danhue wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 8:26 pm

NoEyeDeer wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 7:02 pm Suppose Drejka didn't have a firearm. He's knocked to the ground and the guy that did it, according to reports I have read, reached into his pockets, and from the video, was still coming at him. At this point, did Drejka have a reasonable expectation of great bodily harm?

Absolutely not. He should have thought "I disrespected someone's wife for, and now I got my ass whooped.That'll teach me a lesson. Next time I'll mind my own business."

I mean come on. We're talking about a freaking human life here. A kid who witnessed his father being killed. Sure he was a hot head. Maybe he was having a bad day. He pushed the guy too hard.

The way I see it, when you CCW, you have a duty to go out of your way to avoid confrontation in the first place. Keep your ego at home.

You have every right to let somebody to maim,or kill you as in the end, it is your life and health. Yes we are talking here about human life, Drejka's life is equally valuable as McGlocktons life. Keep in mind more people are killed with fists and feet than with rifles.

Drejka maybe was obnoxious but he was non-threatening, do you know how I know that? McGlocton girlfriend actions, if she drove away and called cops parked 20 yards away she would be justified in running over Drejka with her car if he kept coming after her, McGlockton would be justified in beating him to the pulp in that case, but that is not what she has done. She steps out of the safety of the car and gets within arm's length from Drejka and starts arguing with him, Not exactly an action of the person in fear for their life and health or their children life and health. That is how cops interpreted video.

McGlockton was the aggressor and that moment when he struck Drejka he forfeited his life.

The owner of Circle A Food Store and other customers told GMA that Drejka had a history of harassing other people over parking spaces. One unidentified black customer told ABC that Drejka had threatened to shoot him over a parking space before. The store owner also told reporters that he had to call the police on Drejka before for getting into arguments with other customers about parking.

https://www.theroot.com/gunman-in-stand ... 1827829356

In situations like this, a persons history needs to be weighed as well. He wasn't just some nice man, chatting with a young lady about a parking spot respectfully. He chose the initial encounter. He was pushed over, and when the guy was retreating, he shot him. The law states that a "reasonable" person must thing their life is in danger or that they are in serious danger of bodily harm. Although the guy will probably skate now that the sheriff has declined to prosecute, it doesn't make it justifiable. As was pointed out upthread, those of us that CC have an obligation to pay attention and not get ourselves into those situations in the first place, and this was an easily avoidable tragedy.

A good article on the subject of not doing stupid things and avoiding stupid places.
http://www.grantcunningham.com/2017/08/ ... ghts-dont/

The most important quote?

If, however, you do all you can do to prevent the encounter, your chances of needing your gun are dramatically reduced.

Yeah, I tend to agree that if you are carrying and not paid to be a cop (or rent-a-cop), you really shouldn't be doing the job for free.

Someone parked in a handicap zone w/o plates or tag, leave 'me be. Harass a big dude's girlfriend or wife, expect to get a foot in your ass at the very least. Get shoved from behind and end up on your ass, consider yourself lucky he's not on top of you whail'n on your face or kicking your teeth in. If Drejka was really in danger of being killed by McGlockton, if McGlockton really meant to do anything other than push the foul-mouthed old guy away from his girlfriend, Drejka would never have had the chance to even pull his gun. He'd be a spot of grease on the asphalt.

Drejka might as well have shot him in the back as what he did in this case. This shooting is immoral and cowardly.

hondo2K0 wrote: McGlockton was the aggressor and that moment when he struck Drejka he forfeited his life.

WTF

danhue wrote: Sun Jul 22, 2018 10:39 am Everybody knows that this was a guy (Drejka) who was looking for an opportunity to kill someone "lawfully". Despicable.

The law needs to be amended to deny the right to act that way in so-called self-defense. Context matters in cases like these.

I was referring to comments like these.

NoEyeDeer wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:15 pm To say that the Florida SYG provisions are widely misunderstood is an understatement.

What people don't understand is it's implications in a pre-trial plea.

https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/ ... 608046002/

“The amendment (to the “stand your ground” law in 2017) shifts the burden of proof to the prosecution after the defendant has made a prima facie claim of justified use of force, and it requires that the state (prosecutors) meet this burden of proof with clear and convincing evidence,” said the decision, written by appeal-court Judge Ivan Fernandez and joined by judges Thomas Logue and Edwin Scales.

