# Florida (Stand your ground) Charged



## FishFinder (May 25, 2004)

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/shooter-f...slaughter-160052449--abc-news-topstories.html
The Florida man who invoked the "stand your ground" self-defense law after shooting a black man in a dispute over a parking space was charged Monday with manslaughter, officials said.

Michael Drejka, 48, was arrested Monday morning in the fatal shooting in July of Markeis McGlockton in Clearwater, Florida -- an incident that was caught on video which sparked an uproar after its release.

"The announcement that Michael Drejka will be charged with manslaughter provides our family with a small measure of comfort in our time of profound mourning," McGlockton's family said in a statement. "While this decision cannot bring back our partner, our son, our father, we take solace in knowing our voices are being heard as we work for justice.

"This man killed Markeis in cold blood, without a second thought about the devastating impact his actions would have on our family, but this charge gives us a measure of hope that the truth will win and justice will prevail in the end.â€

Drejka was booked at the Pinellas County Jail and bond was set at $100,000. He is scheduled to make his first court appearance on Tuesday, at which time a judge will review his bond status and decide whether to appoint an attorney for Drejka or if the defendant can afford to hire his own lawyer.

Bernie McCabe, the state attorney for Pinellas County, announced his decision to file charges against Drejka 12 days after receiving investigative reports on the case from the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.

"We have filed a formal charge, and he has been arrested, and he will now go through the court system," McCabe said in a statement.

Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri had initially declined to arrest Drejka after the gunman invoked the "stand your ground" defense, saying his decision was bound by the law.

"I support the State Attorney's decision and will have no further comment as the case continues to work its way through the criminal justice system," Gualtieri said in a statement on Monday.

(MORE: Sheriff says he made 'correct' decision in Florida 'stand your ground' shooting of unarmed man)

McCabe said charging Drejka is "consistent with the decision-making process established under Florida law in this case."

McGlockton, 28, was shot on July 19 after he came out of a convenience store and saw Drejka berating his girlfriend, Britany Jacobs, about parking in a handicap zone. Surveillance video showed McGlockton shoving Drejka to the ground and Drejka, who had a legal concealed weapons permit, pulling a handgun and shooting McGlockton.

Attorneys for Jacobs, the mother of McGlockton's three young children, and McGlockton's parents have held several press conferences to say they do not believe Drejka should have been given immunity from arrest under "stand your ground."

"My first thought on hearing this news was: It's about time," said Benjamin Crump, an attorney for Jacobs.

Crump said he "firmly" stands behind McCabe's decision to charge Drejka.

"This self-appointed wannabe cop attempted to hide behind 'stand your ground' to defend his indefensible actions, but the truth has finally cut through the noise," Crump said in a statement. "I have full faith that this truth will prevail to punish this cold-blooded killer who angrily created the altercation that led to Markeisâ€™ needless death. We will continue to fight until justice is brought for the family of Markeis McGlockton.â€

Michele Rayner, an attorney for McGlockton's parents, added: "This is a big step forward in the direction of justice, not only for Markeis' Family but also for society as a whole."

Rayner pointed out that the security video shows McGlockton retreating from Drejka after he pushed the man down in an effort to protect Jacobs and his children. She said that it took four seconds for Drejka to make "the conscious decision" to shoot McGlockton.


----------



## RockportRobert (Dec 29, 2006)

Glad to see this.


----------



## Drundel (Feb 6, 2006)

Hung jury.


----------



## BullyARed (Jun 19, 2010)

Hope he will get 20 years or more.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

I don't see that skin color has anything to do with this case. 



Michael Drejka started the confrontation, which he should not have done. "Stand your ground" is a good law, people shouldn't be legally required to turn and run, even though it may be best for those who are fast enough. Drejka starting the confrontation changed this matter away from the intent and purpose of "stand your ground" laws.


----------



## Timemachine (Nov 25, 2008)

Whitebassfisher said:


> I don't see that skin color has anything to do with this case.
> 
> Michael Drejka started the confrontation, which he should not have done. "Stand your ground" is a good law, people shouldn't be legally required to turn and run, even though it may be best for those who are fast enough. Drejka starting the confrontation changed this matter away from the intent and purpose of "stand your ground" laws.


Agreed. He started it, then murdered a man ....all over a stupid parking spot.


----------



## Too Tall (May 21, 2004)

In the video I saw when the gun came out the victim started backing away. Thats not life threatening.


----------



## big john o (Aug 12, 2005)

Looked like cold blooded murder to me...


----------



## hookemfaster (Apr 22, 2018)

*Amen*

Have to agree. You should not be able to start a fight and then claim self-defense. Most men will do exactly what the victim did, jump to the defense of their wife if someone starts harassing her.


----------



## ReedA1691 (Jan 29, 2018)

The shooter is a cowardly worm of a human being. Plenty to say to a woman who probably could have gotten out of that car and whooped him herself, then when her man comes to her defense, he kills him. What an utter POS.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Hopefully none of you are ever on a jury. I'll waive my final judgement until I see the outcome of the trial. I have my LTC and have been through training and if some large man violently shoved me to the ground, I'm not sure what I'd do. If I were 35, likely I'd get up and whoop his *****, however as an overweight out of shape guy, today I'd likely have to do something to defend myself. I've watched the video numerous times.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

photofishin said:


> Hopefully none of you are ever on a jury. I'll waive my final judgement until I see the outcome of the trial. I have my LTC and have been through training and if some large man violently shoved me to the ground, I'm not sure what I'd do. If I were 35, likely I'd get up and whoop his *****, however as an overweight out of shape guy, today I'd likely have to do something to defend myself. I've watched the video numerous times.


I can't disagree with the above, but I must ask..... In your situation are you going to start a confrontation that any reasonable person knows could escalate? That is the problem here, it makes all the difference in the world.


----------



## sea sick (Feb 9, 2006)

photofishin said:


> Hopefully none of you are ever on a jury. I'll waive my final judgement until I see the outcome of the trial. I have my LTC and have been through training and if some large man violently shoved me to the ground, I'm not sure what I'd do. If I were 35, likely I'd get up and whoop his *****, however as an overweight out of shape guy, today I'd likely have to do something to defend myself. I've watched the video numerous times.


For me, there was way to much distance between weapon and threat. He shouldn't have shot,unless he was charged and threat was closing in.
I'd put you/him in jail as well.


