It's legally a good shoot, but

[De Selby]

I wonder why they thought the law didn't apply to them and that they could park wherever they want...

Lots of people do - find me a car that isn’t speeding on an interstate for example. Not sure how the large number of people who break road rules is relevant to this. Parking illegally is certainly not an indicator of being dangerous.

[Ben]

Man with young children sees someone shouting at his wife and overreacts. Armed self appointed parking lot monitor shoots in response.

IMHO, "overreacting" would be yelling or even threatening. This was battery. It was a physical attack. We can debate regarding the attacked individual's response, but the dead guy clearly initiated a physical attack, and from what I could make out in the video, he did so in a deliberate manner because he felt he had the advantage to do so. Had the victim been an Arnold Schwarzenegger looking guy, I'm betting that the "Get lost, you punk ass bitch"  shove would never have happened.

As I said above, I could be inclined to buy, at least partially, an "overreaction" argument if the guy would have run out of the store as if he were worried about his girlfriend. Instead, he walked out with his hands in his pockets as if he were some random guy leaving the store. To me, his approach showed intent, not heat of the moment overreaction.

[Fly320s]

I watched the video a few times.  The shooter is lucky I'm not the prosecuter.  That was not justified use of deadly force.

[BobR]

The problem with this video is what is wrong with many videos, poor quality, lack of audio and a small snippet in time (although this one has all of the actions).

From the video all I can see is a guy confronting another person in a HC parking space from 4-5 feet away. The person inside starts to open the door and the person outside gets approached from the side (piss poor situational awareness for a gun carrier) and is forcibly shoved to the ground. The shover then stood over him, hands on hips most likely saying something but we have no idea what with no verbalization. It look like the shooter went for his gun almost immediately on rolling into a sitting position. Once the gun came out the shover backed up a bit and once again we do not know what was said. Shot was fired in appx 4 seconds, shover grabbed chest and stumbled away.

Here is the Sheriff's press conference about the shooting with a video and the reasoning behind the use of the "Stand Your Ground Law". 30 min long, video of shooting starts at 6:56 and he talks about the law through about 17:00.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyiMpmZGZEk

bob

[Hawkmoon]

It look like the shooter went for his gun almost immediately on rolling into a sitting position. Once the gun came out the shover backed up a bit and once again we do not know what was said. Shot was fired in appx 4 seconds, shover grabbed chest and stumbled away.

Watch it again. It looked to me like the gun jumped (recoiled) at least three, maybe four, times. I think the shot at which the assailant grabbed his chest was the third shot.

[Ben]

Watch it again. It looked to me like the gun jumped (recoiled) at least three, maybe four, times. I think the shot at which the assailant grabbed his chest was the third shot.

Looks like only one shot:

"According to witnesses, McGlockton exited the store and walked over to Drejka who was still arguing with Jacobs in the parking lot. Witnesses say McGlockton forcibly pushed Drejka causing Drejka to fall to the ground. Witnesses told detectives that Drejka was on the ground when he took out a handgun and fired one single round at McGlockton striking him in the chest," police said in a statement.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/gunman-parking-space-shooting-charged-stand-ground-law/story?id=56715356

[230RN]

"We don't get to substitute our judgement for Drejka's judgement."


To me, it falls within the SYG "bookends" as laid out by the Sheriff, regardless of what happened up to the physical attack.  

Drejka may be charged/indicted just to close the matter one way or the other permanently, but if I were on the grand jury, (or at the hearing) I'd vote no bill based on what we know so far and the Sheriff's explanation of Florida's SYG law and its history in the legislature.

Disclaimer:  I watched the press conference to 17:48 minutes, was not interested in watching the Q&A session.

A violent reaction such as that to a "parking lot sheriff" was the thing that was not justified and put Drejka believably in fear of further violence.

For myself, I'd have kept my mouth shut, despite my low opinion about handicapped parking violators.

As I said, a sign advising people of the stiff penalties for violation probably would have eliminated the problem in the first place.

I would suggest to most retailers that it would be advisable to add "penalty" signs to the handicapped signs in their lots just to avoid any incidents regarding violations and the attendant interruptions to your business.

Terry

Addendum:
Looks to me, without seeing the layout of the storefront with respect to the surrounding streets, that they could have parked closer to the store, where there were two or three empty spots right by the entrance, at least in the video portions I saw.  It kind of makes me wonder if they were trying to set up a confrontation.  Or at least one could raise that question.   Not that that matters to the outcome, but.

[Hawkmoon]

As I said, a sign advising people of the stiff penalties for violation probably would have eliminated the problem in the first place.

I would suggest to most retailers that it would be advisable to add "penalty" signs to the handicapped signs in their lots just to avoid any incidents regarding violations.