That the prosecution must prove that the crime wasn't self defense isn't about any state's stand your ground law - it's the point of the 'affirmative defense' - which is born from competing harms. Instead of a typical trial where the criminal files a not-guilty plea and the court has to prove guilt, the affirmative defense flips the paradigm. The defendant admits that he did commit a crime and that he had to. Now the court has to try to prove it wasn't a self-defense situation.

The press isn't as well informed about this sort of thing as they are(n't) about guns. Best to see how this plays out and not get wrapped up in the BS from the media.

shinzen wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:19 am

The owner of Circle A Food Store and other customers told GMA that Drejka had a history of harassing other people over parking spaces. One unidentified black customer told ABC that Drejka had threatened to shoot him over a parking space before. The store owner also told reporters that he had to call the police on Drejka before for getting into arguments with other customers about parking.

https://www.theroot.com/gunman-in-stand ... 1827829356

In situations like this, a persons history needs to be weighed as well. He wasn't just some nice man, chatting with a young lady about a parking spot respectfully. He chose the initial encounter. He was pushed over, and when the guy was retreating, he shot him. The law states that a "reasonable" person must thing their life is in danger or that they are in serious danger of bodily harm. Although the guy will probably skate now that the sheriff has declined to prosecute, it doesn't make it justifiable. As was pointed out upthread, those of us that CC have an obligation to pay attention and not get ourselves into those situations in the first place, and this was an easily avoidable tragedy.

A person's history will be laid out in court, but it's irrelevant for the actual event. A person's history don't come into a self-defense situation unless it was known to the shooter at the time. I expect that goes both ways.

Prevention's important. This is hard, though. On one hand, our society would be better if everyone got involved and looked out for each other. It's not up to the police - it's up to us. Yet some good liberals here are suggesting that once we strap on a gun we're supposed to put our responsibility to each other in the safe until we put the gun away. Something seems off about that. I thought there was more to the right to keep and bear arms than just the fashion statement. What am I missing?

shinzen wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:19 am

The owner of Circle A Food Store and other customers told GMA that Drejka had a history of harassing other people over parking spaces. One unidentified black customer told ABC that Drejka had threatened to shoot him over a parking space before. The store owner also told reporters that he had to call the police on Drejka before for getting into arguments with other customers about parking.

https://www.theroot.com/gunman-in-stand ... 1827829356

In situations like this, a persons history needs to be weighed as well. He wasn't just some nice man, chatting with a young lady about a parking spot respectfully. He chose the initial encounter. He was pushed over, and when the guy was retreating, he shot him. The law states that a "reasonable" person must thing their life is in danger or that they are in serious danger of bodily harm. Although the guy will probably skate now that the sheriff has declined to prosecute, it doesn't make it justifiable. As was pointed out upthread, those of us that CC have an obligation to pay attention and not get ourselves into those situations in the first place, and this was an easily avoidable tragedy.

Is there a police report? What was the outcome? If there is no police report it is BS and it is completely irrelevant.
Do you remember Ferguson MO and all those "eyewitnesses" who changed their stories as soon as FBI Agents told them that lying to the federal officer is a felony?

Bisbee wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 3:34 am

hondo2K0 wrote: McGlockton was the aggressor and that moment when he struck Drejka he forfeited his life.

WTF

Yep that is how it works in real life, 3rd graders on the school playground are not aware of that but as an adult you should know that when you strike somebody for being a loudmouth prick you are fair game, they have right to hit you back, kill you or you could kill or maim them and in that case you are going to prison and even if there is no prison time served just having a conviction for violent crime ( misdemeanor or felony ) translate into no professional licence for you, no job with any company where background check is mandatory part of hiring process.
So use your words not your fists, if attacked you have right to use any force to stop that attack ( threat to your health and life)

Bisbee wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 3:25 am Yeah, I tend to agree that if you are carrying and not paid to be a cop (or rent-a-cop), you really shouldn't be doing the job for free.

Someone parked in a handicap zone w/o plates or tag, leave 'me be. Harass a big dude's girlfriend or wife, expect to get a foot in your ass at the very least. Get shoved from behind and end up on your ass, consider yourself lucky he's not on top of you whail'n on your face or kicking your teeth in. If Drejka was really in danger of being killed by McGlockton, if McGlockton really meant to do anything other than push the foul-mouthed old guy away from his girlfriend, Drejka would never have had the chance to even pull his gun. He'd be a spot of grease on the asphalt.