----------



## Rockfish2 (Sep 1, 2017)

photofishin said:


> Hopefully none of you are ever on a jury. I'll waive my final judgement until I see the outcome of the trial. I have my LTC and have been through training and if some large man violently shoved me to the ground, I'm not sure what I'd do. If I were 35, likely I'd get up and whoop his *****, however as an overweight out of shape guy, today I'd likely have to do something to defend myself. I've watched the video numerous times.


This case will be an acquittal, the prosecutor knows this and has only charged this guy for political reasons.

This also wasnâ€™t a â€œfight over a parking spotâ€ as some have called it. An able-bodied person parked in a handicapped spot, the guy called her out on it verbally (not physically), then her BF (stay tuned for his criminal history, folks) has to â€œdefendâ€ her by pushing down the guy who was calling her out on it and then appears to go after him again while heâ€™s on the ground.

Argue with a woman and her BF gets to legally push you down and go after you again while youâ€™re down? I donâ€™t think so.

Also, the BF was much bigger and younger than the guy he pushed down and was advancing on.

Little chance of a conviction, and it may not even get to the jury.


----------



## ReedA1691 (Jan 29, 2018)

photofishin said:


> Hopefully none of you are ever on a jury. I'll waive my final judgement until I see the outcome of the trial.


Yeah, if I was on the panel, I'd probably be dismissed. It hits too close to home for me, having lost a friend (not a close friend, but a friend) at 16 who was about to administer a well deserved whooping to another fella I knew, who, instead of taking a whipping, chose to take the other guy's life...and then he got off on self defense. Cowards and guns are a bad combination


----------



## nabsup (Jun 3, 2016)

Rockfish2 said:


> This case will be an acquittal, the prosecutor knows this and has only charged this guy for political reasons.
> 
> This also wasnâ€™t a â€œfight over a parking spotâ€ as some have called it. An able-bodied person parked in a handicapped spot, the guy called her out on it verbally (not physically), then her BF (stay tuned for his criminal history, folks) has to â€œdefendâ€ her by pushing down the guy who was calling her out on it and then appears to go after him again while heâ€™s on the ground.
> 
> ...


So being a weak undersized person gives you the right to shoot someone because they push you down? The shooters lack of situational awareness should bar him from every having an LTC if he doesn't go to jail. Hopefully the shooter does jail time, but thats between him and the jury.


----------



## DA REEL DADDY (Jun 7, 2005)

What I do not understand is y'all are saying he started a fight? The first thing I see is an argument with a person who is parked in a handicap space. Then I see a man push him violently to the ground which is the first act of violence, an assault. Now the shooter could of and should of called 911 not pull his pistol. But where did he start a fight? An argument is not a fight or violent.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

sea sick said:


> For me, there was way to much distance between weapon and threat. He shouldn't have shot,unless he was charged and threat was closing in.
> I'd put you/him in jail as well.


. Well, in every shooting class of whatever type Iâ€™ve ever attended, the 21 foot rule was brought up... he was 12 feet away. Thereâ€™s a lot of stuff going against the guy, but Iâ€™m not sure distance is all that solid..


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Shooter has a history off inappropriately pulling out his gun. Couple that with the video shooting, I think it will be an easy day for the prosecution. A loose cannon looking for an opportunity to shoot. He is toast.


----------



## monark (May 12, 2005)

photofishin said:


> Hopefully none of you are ever on a jury. I'll waive my final judgement until I see the outcome of the trial. I have my LTC and have been through training and if some large man violently shoved me to the ground, I'm not sure what I'd do. If I were 35, likely I'd get up and whoop his *****, however as an overweight out of shape guy, today I'd likely have to do something to defend myself. I've watched the video numerous times.


If a large man randomly shoved you to the ground.. defend yourself.

If a man shoved you to the ground because you were harassing his wife..completely different set of circumstances.


----------



## stdreb27 (Aug 15, 2011)

ðŸ¤¦â€â™‚ï¸


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

No matter what happens to the shooter, the ilegally parked she-boon is the only winner here now that the shooter has been charged.. Something about that stinks.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

Rockfish2 said:


> This also wasnâ€™t a â€œfight over a parking spotâ€ as some have called it. An able-bodied person parked in a handicapped spot, the guy called her out on it verbally (not physically), then her BF (stay tuned for his criminal history, folks) has to â€œdefendâ€ her by pushing down the guy who was calling her out on it and then appears to go after him again while heâ€™s on the ground.
> 
> Argue with a woman and her BF gets to legally push you down and go after you again while youâ€™re down? I donâ€™t think so.
> 
> ...


This.

A shove like that and falling the right way could kill someone. If a guy will shove me like that for verbally confronting his girlfriend, what else will he do? This reminds me of the Zimmerman case.



monark said:


> If a large man randomly shoved you to the ground.. defend yourself.
> 
> If a man shoved you to the ground because you were harassing his wife..completely different set of circumstances.


Is calling her out for being lazy the same as harassing? And at what point does harassing deserve violence as a response?


----------



## Leo (May 21, 2004)

As I said in the last thread, it looks like retaliation not self defense.


----------



## DUTY FIRST (Jun 23, 2012)

There are several issues in play here, but I don't see "stand your ground" 
as one of them. It isn't what that law is about.


----------



## TexasWineGuy (Jun 19, 2017)

Rockfish2 said:


> This case will be an acquittal, the prosecutor knows this and has only charged this guy for political reasons.
> 
> This also wasnâ€™t a â€œfight over a parking spotâ€ as some have called it. An able-bodied person parked in a handicapped spot, the guy called her out on it verbally (not physically), then her BF (stay tuned for his criminal history, folks) has to â€œdefendâ€ her by pushing down the guy who was calling her out on it and then appears to go after him again while heâ€™s on the ground.
> 
> ...


This.

When the man confronted (VERBALLY) the girl in the handicapped parking spot, the hubby escalated things by physically attacking the man. Sorry, it's not ideal, but that's a legal shoot in my book.

TWG


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

Different 2Coolers that I respect are answering this 180Â° apart. Although I will stand my ground, I also won't start anything. If nothing else, I want it so obvious that any shoot I did was justified that no charges would arise. Also, my conscious would be clear that way.


----------



## bayourat (Jan 7, 2005)

As a huge proponent for a chl(i have one and carry), this was a bad shoot. You don't go actively looking for an argument while carrying. The shooter wasn't a traffic cop so he should of minded his own business.


----------



## sea sick (Feb 9, 2006)

This reminds me of something my dad use to say

You might beat the rap,but you wont beat the ride!


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

Book him, Dano. Murder One. 
The guy was trying to protect his family in the car, and was gunned down. 
He's looking at 20 years.


