern Nevada just off of Highway 50 in a rest stop at 3:00 AM in June of 1984. He had threatened to slam the door on my legs when I was moving things around to sleep. I managed to get my legs back in the car and thought seriously of running the man over but instead backed it up and got out of there. Had to pull over to get some sleep soon after that.

I regret that I did not report this to the police. I was so tired that I did not think I could have given them an accurate account of what happened.

The place I had wanted to stop for the night had lost power to its hotels and gas pumps. Did manage to find gas further on but was coasting on fumes. Thankfully the gas station was at the other side of a steep hill from the powerless town. But a good distance between gas stations.

I still wonder what would have happened if I had run that guy over? He was not armed that I could see. Just threatened to slam the door on my legs if I did not get out of the car.

Testosterone. I don't have that.

What is the next physical act following the shove to the ground ? A kick in the head ?? There have been a number of incidents over the years where the person shoved struck their heads and died. I must admit if I were shoved in the manner depicted in the video, fear for my life would enter the equation. I think the authorities made the right call in not charging the shooter but also understand that decision is subject to review. The answer is easy, keep your hands off of others even when angry.

It looks like self defense to me.

1. The "pusher" backed up, physically, away from "ground guy" after shoving the guy.
2. Assuming the "ground guy" felt threatened (which would be understandable) there is still no reason to KILL the pusher. Ground guy was on the ground. Ground guy could've shot the pusher in the foot. Or leg. Or arm. Or hip, or shoulder. It was a big looking pusher, and they were close range. Not much chance to miss. Ground guy chose a death shot. Ground guy committed murder, not self-defense. Cops chose not to allow charges to be pressed.

Who in this case?

As a card carrying proponent of concealed carry, the shooter did not abide for the very specific rules and guidelines regarding when to pull one's weapon....there is no distinction between pulling a concealed weapon and firing the concealed weapon....as one would only pull their weapon to fire it.....not negotiate.

But before getting to that point there were two other aspects also ignored.....flee....hide from a shooting scenario.

Also there was no immediate threat to anybody's life or others nearby. We may not like the idea of a shoving match and an elder being knocked down.....none of which come anywhere close to justifying pulling a weapon and shooting.

Too many people are uninformed regarding the rules of engagement when authorized to carry a concealed weapon. It is not the wild west version of carrying a weapon.....though some few would have us think that.
The first line of defense is to, if at all possible, avoid a situation requiring the need to draw a weapon.

A good lawyer will no doubt create a doubt in a jury's mind about the justification of the shooting.

Those permitted to carry know better!!!!

Well, if he's not being charged, then there will be no jury. All he had to say was he feared for his life. It's his word---shooting justified under SYG law.

Is is up to the prosecutor if charges will be filed against this shooter.

Words are words but once someone puts their hands on another person, especially and older person, all bets are off.

If I got pushed to the ground by a young muscular guy, I'd be afraid for my life or at least my personal safety.

This sounds like someone who knows very little about using a handgun for self defense. It is not like Person of Interest where they shoot people in the knee so they don't kill them. If you have to use a handgun for self defense you aim at the middle of the torso so you minimize the chance of missing. Handguns are very inaccurate. Even at close range missing the target is likely. In a life or death situation you usually don't have time to aim. It's point and shoot and hope you hit the target and stop the threat.

Stand Ur Ground
 

Information as it appeared in the Tampa Times....
The confrontation between Michael Drejka, 47, and Markeis McGlockton, 28, took place in a convenience store parking lot Thursday afternoon. According to deputies, Drejka confronted McGlockton’s girlfriend, Britany Jacobs, about parking in a handicap space without a permit.

McGlockton went up to Drejka and "slammed him to the ground," the sheriff said. Drejka, seconds later while still on the ground, pulled out his handgun and shot McGlockton in the chest. The father of three was pronounced dead soon after.

They stopped at the Circle A Food Store at 1201 Sunset Point Road on the way home from picking Jacobs up from her job as a certified nursing assistant to grab chips and drinks. Jacobs parked in the handicap spot, she said, because the parking lot was busy and they were just stopping for a minute.

Drejka went up to her.

"He’s getting out like he’s a police officer or something, and he’s approaching me," she said. "I minded my own business … I didn’t do anything wrong."

Records show Drejka does not have a criminal history in Florida, although the Sheriff’s Office had prior contact with him in 2012 when a driver accused him of pulling a gun during a road rage incident. Drejka denied he showed the gun, and the accuser declined to press charges.

Mustafa Hashen, a clerk and witness, said both men were regulars.

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

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

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

You do not shoot to wound ( no one is that good in a life and death situation to do that ). The shot is center body mass and is intended to kill. When you make a decision to fire, you have made the decision to end a life unfortunately and must live with the aftermath.