Drejka might as well have shot him in the back as what he did in this case. This shooting is immoral and cowardly.

People do stupid things every day, maybe Drejka is handicapped or has a handicapped member of the family.
Well also it works another way, big dude hitting a guy arguing with his girlfriend should expect to get arrested and convicted of assault and battery at the very least. Hit, shove somebody consider yourself lucky for just going to prison and not getting shot and killed by the guy you just shoved.

McGlockton blindsided and hit somebody what is known as suckerpunching somebody which itself is a cowardly act.

AndyH wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 8:04 am

NoEyeDeer wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:15 pm To say that the Florida SYG provisions are widely misunderstood is an understatement.

What people don't understand is it's implications in a pre-trial plea.

https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/ ... 608046002/

“The amendment (to the “stand your ground” law in 2017) shifts the burden of proof to the prosecution after the defendant has made a prima facie claim of justified use of force, and it requires that the state (prosecutors) meet this burden of proof with clear and convincing evidence,” said the decision, written by appeal-court Judge Ivan Fernandez and joined by judges Thomas Logue and Edwin Scales.

That the prosecution must prove that the crime wasn't self defense isn't about any state's stand your ground law - it's the point of the 'affirmative defense' - which is born from competing harms. Instead of a typical trial where the criminal files a not-guilty plea and the court has to prove guilt, the affirmative defense flips the paradigm. The defendant admits that he did commit a crime and that he had to. Now the court has to try to prove it wasn't a self-defense situation.

The press isn't as well informed about this sort of thing as they are(n't) about guns. Best to see how this plays out and not get wrapped up in the BS from the media.

Let's do a thought experiment. If you were Drejka, would you have done anything differently than he did?

Not just the final part, but the entire situation.

Personally I wouldn’t have confronted anyone about parking in a handicapped parking space.
That’s for the police or a parking authority to enforce.

I stay away from confrontations because I do carry a gun every day.
I stayed away from confrontations when I didn’t carry a gun.

So I doubt very much I would have been in the situation of the shooter in this case.

I don’t know all of the evidence in this case as to why the shooter confronted the woman as to why the deceased pushed the shooter and as to why the shooter pulled the trigger.

I’m aware in Florida a person can threaten the use of deadly force or use deadly force as part of SYG.
I don’t know if there’s another decision the shooter could have made. It’s possible that threatening deadly force may have been enough maybe not.

When carrying a gun a person has to make the decision not only when to use it but when not to use it.

If someone attempts to rob me with a weapon and I fear for my life I didn’t create that situation. If someone breaks into my house I didn’t create that situation. These are situations where I may have to use my gun.
I don’t intend to create a situation where I could feel my life is threatened and I would have to use my gun.
So if I create a situation where my life could be threatened and I use my gun and it could be legal to do so. I may have to live with the fact of having killed someone and the question of could I’ve done anything different to not take a life.

Also the the deceased could have not created a situation where his life was threatened and ultimately taken by physically pushing the shooter to the ground which goes back to creating a life threatening situation.
You never know who has a weapon and who doesn’t. You never know who has a criminal background and who doesn’t. You never know who’s a a-hole and who is not. You never know if that person with a gun can’t wait for a confrontation or the person without the gun can’t wait for a confrontation.
Protect yourself your family your home not a parking space
Walk away from a verbal confrontation. Try not to create life threatening situations that pertains to both parties in this situation.








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

shinzen wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:33 am Let's do a thought experiment. If you were Drejka, would you have done anything differently than he did?

Not just the final part, but the entire situation.

Add this: Would Drejka have been so aggressive if he had NOT been carrying a gun or another lethal weapon?

shinzen wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:33 am Let's do a thought experiment. If you were Drejka, would you have done anything differently than he did?

Not just the final part, but the entire situation.

If I found myself on the ground and the larger, younger aggressor was still within 21 feet (1.5 seconds away), I'd draw and aim at his pelvis while giving a powerful command to back off. If he didn't comply quickly, his pelvis would lose some parts and he'd drop where he stood. He can still kill or maim me if I shoot him in the chest - but without a pelvis, he can't get to me.