----------



## bayourat (Jan 7, 2005)

Trouthappy said:


> Book him, Dano. Murder One.
> The guy was trying to protect his family in the car, and was gunned down.
> He's looking at 20 years.


yep... If I came out of the store and this was happening I can't say I'd be backing up after pushing him but then I might still be alive :rotfl:


----------



## Bobby_G (Jan 1, 2012)

poppadawg said:


> Shooter has a history off inappropriately pulling out his gun. Couple that with the video shooting, I think it will be an easy day for the prosecution. A loose cannon looking for an opportunity to shoot. He is toast.


I think this will be a key point for the prosecution...the fact that the shooter has a "history" of pulling his gun. That "history" may be an issue for the shooter. I think the video is damaging as well...after the push...the "pusher" didnt appear to go after the shooter...he basically stayed where he was...when the shooter pulled the gun, it "appears" the pusher steps backward and not toward the shooter. I dont think this will be a "slam dunk" for the prosecution...I do think the shooter is going to have a hard time convincing 12 people he was in "fear for his life"... but how does someone assess another persons fear for his life in such an escalated altercation??. This will be interesting to follow


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Whitebassfisher said:


> I can't disagree with the above, but I must ask..... In your situation are you going to start a confrontation that any reasonable person knows could escalate? That is the problem here, it makes all the difference in the world.


do you mean if someone is parked in a handicapped spot...would I say something? Possibly. Not sure I see any issue with one citizen calling out another for openly breaking the law. Would I have done exactly as this guy did? No...however if a large black man ran at me, violently threw me to the ground and I was in fear for my life, he's definitely in the wrong and at worst would be charged with felony assault.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

nabsup said:


> So being a weak undersized person gives you the right to shoot someone because they push you down? The shooters lack of situational awareness should bar him from every having an LTC if he doesn't go to jail. Hopefully the shooter does jail time, but thats between him and the jury.


Actually in Texas, being a weak undersized person gives you the legal right to defend your life. I'd suggest taking an LTC course.


----------



## bayourat (Jan 7, 2005)

photofishin said:


> do you mean if someone is parked in a handicapped spot...would I say something? Possibly. Not sure I see any issue with one citizen calling out another for openly breaking the law. Would I have done exactly as this guy did? No...however if a large black man ran at me, violently threw me to the ground and I was in fear for my life, he's definitely in the wrong and at worst would be charged with felony assault.


This issue is he didn't randomly come up and push the guy.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

monark said:


> If a large man randomly shoved you to the ground.. defend yourself.
> 
> If a man shoved you to the ground because you were harassing his wife..completely different set of circumstances.


actually the 2nd case has no merit. He wasn't "harassing his wife". He called her out for illegally parking in a handicapped spot and she escalated it telling him she could park anywhere she wanted. The boyfriend/husband caused his own death by jumping in without using his brain.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

bayourat said:


> This issue is he didn't randomly come up and push the guy.


The jury will see it differently. He violently attacked the man period and caused his own death. Whether YOU for I would have shot him is irrelevant. Stand your ground applies in this case and that's what the jury will most likely see based on the facts. (not the rhetoric of "he said/she said" being discussed on this forum)


----------



## bayourat (Jan 7, 2005)

photofishin said:


> The jury will see it differently. He violently attacked the man period and caused his own death. Whether YOU for I would have shot him is irrelevant. Stand your ground applies in this case and that's what the jury will most likely see based on the facts. (not the rhetoric of "he said/she said" being discussed on this forum)


it's not he said/she said that the shooter started the chain of events. That is FACT. The rest can be debated as you said.


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

It never had to happen, everyone involved was wrong. Never should have parked in a handicap spot (girlfriend), never should have allowed that (shooting victim), never should have shoved the man (shooting victim), never should have fired after the guy was backing off (shooter). Unfortunate series of bad decisions.


----------



## beerdruid (Jun 12, 2015)

The shooter starting the confrontation does not give the other man the right to push him down period. Now maybe he should not have shot the guy but again the other guy is not blameless here. They will throw race into this at some point. You watch.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

bayourat said:


> it's not he said/she said that the shooter started the chain of events. That is FACT. The rest can be debated as you said.


actually if you want to look at facts...the black man's wife illegally parked in handicapped...just telling her that she was illegally parked is NOT starting a fight. She escalated it by telling him she could park anywhere she wanted. All around it was a bad deal and fully preventable. She could have parked elsewhere legally, her boyfriend/husband didn't have to attack the guy, the guy could have called the police on her after she mouthed off....but a could have/would have didn't happen and a guy is dead because he let his ego over ride his brain. Like I said earlier...let the jury decide.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

It is not whether the shooter WAS in fear for his life, it is whether it was REASONABLE for the shooter to be in fear for his life. Big difference. Anybody can say they were in fear for their life. Dead guy was backing off and turning away-non aggressive at that point. It will be tough to convince a jury that the shooter was in a life threatening situation.


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

The guy didn't have to say anything to the woman who parked in a handicapped spot while her very fit husband went into the C-store to buy beer. He didn't have to, but he had the right to. The woman escalated the war of words - but that's just what it was, a war of words.

Only one person turned this thing physical. Ignore that at your own peril. (And I'll tell you why in a minute.) If he had come out and yelled at the man arguing with his wife, he would still be alive. Instead, the coward blind-sided the man and put him on the ground. Anyone who has ever been in an actual fight knows that the one place you don't want to be is on the ground. It's not out of the question to think that he was about to have two people ground-pounding him. If you doubt it, I'm pretty sure I can drag up a few dozen videos of it happening recently.

Do I think he had to shoot the guy? Nope. But I also don't think he had any intention of shooting anyone when he barked at the woman for parking in a handicapped space. While I'm at this - I also don't have any reason to believe that it was racially motivated, nor was the initial decision to pass on pressing charges. But that's how it's being played. And, like it or not, the original decision wouldn't have been reversed if they hadn't played it as a racial issue.

Here's the question some of you should answer: If the guy had just laid on the ground and done nothing, would the now-dead guy have been guilty of assault? Yep. And that's why murder isn't even a consideration. The manslaughter charge is saying that the guy over-reacted. And that's what juries are for. With the guy's history, he may well be found guilty of manslaughter. I'd trust a jury on that.

But I'll say it again. If the dead guy had come out and yelled at the other guy, he almost certainly wouldn't be a dead guy now. 

