[John_W]

Originally Posted by WarrenWilliam

Couple of things here: One comment described the pusher as "this young father." What possible connection can this have to the case? All being a father means s that you are capable of reproducing. The media often portrays people in terms of their reproductive status. The implication is that because they are a father, or a grandmother, or whatever, that means they are a good person. Inf act, they could be the worst father or grandmother ever. Irrelevant.

And as to the shooter "harassing his girlfriend" -- SHE pulled into the handicapped zone. The man who called her out for it didn't pull out his gun or threaten her. If she is old enough to be driving and making a decision to park illegally, she is old enough to verbally defend herself against verbal criticism. There was no call for her boyfriend to "protect" her here. This isn't the 1700s.

I was just watching HLN and heard them make the same comment, "the young father" was the pusher. Other than putting a bias slant on the story, there was no reason as you say to label the person a father. Should they call the shooter "the older father?" Someone posted why didn't the shooter call the police about the parking infraction rather than confront the girlfriend. Same could be said, why doesn't "the young father" call the police to report a man harassing them". I'm sure the shooter's defense lawyer will bring all of this to light.

Had the shooter been 68 years old instead of 48, this would of played out much differently. Also if this was the shooter's first time he had pulled his gun would of made a difference, however it's not. Those past bad acts that might be his downfall if he's convicted. Here's hoping the jury upholds the law of the state of Florida and finds him innocent.

[manaboutown]

The WP story did not mention much less delve into the fact that the pusher had a history of criminal battery but focused solely on allegations of past gun waving/threatening behavior by the shooter on which no charges were ever made. Remember how the media displayed a photo of Trayvon Martin when he was about 12 rather than a recent photo showing how large and physically mature he actually was? Media bias at work?

To me the event is a "Man bites dog" story which is why it is getting so much attention. In Chicago where this kind of thing is happening multiple times a day it would not be newsworthy except perhaps because it was not a black on black killing. 2018 Stats | Chicago Murder, Crime & Mayhem | HeyJackass!

[Spikearoni]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

This sadly true. The shooter, if proven innocent, will have paid a heavy price in many ways.

Defendants are INNOCENT unless PROVEN GUILTY in a court of law. They are NOT proven innocent! The burden of proof rests with the prosecution.

Secondly, with regard to the financial cost of his trial, the shooter has the right to request a court-appointed attorney.

Thirdly, in such high profile cases, those who are sympathetic with the defendant or the cause that he or she may represent, quite often raise considerable sums of money for that individual and/or obtain a lawyer for the accused.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Spikearoni

Defendants are INNOCENT unless PROVEN GUILTY in a court of law. They are NOT proven innocent! The burden of proof rests with the prosecution.

Secondly, with regard to the financial cost of his trial, the shooter has the right to request a court-appointed attorney.

Thirdly, in such high profile cases, those who are sympathetic with the defendant or the cause that he or she may represent, quite often raise considerable sums of money for that individual and/or obtain a lawyer for the accused.

The shooter can only get a court appointed attorney if he cannot afford to pay for an attorney. So, if he has substantial assets, he will get "cleaned out" by a defense attorney. And, the attorney will demand a huge upfront payment because, once they take the case, the judge will make them finish it.

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by Spikearoni

Defendants are INNOCENT unless PROVEN GUILTY in a court of law. They are NOT proven innocent! The burden of proof rests with the prosecution.

Secondly, with regard to the financial cost of his trial, the shooter has the right to request a court-appointed attorney.

Thirdly, in such high profile cases, those who are sympathetic with the defendant or the cause that he or she may represent, quite often raise considerable sums of money for that individual and/or obtain a lawyer for the accused.

Of course you are correct. Defendants are presumed innocent. The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt...What is the difference between innocent and not guilty? | MacDonald Law Office, LLC

[Trayderjoe]

I see a lot of comments on both sides that the shooter is guilty or innocent. I also see again, references to the Zimmerman/Martin case in which people continue to refer to Zimmerman as the guilty party when he was found innocent at trial. I don't condone Zimmerman's behavior since his trial in the Martin case, however finding the current shooter guilty "just like Zimmerman" is disingenuous and sounds more like a lynch mob. The criminal justice system will move forward and since charges are being filed, there will be a conviction (either through trial or plea) or the shooter will be exonerated. Many point to McGlockton backing away and then being shot. This will be thoroughly examined by both the prosecutor and defense. What was the time between pulling out the gun, the response, and the trigger pull? Were any threats being made after Drejka was pushed to the ground? Reports are that McGlockton was 11 feet from Drejka at the time of the shooting. BEFORE anyone claims that McGlockton was too far away to hurt Drejka, I suggest you review the Tueller Drill. The Tueller Drill is not a rule or a law, but it demonstrates reaction times and distance relationships. There is also a lack of understanding of what Stand Your Ground means. If the shooter is found guilty, it will be because his claim of self defense would be invalidated. Stand Your Ground indicates that a person does not have to leave a place he is legally entitled to be BEFORE he is allowed to defend himself.