ETA...The above is focused narrowly on the part of the situation that begins with the first physical attack. Expanding for an overall view, while I might suggest that the parking place (which includes the sides of parking areas that some motorcyclists abuse) should be reserved for folks that need it (a suggestion I've made in the past), I wouldn't participate in the sort of argument that happened here. That would likely mean that the odds of such a conversation ending up in a physical confrontation are very low. I personally think Drejka started the chain of events when he parked outside of a parking space (irony...) and decided to confront the driver. The chain of events could have been stopped before they started, again during the verbal confrontation, again (had he had some situation awareness) when the boyfriend approached, and again during the pause after he drew his gun.

Andre Branca, self-defense attorney and educator, posted an overview of the shooting and a legal analysis.

The overview:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/again-on-video-20208150

Jul 20 at 7:24pm
There's been a shooting in Florida (naturally?) that resulted over an argument about a non-handicapped person parking in a handicapped parking spot, and it was captured on a rather poor quality surveillance camera recording, according to news reports.

The analysis:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/cotw-florida-20318837

Jul 25 at 5:17pm
Understanding Why No Arrest in Florida Handicap Space Shooting
This case of the week is the handicap parking spot shooting that occurred in Florida last week, and which was caught on surveillance video. (You can watch that video by pointing your browser here: lawofselfdefense.com/parking.)

On Friday, July 20, headlines were made when the local Sheriff announced he would not be arresting the shooter. As the basis for his decision he cited Florida’s self-defense immunity law, 776.032 (which you can read here: lawofselfdefense.com/776032). I’ll repeat both those links at the end of this segment, if you’d care to jot them down.

on these facts it is possible, but arguably unlikely, that a prosecutor could convince a unanimous jury that self-defense had been disproven beyond a reasonable doubt

on these facts it is possible, but arguably unlikely, that a prosecutor could convince a unanimous jury that self-defense had been disproven beyond a reasonable doubt

[/quote]

SYG is a pre- trial plea before a judge. There is no jury unless the SYG plea is denied by the judge and the case goes to trial.

If the SYG plea is upheld by the judge, the defendant is immune from criminal and civil prosecution. Unless, as was the case with Zimmerman that Federal civil rights charges were considered.

ETA: And if charged, the burden of "clear and convincing evidence" in the pre-trial is the responsibility of the prosecution. And if they lose, they foot the bill.

ETA: The pre-trial can be waved, as in the Zimmerman case, where due to public opinion pressure, O'Malley realized it was useless. This was before the change to FL SYG law, and the 51% rule on the defendant providing proof was the law.

The law was changed in 2017, and upheld in 2018. With the burden of proof now on the prosecution, lawsuits stemming from the court of public opinion are greatly reduced.

Eris wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 8:32 pm

danhue wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 8:26 pm The way I see it, when you CCW, you have a duty to go out of your way to avoid confrontation in the first place. Keep your ego at home.

Very much this.

I too agree. There are a lot of things that piss me off: non-handicapped people parking in handicapped stalls; people who throw garbage out of their cars; parents who yell and slap their children in public... I would never provoke a confrontation especially while armed, I can take a picture and send it to the appropriate agency, call child protective services etc. The problem with the FL law is it doesn't assess any blame for causing or contributing to the conflict to the shooter.

Looking at the store video there were people going in and out of the store while the confrontation was taking place. There is no sound so I assume that either someone who walked in the store told the clerk that two people were yelling at each outside and there would be a fight or McGlockton heard his girlfriend yelling at Drejka.

I strongly doubt that Drejka will be charged.

NoEyeDeer wrote: Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:50 pm

on these facts it is possible, but arguably unlikely, that a prosecutor could convince a unanimous jury that self-defense had been disproven beyond a reasonable doubt

SYG is a pre- trial plea before a judge. There is no jury unless the SYG plea is denied by the judge and the case goes to trial.

If the SYG plea is upheld by the judge, the defendant is immune from criminal and civil prosecution. Unless, as was the case with Zimmerman that Federal civil rights charges were considered.

ETA: And if charged, the burden of "clear and convincing evidence" in the pre-trial is the responsibility of the prosecution. And if they lose, they foot the bill.

ETA: The pre-trial can be waved, as in the Zimmerman case, where due to public opinion pressure, O'Malley realized it was useless. This was before the change to FL SYG law, and the 51% rule on the defendant providing proof was the law.