And I won't even mention the fact that the woman could have said, "You know what, you're right. Neither of us is handicapped - I'll move." Because everyone would laugh at that idea. We all know that obeying the rules (and even a lot of the laws) of our society is totally off he table - at least for some people. If I had been in that exact situation, I would have told my wife, "Don't park in a handicapped spot - I'll walk a few extra feet." Maybe that's why I'm still on top of the dirt.


----------



## FREON (Jun 14, 2005)

The DA knew he couldn't get a murder conviction and that is why he filed Manslaughter charge----which is much easier to get a conviction


----------



## DCUnger (Jul 25, 2012)

I am glad that they finally pressed charges, with the limited facts that I have, I will let the court decide the outcome...
The sad part is 2 lives are ruined!


----------



## RockportRobert (Dec 29, 2006)

According to the lawyers at Texas Law Shield, a person with LTC somewhat forgoes a self-defense claim if they initiate a confrontation. Obviously not in every conceivable scenario, but in most. They have several good videos on situations like this if you want to find them on YT.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

teeroy said:


> This.
> 
> A shove like that and falling the right way could kill someone. If a guy will shove me like that for verbally confronting his girlfriend, what else will he do? This reminds me of the Zimmerman case.
> 
> Is calling her out for being lazy the same as harassing? And at what point does harassing deserve violence as a response?


Zimmerman case? Zimmerman had a guy on top of him repeatedly slamming his head to the concrete. Not the same thing to me.

Personally, I would not have shot the guy. I wouldnâ€™t have placed myself in the situation to begin with. This shooters life is ruined at least financially. I donâ€™t like to say I told yâ€™all so, but I love to post it on 2cool.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

Will the fact that this was out in public (vs being in a residence, dwelling or vehicle) enter into it? It is an honest question, not sarcasm.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html


----------



## Drundel (Feb 6, 2006)

Look how divided this group is, which is vote hung jury.


----------



## bayourat (Jan 7, 2005)

RockportRobert said:


> According to the lawyers at Texas Law Shield, a person with LTC somewhat forgoes a self-defense claim if they initiate a confrontation. Obviously not in every conceivable scenario, but in most. They have several good videos on situations like this if you want to find them on YT.


This and you'll never convince me that the shooter would of said a word about the parking if he wasn't carrying.


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

Last year, just about this time, I was taking my daughter to see a medical specialist over in Corpus. I stopped at Speedy Stop (7-11) to buy her a taco for the road. Just before I could back out, a truck pulling a boat pulled up right behind me, blocking three cars and one empty parking space, got out, and started re-arranging gear in their boat. I had budgeted enough time, so I sat there for a couple of minutes. But they were clearly nowhere near done with the preparations for their fishing trip. Specialists are hard to get to see, and I finally had to get on my way.

I got out and told the guy, "Hey, buddy, I really need to get out." I wasn't all unicorns and Skittles, but I was probably a lot nicer than I should have been. It was a ridiculously stupid and selfish thing they were doing, and they just didn't give a **** who they inconvenienced.

The guy on the side nearest me went nuts. I mean NUTS! He clearly thought he had the right to be anyplace he wanted to be, whenever he wanted to be there, and nobody had the right to even speak to him about it.

I barked back at him, and then the guy on the other side of the boat went nuts. The thing had escalated _very_ quickly. The driver side guy started advancing on me in a way that I recognized, and saying things that made it clear he was ready to get into an actual fight over this. I wasn't carrying, and if I was I wouldn't have drawn a weapon. But I might have had my hand on it.

First question: At this point, what have I done wrong, and what should I have done differently?

Second question: Right at that moment, what if a buddy of theirs had been inside the store and had come up behind me and blindsided me to the ground? Outnumbered and on the ground, and already assaulted... would it have been my obligation to just take whatever they had in mind for me, or to defend myself with whatever means I had at my disposal?

I wasn't carrying a firearm, but I did convince Driver that it was in his interest to shut up and move his truck and boat. A couple of you who know me can probably guess how. But if he had chosen to keep escalating things, I could easily have wound up in a similar situation to the guy in the video.

Don't tell me it's not the same thing. It's close enough..


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

bayourat said:


> This and you'll never convince me that the shooter would of said a word about the parking if he wasn't carrying.


You may be right. But you're talking about state of mind, and not actions.

Personally, I don't think the woman in the care would have started a screaming match, but for the fact that she knew she was doing something wrong, but also doesn't think that any white guy has the right to say anything to her that she doesn't like. How's that for psychic?

But since you brought it up, what if they guy hadn't been carrying, but had still said something to the woman - and it all went the same way up to the point that the guy got blindsided?

I can tell you what. You'd be ************ the opposite direction about how they aggressor needs to be locked up.

This is clearly one of those issues where people on opposite sides aren't going to convince each other, and I've said enough. But I've admitted that I can see a possible case for manslaughter. I don't see anyone in the manslaughter/murder camp budging. There may still be something to be learned here.


----------



## DUTY FIRST (Jun 23, 2012)

Whitebassfisher said:


> Will the fact that this was out in public (vs being in a residence, dwelling or vehicle) enter into it? It is an honest question, not sarcasm.


Yes.

It will negate the use of the "stand your ground" provision as a defense to justify the use of deadly force.

The "stand your ground' law is applicable only under the circumstance I've printed in red.

It's only one of the justifications for using deadly force, SOME (but not all) of which I have printed in blue. I really think the "stand your ground" justification in untenable in this situation. The defense attorney should consider using one of the other justifications. The judge will probably not allow the defense to enter a not guilty plea based on "stand your ground" as it is clearly not applicable in this situation, and is not a fact question since the incident did not occur *in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be *

Bottom line for ME is I would have only shot if I felt in fear for my life or great bodily harm. Being 72 years old and having some serious health issues would likely have significant bearing on my fears, and I can't be sure exactly how I'd feel under the circumstances without actually being there.

I would have walked away from the entire situation by minding my own business from the get go. I'm not the great protector of handicapped parking (even though I have a handicapped permit). Because I carry concealed EVERYWHERE I go, I'm extra careful to avoid any altercation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Title XLVI*
CRIMES*Chapter 776 *
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE*View Entire Chapter*F.S. 776.013776.013â€ƒ*Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.â€"**(1)â€ƒA person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:*

*(a)â€ƒNondeadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the otherâ€™s imminent use of unlawful force; or*
*(*
*b)â€ƒDeadly 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.*


----------



## Oso Blanco (Oct 17, 2010)

Her getting out of the car was an escalation. When he stepped in it was two against one and the shooter feared for his life. The DA is CYA.


----------



## DIHLON (Nov 15, 2009)

The wannabe cop should have minded his own **** business.