The law in my state requires all such signs to include notice that violators will be fined, and to show the dollar amount of the fine. It doesn't matter. Most people who choose to ignore the signs are more than happy to roll the dice and figure they'll be gone before a cop will show up and (maybe) write the ticket.

IMHO, the state should allow tow truck operators to cruise the parking lots and "boot" violators. If you want the boot removed, pay the driver $250. Otherwise, your car gets towed and you also pay impound fees.

[Hawkmoon]

Looks like only one shot:

It still looks like three to me.

Yes, I know witnesses said it was a single round. Witnesses are not infallible.

[230RN]

" It doesn't matter. "

Sure it will.  Don't be naïve.  It will discourage some of the people some of the time....

And therefore some of the incidents some of the time....

Abraham Lincoln must have been a statistician.  <big grin>

On the number of shots, I wondered what he was groping around on the ground for before he got up.  My first impression (as a reloader, myself) was that he was picking up brass --at least twice.  So

But given the violence of that attack, he could have been just picking up stuff that got knocked out his pockets or hands or something.

Edited for typo

[Hawkmoon]

Definitely three shots.

[Hawkmoon]

" It doesn't matter. "

Sure it will.  Don't be naïve.  It will discourage some of the people some of the time....

Look who's calling whom naive!

It's been the law here for more than thirty years. It doesn't discourage anybody.

[MillCreek]

I understand that at Apple, Steve Jobs was notorious for parking in handicapped spaces to save time.  His lawyers paid the fines as a cost of doing business.

[230RN]

Oh, piffle, Hawkmoon.

But the penalty signs haven't been up, at least not here. That was my point, not that there is in fact a penalty.  As I said before, I think a lot of people believe the signs are a matter of mere courtesy, and don't realize they're actually law.

Anyhow, piffle.

[zxcvbob]

Oh, piffle.

But the penalty signs haven't been up, at least not here. That was my point, not that there is in fact a penalty.  As I said before, I think a lot of people believe the signs are a mater of mere courtesy, and not law.

Anyhow, piffle.

You just like saying "piffle" :)

[Perd Hapley]

The guy had argued over that parking spot so many times he’d been told by the shop owner to just leave it be.

Man with young children sees someone shouting at his wife and overreacts. Armed self appointed parking lot monitor shoots in response.

Overall, not exactly a poster video for gun owners. The dead guy clearly overreacted, but that’s easy to do when some weirdo is shouting at mommy in front of your five year old.

How many of you think those kids are going to grow up agreeeing that SYG or gun rights at all are important?

I'm sorry Trayvon Martin turned out be a thug that got his just deserts, and Zimmerman hasn't been caught doing anything illegal since then. Well, no, I'm actually rather pleased that the guy who got killed turned out to be the one who started the fight.

The sheriff said the kid was inside during the shouting match. Was there another child in the car? Either way, it's obviously McGlockton that chose to escalate the matter from shouting to violence.

The sheriff also said he's barred from making an arrest, and will refer the case to the state attorney. We'll see what happens there.

[BlueStarLizzard]

...

The guy was shoved, HARD, and landed HARD. The shock of being attacked like that alone makes me inclined to give him leeway on his response.


We are average people who carry guns for SD. We are not operators, badasses or expert gun fighters. Our sidearm is for one thing and one thing alone, too save our bacon when we are physically threatened and the physical threat needs to be one that is significant enough to produce, at the least, a nasty adrenaline surge. Florida's SYG seems to acknowledge that, even if some of you are not.
Should we train to handle the shock of being attacked? Yes. Should we train to have better situational awareness? Yes.

But expecting us to be experts or for that training to be perfect is unrealistic and defeats the point of CCW in the first place. Our sidearm is so we can live out our lives with a extra layer of safety, not a reason to not live our lives as we see fit in effort to avoid any and all potential conflict. (Which includes being an obnoxious parking lot monitor if one is so inclined)

No one, CCW or not, should go out looking for a fight. No one, CCW or not, should act like an ahole and, NO ONE, CCW or not, should escalate an argument into a physical confrontation.
However, there is no law against the first too. There are laws about the last one.

In this situation, the only one who broke the LAW was McGlockton.

[Hawkmoon]

Say what you want about the shooter's lack of situational awareness. IMHO he was ambushed. Note that the female stayed in the car until her baby daddy came out of the store and was halfway to the shooter. THEN the woman opened the car door and got out, distracting the shooter while baby daddy strolled up all casual and nonchalant, with his hands in his pockets, and then unleashed a sneak attack.

A cynical person might even think they had rehearsed that tactic.

[KD5NRH]

I understand that at Apple, Steve Jobs was notorious for parking in handicapped spaces to save time.  His lawyers paid the fines as a cost of doing business.