The law was changed in 2017, and upheld in 2018. With the burden of proof now on the prosecution, lawsuits stemming from the court of public opinion are greatly reduced.

I'm interested in why you say this. My understanding of this comes solely from 20 hours of self-defense classroom with Massad Ayoob, the 7 DVD lectures from the ACLDN, and reading Branca's book. I'm not an attorney and didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. I do very much want to understand this since I carry every day.

As I was taught (and we went into the Zimmerman trial in some detail - and I followed up by watching all of the trial recordings, for what that's worth) that stand your ground isn't actually a plea or a strategy - it's simply about the requirement some states have where someone being attacked must retreat from danger if they can reasonably do so. It doesn't affect one's right to self defense, nor does it affect the separate process of the affirmative defense. In a typical criminal case, the accused criminal pleads 'not guilty' and then the trial process is required to prove beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt (like 95-99% certainty - apparently this varies by state) that the guy 'done it'. So...innocent until proven guilty. A self-defense shooting is a crime - it's still illegal to point a gun or to shoot someone. In the affirmative defense, the defendant admits (s)he broke the law - and then states why they were forced to. The trial then is about proving beyond a shadow of a doubt (the same 95-99%) that it wasn't self-defense.

The 51% thing, as I understand it, is the lower threshold for a civil trial.

I'd like to understand better what you're saying, if you care to. Thanks.

edit..fixed quote tag and 'shadow of a doubt' error. Thanks Mustang!

Ayoob is the best, no question. I'll have to ask my mentor how he feels about this case as he is also a Ayoob alumni. Lake City is just down the road.

To answer your questions, I base my statements on the Gutmacher "Florida firearms, law, use, & ownership" - several worn editions.

Recall that Zimmerman was not a "SYG " defense. There was no pre-trial, it went straight to trial. You can find many articles on why this was a smart move. He had nothing to gain. Here is just the first one:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... g/2122991/

ETA: Zimmerman case not SYG:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-zim ... d-defense/

What I was referring to was the pre-trial plea, before a judge. The old standard was that the defendant had to prove why they should not be tried. I believe the old wording was "preponderance" - which means superior in weight, so it was called the 51% rule.

I don't know if Ayoob goes into the intracies of each state or remains general. I am only referring to Florida law as this is a Florida case.

Here is an article on the change to the prosecution having to now prove the case:
https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/ ... 608046002/

Thank you for the questions.

Zimmerman case and pretrial hearing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_o ... _Zimmerman

Defense plans for pretrial immunity hearing
Under Florida law, the use of deadly force against an attacker is permissible in certain situations.[37] The adoption of the Stand Your Ground law in 2005 modified the self-defense law so that a person who reasonably believes he or she must use deadly force to prevent serious injury to him- or herself may lawfully do so without first attempting to retreat from an attacker; prosecution for using deadly force in such situations is prohibited.[38] A defendant in a homicide case who claims to have acted in self-defense may petition the court to grant the defendant immunity from prosecution under these provisions of the law.[39] Legal experts say that in a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show from "a preponderance of the evidence" that he or she acted lawfully, whereas in a trial by jury the burden of proof is on the prosecution, who must show "beyond a reasonable doubt" (a much higher standard than required for establishing "a preponderance of the evidence") that the defendant acted unlawfully.[40][41[/b]

This was under the old statute.

Cool, NoEyeDeer - thanks. I recalled that "something happened" in that particular pre-trial hearing, but nothing more. I didn't know that the Florida law had been tweaked, and didn't know about how it affected the pre-trial process in Florida.

Thanks!

AndyH wrote: Thu Jul 26, 2018 8:07 pm ...The trial then is about proving beyond a shadow of a doubt (the same 95-99%) that it wasn't self-defense.

Just a minor quibble. "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" is not a legal standard. The prosecution is not required to prove anything "beyond a shadow of a doubt". The standard of proof for a criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

YankeeTarheel wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:07 pm

shinzen wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:33 am Let's do a thought experiment. If you were Drejka, would you have done anything differently than he did?

Not just the final part, but the entire situation.

Add this: Would Drejka have been so aggressive if he had NOT been carrying a gun or another lethal weapon?

Drejka is a loudmouth, an argumentative guy so most likely he would act the same way but he was not aggressive, McGlockton was an aggressive one and that got him killed and his and his girlfriend's disregard for rules and regulations.