----------



## houtxfisher (Sep 12, 2006)

The wannabe badass should not have escalated it. Guarantee he won't do it again.


----------



## BigPumaAg (Mar 16, 2018)

Drundel said:


> Look how divided this group is, which is vote hung jury.


Same here. DA won't retry it and it won't be an acquittal so Drejka will be subject to civil litigation.


----------



## THA (Jan 5, 2016)

My opinion, for what it's worth (nothing), is that when he was severely pushed down, he became fearful for his life, causing him to pull his firearm. The aggressor saw that and decided to back off and in most circumstances, the fear for life defense was gone. However,during the time the guy got knocked down, pulled his gun and fired, his mental status was no longer making decisions and the trigger got pulled even though the aggressor was retreating. Your mind does not change from a quick mental decision that fast. When he pulled the gun out, the trigger was as good as pulled. Just prey you never have to make that quick a decision.


All that being said, my thoughts would be to have pulled the gun but held back before firing. That is something you have to be mentally trained to do.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

Hung jury or not guilty and waste of tax payer money/courts time. He is only being prosecuted because of the mobs demands.

They all made bad choices but the shooter did not initiate a physical confrontation nor did he assault anyone. He got blindsided and defended his self. The guy he shot was advancing until the gun was pulled. The only reason to question is the slight pause between the gun coming out and him pulling the trigger the man that was shot was backing up.










Personally I don't get in others peoples business and would likely never find myself in this situation. I think it was a bad idea to shoot the guy.

As far as the shooter having a history of these things we would need to see some proof as I doubt hearsay is going to be allowed in the court room.

3 idiots and a gun best describes it.


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

DIHLON said:


> The wannabe cop should have minded his own **** business.


You mean the way _you_ mind _your_ own business when you think someone is driving too slow in the fast lane? Funny how the lines blur when it's someone doing something that _you_ don't care for.

In the unedited video, the guy points the woman to other non-handicapped spaces just a short distance away. I don't think that is totally unreasonable. Just like when someone throws trash o the ground, three feet from a trash can - I don't think it's unreasonable to say something to them.

I don't think the guy should have shot. But I also don't think the dead guy should have blindsided him over words. You play stupid games...

BTW - there's no sound. Anybody here know if the dead guy said anything like, "I'm gonna kill you"?


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

I am curious as to how well the handicap parking spot was marked? most convenience stores do not do the best job of keeping the handicap parking spaces painted or at times only have a small sign on the wall half blocked. Just something i have been thinking about since this shooting took place. 

My 2cents on this shooting has not changed from the first time viewing the video, it was a bad shot.


----------



## DIHLON (Nov 15, 2009)

pocjetty said:


> You mean the way _you_ mind _your_ own business when you think someone is driving too slow in the fast lane? Funny how the lines blur when it's someone doing something that _you_ don't care for.
> 
> In the unedited video, the guy points the woman to other non-handicapped spaces just a short distance away. I don't think that is totally unreasonable. Just like when someone throws trash o the ground, three feet from a trash can - I don't think it's unreasonable to say something to them.
> 
> ...


When some inconsiderate ***hole is impeding my ability to get to my destination, they have made it my business. This guy wasnâ€™t handicapped and did not need that parking spot.


----------



## cubera (Mar 9, 2005)

Hung jury.


----------



## stammster - temporary (Jul 20, 2009)

Jolly Roger said:


> I am curious as to how well the handicap parking spot was marked? most convenience stores do not do the best job of keeping the handicap parking spaces painted or at times only have a small sign on the wall half blocked. Just something i have been thinking about since this shooting took place.
> 
> My 2cents on this shooting has not changed from the first time viewing the video, it was a bad shot.


You may think itâ€™s a bad shoot, but you have to admit it was a good shot.


----------



## GooseCommanderozz (Feb 17, 2012)

There were mistakes on both sides. Firstly, the victim shouldnâ€™t have shoved the guy to the ground, thatâ€™s a prelude to violence. On the other hand, when the guy pulled his gun, the victim seemed to step back. To me, if your going to pull that trigger, the threat had better be imminent, but that didnâ€™t seem to be so per the video. As for the distance argument, 12 feet is borderline close enough to get your gun snatched away from you, so I donâ€™t think anyone can argue that he was too far away. All I can say is, Iâ€™m glad Iâ€™m not on that jury, seems like a tough decision to make. But I think the old saying of better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6 comes into play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mick R (Sep 20, 2016)

stammster said:


> You may think itâ€™s a bad shoot, but you have to admit it was a good shot.


Not really, I can hit a 6 ft x 3 ft target with me eyes closed at 8-10 ft. (as I'm sure most experienced shooters could) I doubt the shooter is patting himself on the back about his great shot since he's sitting in jail with $100,000 bail and some huge legal bills staring him in the face.


----------



## stammster - temporary (Jul 20, 2009)

Mick R said:


> Not really, I can hit a 6 ft x 3 ft target with me eyes closed at 8-10 ft. (as I'm sure most experienced shooters could) I doubt the shooter is patting himself on the back about his great shot since he's sitting in jail with $100,000 bail and some huge legal bills staring him in the face.


Actually, he hit center mass on a 6â€™ X 3â€™ target with one shot, after being pounded to the ground...drawing and shooting all while seated/leaning to one side...likely still disoriented from the violent, blindsided, unprovoked attack seconds before.

Relax...I am having a little poke at the use of the word shoot vs shot.


----------



## troutomatic1488 (Jun 18, 2006)

No winners


----------



## DIHLON (Nov 15, 2009)

stammster said:


> Actually, he hit center mass on a 6â€™ X 3â€™ target with one shot, after being pounded to the ground...drawing and shooting all while seated/leaning to one side...likely still disoriented from the violent, blindsided, *unprovoked* attack seconds before.
> 
> Relax...I am having a little poke at the use of the word shoot vs shot.


It was not unprovoked. He started **** with the dude's wife over a parking spot.


----------



## bayourat (Jan 7, 2005)

DIHLON said:


> It was not unprovoked. He started **** with the dude's wife over a parking spot.


x2

I'm guessing all the good shooters' would of came out and asked the guy nicely to stop harassing their wife.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

bayourat said:


> x2
> 
> I'm guessing all the good shooters' would of came out and asked the guy nicely to stop harassing their wife.


actually most people with half a brain would have found out what the problem was before rushing in and violently attacking the guy. If MY wife was parked in a handicapped spot and I saw that, I'd tell her to move too. It seems to be a generational thing as most of the folks here who are saying this guy murdered the black guy are younger than 40?