Good luck saving time that way in TX; a lot of cops here will have dispatch or the property owner get the tow truck rolling before they start writing the ticket.  (And if the property owner refuses to cooperate, they can get ticketed for failing to provide the required handicap spaces.)  If there's someone in the car, they'll be given one chance to move it and just get the ticket.  For most, any answer other than "oh, sorry, here's my parking tag that I forgot to hang up" or "oops, I'll move it right now" will get you removed and the car impounded...on top of the now-$500-minimum fine.  (Third and subsequent offenses minimum $800 fine and 20-50 hours of community service.)

[Firethorn]

I wonder why they thought the law didn't apply to them and that they could park wherever they want...

This can actually be interesting.  In most areas, parking in a handicap is just a fine - no points involved. 

As a result, some people consider handicapped parking fines more of a intermittent parking fee, than something "wrong".

Like how in some states you can always satisfy a secured loan by turning the security item over, as long as you haven't deliberately damaged/destroyed it.  It was seen during the housing bubble burst - "strategic defaults" for underwater homes.  People would find a home nearby that was substantially cheaper because of the burst, buy it and get the loan and all that, then move out and turn their old house, now worth substantially less than the loan, over to the bank to get rid of all that debt.

[freakazoid]

Does anyone know what he used to shoot McGlockton...?

Lots of people do - find me a car that isn’t speeding on an interstate for example. Not sure how the large number of people who break road rules is relevant to this. Parking illegally is certainly not an indicator of being dangerous.

What? What does speeding have to do with this?

[De Selby]

IMHO, "overreacting" would be yelling or even threatening. This was battery. It was a physical attack. We can debate regarding the attacked individual's response, but the dead guy clearly initiated a physical attack, and from what I could make out in the video, he did so in a deliberate manner because he felt he had the advantage to do so. Had the victim been an Arnold Schwarzenegger looking guy, I'm betting that the "Get lost, you punk ass bitch"  shove would never have happened.

As I said above, I could be inclined to buy, at least partially, an "overreaction" argument if the guy would have run out of the store as if he were worried about his girlfriend. Instead, he walked out with his hands in his pockets as if he were some random guy leaving the store. To me, his approach showed intent, not heat of the moment overreaction.

The shove was definitely a crime, I agree. Overreaction doesn’t mean he was legal.

My point is that having this sort of confrontation would’ve been at least foreseeable to the shooter. Now he’s killed a man in front of his children in part because he was fixated on enforcing the parking rules. The OP was right - it wasn’t worth it (even if legally justified - which as you can see from the comments here isn’t in the bag. Not everyone in a position to make a call on charges is going to see that video the same way.)

[MechAg94]

The shove was definitely a crime, I agree. Overreaction doesn’t mean he was legal.

My point is that having this sort of confrontation would’ve been at least foreseeable to the shooter. Now he’s killed a man in front of his children in part because he was fixated on enforcing the parking rules. The OP was right - it wasn’t worth it (even if legally justified - which as you can see from the comments here isn’t in the bag. Not everyone in a position to make a call on charges is going to see that video the same way.)

No, he killed a man who physically attacked him.  All the stuff about the parking spot and the words with the mother prior to that are just window dressing.  The emotional baggage of the children inside the store is not relevant at all though I am sure a lawyer will try to use it.  

[MechAg94]

If I were to make an issue of it, I would be more inclined to take a picture and report the parking violation.  If asked, I would say why and walk away.  The reason is not to avoid an argument, it is to avoid the the costs and headache of the legal battle.  You can be 100% right and still be out $100,000 or more is legal costs.  Prison would suck worse I guess.  I thought I heard Zimmerman's legal bills were $300,000 to $400,000.  

[MechAg94]

The guy was standing a respectful distance from the car at the beginning of the video.  He wasn't right up on her window, but a few feet away.  We are only getting one side of this and there is no audio so we have no idea if he was just saying "please move your car" or if he was cussing her out.  Also, as noted previously, she may have taken an attitude and started yelling back.  I am very inclined to believe the last happened as that seems to be a cultural response these days.

The only thing that bothered me about the shoot was that the guy hadn't followed up his shove and gotten closer there was a few seconds time between then and the shots.  We have no audio so we don't know if threats were made.  I can't tell how many shots were fired.  In the end, I am reluctant to get hypercritical about self defense shootings.  IMO, he was justified after the physical attack and I don't think minor critiques should automatically make the guy a murderer without more information that proves otherwise. 

He wasn't arrested, but he may still be charged.  They may try to go after him like Zimmerman, but with the video, the nature of the events is a little more clear.  The emotional story line of the article may still be used against him.