I am curious about Drejka's historic behavior that is being reported AFTER the shooting. For example, it is against the law to brandish your firearm UNLESS you are in fear of your life. The Washington Post (per another poster's link) reports three separate events but no charges being filed or in at least one case, declining to press charges. Additionally, if it was known that the shooter was "harassing people" for parking in the handicap spot in this parking lot, why weren't trespassing charges filed against Drejka? Had someone tied to the business that owned/operated the parking lot filed such a complaint, then Drejka would not have been on the premises legally. Stand Your Ground, and quite possibly a self defense claim might be more tenuous (I will leave that to the attorneys). Yes, Drejka should not have appointed himself to question people about parking in a handicapped zone and should have let the police handle it, but WHY DIDN'T people who observed illegal or threatening behavior by Drejka NOT press charges or call the police to begin with?

Whether the shooting was justified or not, there are many lives that are/will be impacted by these tragic events. The genie can't be put back in the bottle, and now the criminal justice system is involved. Isn't it also tragic that no one wanted to step up and get them involved before the shooting?

[rjn5656]

I believe prosecutor fell to demands of media and racial groups.

[Mr Hanky]

No matter what the outcome of the trail one thing is certain, the criminal will never ever push or batter anyone else ever again.

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by Mr Hanky

No matter what the outcome of the trail one thing is certain, the criminal will never ever push or batter anyone else ever again.

Can the same be said for the shooter?
No matter the outcome....can it be certain....he will never ever shoot and KILL someone again?

[Steve9930]

He will not be convicted. The shoot was justified. This is a case of a prosecutor succumbing to pressure from the demonstrators. If you push someone to the ground, its assault. All that is necessary at this point is for you to fear for your life. Waste of taxpayers money to prosecute this case.

[yabbadu]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

If you saw the video, the guy may not have been alive to call the police. I wonder why someone would carry a legal concealed weapon if they cannot legally use it for self defense. Some have said that the shover was backing away. I didn't see it that way. I saw him back away only when he saw the gun.

I guess one should define legal use....in this case the victim was walking away ...no need to shoot!!!!

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by yabbadu

I guess one should define legal use....in this case the victim was walking away ...no need to shoot!!!!

I'm not sure who the victim was.

But I just read something in a book that struck home... "Some people are like that... if there's not a war, they will start one."

It probably applies to both of these people. On the edge of anger, ready to fight.

I feel for the child.

[Marathon Man]

Here is a question that this case has created in my mind. Is the act of drawing a gun to defend yourself and then shooting the gun a single act or two separate acts? I mean legally. I wonder this because when the pusher began retreating, it was as the shooter was reaching for his weapon. So did he back away before the act of shooting began, or did he back away after the act of drawing/shooting began. I guess maybe this will be answered at this trial (assuming there is one).

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by Marathon Man

Here is a question that this case has created in my mind. Is the act of drawing a gun to defend yourself and then shooting the gun a single act or two separate acts? I mean legally. I wonder this because when the pusher began retreating, it was as the shooter was reaching for his weapon. So did he back away before the act of shooting began, or did he back away after the act of drawing/shooting began. I guess maybe this will be answered at this trial (assuming there is one).

Good post. Here's more. First it's now impossible to seat an impartial jury a this point. Second I believe the prosecutor is filing this knowing the judge is going to hear the defense claim SYG, feared for his life. The Judge will rule the shooting was justified because in the mind of the shooter he feared for his life (All that is necessary under the law). Bullet was in the front not the back, or the side, never turned away, one shot, no overly aggressive action by the shooter. Backing up, are you sure, was he done or did he realize he was about to get shot, did he also have a weapon? No clear definite evidence the threat was over. Case is dismissed under SYG. This gets the pressure off the prosecutor to levy charges. The case then moves to civil court. Were the rules are different. Total waste of taxpayer money. This also shows why if you have a CCW, you also better have CCW insurance. Always amazes me how people stand up for a thug who got shot because he assaulted someone. He committed a crime that caused his death. What part of that do people not understand? Did he deserve to die? Probably not in my opinion. However we are not a nation of opinions but laws. Don't like the law change it.

[dotti105]

Originally Posted by BobnBev

Then why is he roaming free with a pistol permit (CCW)?

Because, like OJ Simpson, the jury got it wrong.
Zimmerman has been arrested several times since then. He is a murderer who was set free in error.
Travon Martin was walking home with candy and a soft drink he had just bought at a convenience store.
He was an innocent black teen in a hoody.