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Huge disconnect between what some folks consider life threatening. A hard shove and retreat after a gun is pulled doesn't qualify for most. Bet a prosecutor can seat a jury that agrees.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

poppadawg said:


> Huge disconnect between what some folks consider life threatening. A hard shove and retreat after a gun is pulled doesn't qualify for most. Bet a prosecutor can seat a jury that agrees.


actually a large man violently pushing someone to the ground IS considered life threatening under many scenarios, this one included. As for the suggestion that the black guy was "backing away", having watched the video numerous times, it happened a split second after the guy pulled his weapon. As mentioned before, if on a conservative site like 2cool you don't have consensus, you'll not see a conviction. Hung jury is most likely unless there are lesser charges that are also pending. You have to remember in the US someone is innocent until proven guilty. There have been numerous stories like this where video seems to show one thing but other facts not shown in the news are pertinent and will affect the outcome of the trial.


----------



## BlueWaveEd (Jan 3, 2007)

What I cannot see in the video is the look on Markeis McGlockton's face after he shoved the Michael Drejkel to the ground. I cannot ascertain Drejkel's ability to make a rational decision after being shoved to the ground. Did he hit his head when he went to the ground. After McGlocton pushes Drejkel to the ground, NcGlockton reaches to pull up his shorts, but did Drejkel believe that he was reaching into a pocket for a weapon. I don't know, can't tell. That will all come out in court during the trial.

He may beat the criminal charges, but he will probably be bankrupt.

Would I have shot the victim? I am not sure. I was not there. I would like to think that I would have had the presence of mind to hold off pulling the trigger after drawing my weapon.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

photofishin said:


> actually most people with half a brain would have found out what the problem was before rushing in and violently attacking the guy. If MY wife was parked in a handicapped spot and I saw that, I'd tell her to move too. It seems to be a generational thing as most of the folks here who are saying this guy murdered the black guy are younger than 40?


Well I am way past 40. Although I may not call it murder, the white guy made some very poor choices. I don't think either one had half a brain, and together they caused a death. I just feel that if you are going to purposely go out and stir up shirt, you should be willing to accept some responsibility for your actions, rather than quickly resort to deadly force to cover your arse.


----------



## Deltamike (Sep 21, 2014)

Haute Pursuit said:


> No matter what happens to the shooter, the ilegally parked she-boon is the only winner here now that the shooter has been charged.. Something about that stinks.


 This is part of the problem, these are the type of people that will be on the jury. The type of people that are so prejudice, that they see a woman who has lost the father of her children, her partner in life as a she-boon. The type of people who will see her, her children and her husband/boyfriend as less than human. The fact that haute pursuit posted that comment and no one called him out on it but will defend a man confronting a woman over a parking spot. Let's me know how a lot of you think. I'm literally disgusted at the state of today's society. Was she wrong for parking in handicap spot? Yes. Does that give him the right to approach her and say anything to her? No it does not. If he felt she was breaking the law, call the cops. That's what the cops are for.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

deltamike112 said:


> This is part of the problem, these are the type of people that will be on the jury. The type of people that are so prejudice, that they see a woman who has lost the father of her children, her partner in life as a she-boon. The type of people who will see her, her children and her husband/boyfriend as less than human. The fact that haute pursuit posted that comment and no one called him out on it but will defend a man confronting a woman over a parking spot. Letâ€™s me know how a lot of you think. Iâ€™m literally disgusted at the state of todayâ€™s society. Was she wrong for parking in handicap spot? Yes. Does that give him the right to approach her and say anything to her? No it does not. If he felt she was breaking the law, call the cops. Thatâ€™s what the cops are for.


actually it's wrong to bring race into the situation, however if someone is breaking the law, it IS every citizen's right to call them out for it. Ever heard of a citizen's arrest? SHE is an example of what's wrong with society. Self centered, entitled people who feel it's their right to knowingly break the law and then whine, scream and moan when called out on it. She'll likely be trying to cash in on the situation when she could have simply admitted her mistake and moved the car. Bad judgement all around however the violence started with the now dead black man assaulting the shooter.


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

I intended to get out of this discussion. But the video in post 57 above shows something I've seen on a TON of beatdown videos over the last few years. Look closely at what is happening: 
The woman is out of her car, likely because she sees her man coming up behind the guy.
The dead man blindsides the guy, and puts him on the ground. Then he hitches up his pants as he advances on him. He didn't put him down to tell him to take a hike - he advances on him for a reason.
There is a man standing in the doorway. (The son?) He stands and watches, right up until he sees the other guy get taken to the ground. Then he suddenly grows a pair and heads toward the scene. If he was intent on defending someone, he wouldn't have waited. He's heading in to get involved now.

You can say what you want to, but there's a very good chance that the guy on the ground is about to get a serious beatdown. The Applebee's waitress in the clip below accidentally brushed against a customer's leg - and I mean brushed. She took a nasty beatdown from four big women, and even after they all got separated one of the women picked up a knife off the table and stabbed the waitress as a parting gift.

This story hits close to home for me. We have a family friend who got waylaid in a c-store parking lot in Florida because some guys at the gas pump finished their bottle of wine and threw it on the concrete, and he had the nerve to say something to them about it. He didn't Mind His Own **** Business, and he wound up hospitalized. He was well over 70 years of age (now 81), and his only crime was speaking the truth. I guess he deserved it.

This incident didn't have to happen, and shouldn't have ended in a shooting. But some of you who are so certain what the guy was thinking live very sheltered lives. He may or may not have been in fear of his actual life. But he would have been a fool not to be in fear of a beatdown. And all of you would be singing a different tune if it happened to someone you know and love.


----------



## BigPumaAg (Mar 16, 2018)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/raul-r...bor-after-claiming-stand-your-ground-defense/

This is the case that reminds me most of the current florida case....


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Actually there are only a few on this thread that disagree to it being a bad shoot. Prosecution only needs to eliminate those outliers to convict. "Would you consider a hard shove to be life threatening?"


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)




----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Guy turning away. Don't see how that's life threatening


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

pocjetty said:


> I intended to get out of this discussion. But ....
> 
> You can say what you want to, but there's a very good chance that the guy on the ground is about to get a serious beatdown. ......


That is possibly true, I must admit.

*If*, the dead man had come out of the store and pushed the shooter down for no reason at all, and the rest of it played out exactly the same as it actually happened and was recorded, I would say good shoot.
But the shooter must accept some responsibility for his actions. How much? I don't know that answer.
Three stupid, selfish people got together, and a death resulted. What I think, what the law says, and what is right or wrong may all be different.