Sounds like a person looking for trouble and an excuse to shoot someone. This is different from the story as I first understood it.

But I still say once you put your hands on someone you run the risk of whatever happens.

In this case, both parties were wrong. If Drejka wants to confront people about parking in a handicap spot that his right. But if he's looking to shoot someone, which would be hard to prove, that's a problem. The fact that he has threatened to shoot people in the past is very problematic.

On the other hand, once McGlockton pushed him to the ground he was in the wrong as well. Like I said, words are words but once it becomes physical, everything changes.

The pusher committed a violent crime and paid the consequences. Self defense. I hope the case is closed, and politics does not play a role. The sheriff made the correct decision by not making an arrest.

Nice job of stating the rule of engagement.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Cops did the right thing, turned it over to the DA! Let them review the tape and eyewitness accounts and then charge accordingly.

Looking more and more like someone who wants to play vigilante and should never have been given a concealed gun permit with that kind of mindset.

I am glad we have the second amendment. I am glad we don't have guns. If we ever need them we can get educated on how to use them and get some.

He was just exercising his freedom of speech and was the victim of a violent crime. If he didn't have a gun, he may be the dead one. Watch the video.

OK. Let me respond to a couple of things that have been said. The shooter was 47 (not elderly), and has been known to approach people like this in the past. The pusher is clearly seen taking steps toward the shooter after he was on the ground (continued threat), backing up only after he saw the gun.

I gotta say, I am not a fan of either of these guys.

Not a fan of the woman driving either. There were other parking spots available.

Wrong
 

A true Bostonian would NEVER say that!

The Stand Your Ground Law removes the requirement to try and escape from an attacker, if you have a right to be where you are at the time of the attack. The prosecutor does have the ability to charge someone with murder, regardless of Stand Your Ground, if the shooter fails to demonstrate that they met the requirements for self defense. Does anyone remember the original George Zimmerman case? The prosecutor charged him with murder, however he was found innocent at trial. (Note: the decision included a myriad of factors such as disparity of force)

Apparently the police, after completing an investigation, did not arrest the shooter in this case. Has the prosecutor decided not to file charges (I may have missed that)? The prosecutor determines if a case will be charged based upon the information collected by the police. Should there be a determination not to charge, and the case closed, under Florida law, the shooter would also be shielded from lawsuits by the deceased's family.

I watched the video, did not hear any audio, and I don't know what any witnesses reported in terms of a dialogue. Was the deceased threatening to kill the person on the ground? The deceased was standing close enough to the shooter that if he was threatening further violence, the shooter may have reasonably felt he was in mortal danger, since he was already attacked with the initial push. There was a study called the Tueller Drill which showed that a person with a knife could travel 21 feet in only 1.5 seconds and tap a target with the knife to simulate an attack. The deceased appeared to be much closer to the shooter at the time of the shooting, so don't let the distance between the two sway you when you watch the video.

Having a concealed carry permit is not a license to kill. A gun should only be drawn for the purposes of defending your life or the lives of your family. As another poster indicated, you don't pull a gun and try to shoot someone in the leg, arm or foot to disable them. When you pull a weapon it is because your life is in danger and you shoot for the middle of the torso (center mass). A person who does carry has an obligation to understand the law, and the ramifications they face. Merely displaying a gun during an altercation is a felony, unless you can demonstrate that you were in fear for your life. In order to claim self defense in a fatal shooting incident, you are admitting that you killed someone. You then have to show that you met all of the elements of self defense in order to either not be charged, or to have your case adjudicated in your favor. A person carrying a concealed weapon, without getting much more training, is in my opinion, foolish and a potential future inmate of a correctional facility.

Agreed!

There was no audio to hear what was being said by the "pusher" while coming toward the person or after the act of aggression, when he turned away. He could have been telling the lady in the car that he going to stomp the guy or kick him in the head. The pusher became an extreme aggressor when he pushed the guy to the ground and if the guy on the ground became fearful for his life, with that act or what he heard, it became a legal shoot.

When you are fearing for your life, and that heart is really pumping, you more likely to hit an innocent bystander if you shoot for a foot, leg, arm, hip or shoulder; you shoot for center mass to stop the threat.

According to the sheriff, who did a very detailed press conference, no words were spoken between the pusher and the shooter. The shooter fired the shot within 4 seconds of being pushed, and he said that he thought the pusher was going to attack him again, and he feared for his life. That is why the sheriff did not arrest the shooter.

///////////////////

Based on the shooter's history, he's obviously been walking around looking for a fight, with the hope he could be a big man/hero one day...and use his gun.


He got away with murder...period.

Not yet he has not. Still depends on what the prosecutor does. They should investigate some more before deciding. Interview the people involved and the like.

From the body language of the guy who died he did not look like he was getting ready to do any further damage to the guy on the ground.