I will continue to not purposely push people's buttons, even when carrying.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Apparently the shooter took his responsibilities as Jr traffic cop very seriously. Threatened to kill another guy who had parked in the same spot a few months earlier.
Lit fuse waiting to go off.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/14/us/florida-stand-your-ground-previous-incidents/index.html


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

poppadawg said:


> Guy turning away. Don't see how that's life threatening


you picked the one frame (split second) where the guy may/may not appear to be turning away. By the way, he's well within 21 feet and he just had violently shoved this guy to the ground. Keep in mind they likely will have to find the shooter guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. How in your mind (you seem reasonable, I seem reasonable and several others here seem the same) will the shooter be convicted?


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

I see it as a hard shove. We have all been shoved hard at some point in our life. I just simply do not see that as a fear for your life situation. Second, his previous behavior. If the truck driver testifies that the shooter had threatened to shoot him just a few months earlier for the exact same parking in a handicap spot situation at the exact same C store, I don't see how a reasonable person could look at it all and say it was justified shoot and not some nut job waiting to blast away at the first opportunity.


----------



## Bullitt4439 (Sep 18, 2014)

Will be interested to see the outcome of this one. I would like to think I would have not pulled my gun, but as a chl holder with muscular dystrophy in his hands I can say there may be other factors at play here. 

Not being able to effectively use my right hand to fight back with, I might have felt that the husband was about to jump on top of me and pound my head in to the concrete and feared for my life. 

Just my .02


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

poppadawg said:


> I see it as a hard shove. We have all been shoved hard at some point in our life. I just simply do not see that as a fear for your life situation. Second, his previous behavior. If the truck driver testifies that the shooter had threatened to shoot him just a few months earlier for the exact same parking in a handicap spot situation at the exact same C store, I don't see how a reasonable person could look at it all and say it was justified shoot and not some nut job waiting to blast away at the first opportunity.


and I see it differently and the guy wouldn't be convicted if you and I were on the same jury. You have to get 12 jurors to all vote guilty or he walks. In this case, I say he walks. You don't know what evidence will/won't be allowed either. The jury has to convict him based off of the evidence presented...not what we see/don't see on social media. Thank God we have a justice system which follows the law versus convicts people based off of social media.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

I actually agree with that. We shall see. Then one of us can say, told u so. Fair enough. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MarkU (Jun 3, 2013)

I'm with Photofishin, I say he walks. Having an argument is one thing. Blind siding someone escalated it to the next level. Which escalated it to the final level.


----------



## Part Timer (Jul 2, 2012)

Side bar: did the lady get a fine for parking in a handicap space???


----------



## Part Timer (Jul 2, 2012)

poppadawg said:


> I see it as a hard shove. We have all been shoved hard at some point in our life. I just simply do not see that as a fear for your life situation. Second, his previous behavior. If the truck driver testifies that the shooter had threatened to shoot him just a few months earlier for the exact same parking in a handicap spot situation at the exact same C store, I don't see how a reasonable person could look at it all and say it was justified shoot and not some nut job waiting to blast away at the first opportunity.


For the record i dont think it was a good shoot. I think the guy was mentally unstable.

But i am curious how 2cool would have responded if this was just a video of a man telling a woman she shouldn't be parked there, and the guy came out and beat the guy into a coma.

Probably a whole lot of you would be singing a very different tune.


----------



## bassguitarman (Nov 29, 2005)

poppadawg said:


> Apparently the shooter took his responsibilities as Jr traffic cop very seriously. Threatened to kill another guy who had parked in the same spot a few months earlier.
> Lit fuse waiting to go off.
> http://www.cnn.com/2018/08/14/us/florida-stand-your-ground-previous-incidents/index.html


Pretty much reinforces my guess as to the shooter's personality.


----------



## Bayscout22 (Aug 9, 2007)

bassguitarman said:


> Pretty much reinforces my guess as to the shooter's personality.


Come now, we mustn't consider the shooter's "personality" if we can't do the same concerning the shover's personality. Or the baby momma personality, for that matter.

It's (apparently) not relevant. Just like it wasn't relevant what Michael Brown did prior to his lead poisoning in Ferguson. Or Trayvon Martin. Or Alton Sterling.

No double standards, please.


----------



## Too Tall (May 21, 2004)

This video shows the deceased clearly retreating when the pistol is drawn. JMO but that is not life threatening. It should have ended there. Either way this ends there will be riots.


----------



## 4 Ever-Fish N (Jun 10, 2006)

This is the way I see it too. I will just have to wait and see how the jury sees it. It could go either way.



Rockfish2 said:


> This case will be an acquittal, the prosecutor knows this and has only charged this guy for political reasons.
> 
> This also wasnâ€™t a â€œfight over a parking spotâ€ as some have called it. An able-bodied person parked in a handicapped spot, the guy called her out on it verbally (not physically), then her BF (stay tuned for his criminal history, folks) has to â€œdefendâ€ her by pushing down the guy who was calling her out on it and then appears to go after him again while heâ€™s on the ground.
> 
> ...


----------



## yep (Jul 25, 2006)

not so sure they can get a conviction, I'm sure the defense will say the husband and wife were both talking smack, threatening to kill him, beat his arse, etc. he's going to say he was blindsided, disoriented and afraid that both of them were coming for him. tragic all the way around.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

I should stay out of this, but finding it hard to. The point I want to make now is that "stand your ground" laws are necessary. The very people who truly need to use deadly force to protect themselves from others are the same ones least able to turn and run.


Doing away with "stand your ground" laws is not the answer, no matter your opinion of whether this was a good shoot or bad shoot.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

Whitebassfisher said:


> I should stay out of this, but finding it hard to. The point I want to make now is that "stand your ground" laws are necessary. The very people who truly need to use deadly force to protect themselves from others are the same ones least able to turn and run.
> 
> Doing away with "stand your ground" laws is not the answer, no matter your opinion of whether this was a good shoot or bad shoot.


I don't think that any laws should be changed based on this group of idiots.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

deltamike112 said:


> This is part of the problem, these are the type of people that will be on the jury. The type of people that are so prejudice, that they see a woman who has lost the father of her children, her partner in life as a she-boon. The type of people who will see her, her children and her husband/boyfriend as less than human. The fact that haute pursuit posted that comment and no one called him out on it but will defend a man confronting a woman over a parking spot. Letâ€™s me know how a lot of you think. Iâ€™m literally disgusted at the state of todayâ€™s society. Was she wrong for parking in handicap spot? Yes. Does that give him the right to approach her and say anything to her? No it does not. If he felt she was breaking the law, call the cops. Thatâ€™s what the cops are for.


Are you saying that we should expect to be physically assaulted if we call out another person for breaking a law?

I think we have all at some point yelled at or angrily told someone they were breaking a law.

I have yelled at people driving too fast down my street when kids where playing in the cul de sac. Someone ran half way through a stop sign and almost hit me with their car and I yelled at them about that. There are probably a few other incidents where I have said something when someone has broken a law. Are you saying that if I were to be physically assaulted based on these actions that I should be ok with that?

On the flip side I have had people say things to me if I have done something they perceived as wrong but I didn't thrown them to the ground or assault them even if I disagreed with their assessment of the situation.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

deltamike112 said:


> Does that give him the right to approach her and say anything to her? No it does not. If he felt she was breaking the law, call the cops. Thatâ€™s what the cops are for.


And that's another problem with society. The police don't need to be called for every issue, but they tend to be. Neighbors' son playing his drums too loud at night? Call the cops. Neighbor's dog barking? Cops. Neighbors talking loud? Cops. I could go on, and on.........and on........but you get the point. I hope that if I go to one of my neighbors' homes to speak about an issue that he doesn't knock me out.


----------



## BigPumaAg (Mar 16, 2018)

fishinguy said:


> I don't think that any laws should be changed based on this group of idiots.


Amen. This whole thing was needless and senseless...:headknock


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

teeroy said:


> And that's another problem with society. The police don't need to be called for every issue, but they tend to be. Neighbors' son playing his drums too loud at night? Call the cops. Neighbor's dog barking? Cops. Neighbors talking loud? Cops. I could go on, and on.........and on........but you get the point. I hope that if I go to one of my neighbors' homes to speak about an issue that he doesn't knock me out.


 Well, good cops, while out on patrol, will check certain parking lots for handicap parking spot cheaters! :dance:

All right, I'll be honest here for those that won't realize why I posted this. I rode with Teeroy one night and he did check for cheaters, but there weren't any that particular night. I have been severely chastised by some for my sense of humor in the past, so decided to explain this one.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

poppadawg said:


> Apparently the shooter took his responsibilities as Jr traffic cop very seriously. Threatened to kill another guy who had parked in the same spot a few months earlier.
> Lit fuse waiting to go off.
> http://www.cnn.com/2018/08/14/us/florida-stand-your-ground-previous-incidents/index.html


Pffft lit fuse

check out the guy he shot can't say he was long for this world anyhow.

28 years old 23 arrests, 6 of which were felonies

SALE OR DELIVERY OF COCAINE

POSSESSION OF COCAINE

SALE OF COUNTERFEIT DRUG

POSSESSION OF COCAINE

RESISTING AN OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE

AGGRAVATED BATTERY DOMESTIC

PETIT THEFT

POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA

DISORDERLY CONDUCT

PETIT THEFT

FELONY FLEEING & ELUDING

FAIL/LV/INFO/UNATTENDED VEHIC

FELONY FLEEING & ELUDING

FTA LEAVE SCENE OF ACC W/UNATTENDED PROP

Like it was said earlier 3 idiots and a gun. The shooter walks. This will be a waste of tax payer resources.


----------



## Deltamike (Sep 21, 2014)

Thanks for the replies and the questions guys. I should probably leave this alone at this point but I can’t. The ones who have replied picked select portions of my comment but definitely didn’t touch the part about the woman being called a she-boon by haute pursuit. Why can’t we condemn the racist bs from a person when it happens? We are bold enough to condemn a person for parking in a handicap spot but silent when something blatantly racist is said!!! There is no denying she shouldn’t have parked there, it’s wrong. No one knows exactly what was said to start the argument. Did the bf have to come out the store and shove the guy to ground? Absolutely not. But he was protecting his family from a person he didn’t know. We do know that wasn’t the guys first time starting an argument over that parking spot and it wasn’t his first time pulling his gun on someone. We as a society shouldn’t be afraid to correct someone for doing wrong but when cowards carry guns legally this will continue to be the outcome. Color of a persons skin shouldn’t matter in this case but it always seems to be at the forefront. Maybe it’s because of the media, maybe it’s because we have our own prejudices? I don’t have that answer, I wish I did though. I find it sad in 2018 we are more comfortable saying a person is wrong for parking illegally but we are silent when racist behavior happens. We have to do better as a people or we are doomed to repeat a violent past. Please don’t think I’m against concealed carry, I’m definitely not. But when you carry, if your life isn’t in imminent danger you shouldn’t be pulling your weapon. In this instance, I don’t see his life being in imminent danger. I see a man who started an argument with a woman, not realizing her boyfriend was with her. But that’s just through my eyes, I’m definitely not the expert on the topic. Being blindsided is very startling but does it make you feel your LIFE is in danger? You guys have a good night, I’m not touching this topic anymore. At least I’ll try my best not to touch it anymore.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

deltamike112 said:


> Thanks for the replies and the questions guys. I should probably leave this alone at this point but I canâ€™t. The ones who have replied picked select portions of my comment but definitely didnâ€™t touch the part about the woman being called a she-boon by haute pursuit. Why canâ€™t we condemn the racist bs from a person when it happens?


I don't agree with him but that is not the point of the discussion.



deltamike112 said:


> We do know that wasnâ€™t the guys first time starting an argument over that parking spot and it wasnâ€™t his first time pulling his gun on someone. We as a society shouldnâ€™t be afraid to correct someone for doing wrong but when cowards carry guns legally this will continue to be the outcome. Color of a persons skin shouldnâ€™t matter in this case but it always seems to be at the forefront.


We also know the guy that got shot was a 6 time felon. This was not his first time assaulting someone. He is also known to deal drugs, beat up on women and cops. None of that is really relevant to the case.

We have the video of the incident which should be the only thing to really review. I honestly couldn't tell the race of the shooter in the video. When I first saw it I assumed they were both black. It really doesn't matter. I am watching the video and coming to my own conclusion.



deltamike112 said:


> In this instance, I donâ€™t see his life being in imminent danger. I see a man who started an argument with a woman, not realizing her boyfriend was with her. But thatâ€™s just through my eyes, Iâ€™m definitely not the expert on the topic. Being blindsided is very startling but does it make you feel your LIFE is in danger? You guys have a good night, Iâ€™m not touching this topic anymore. At least Iâ€™ll try my best not to touch it anymore.


What is the harm in telling someone that they have parked in a handicap spot? The shooter did not initiate a physical altercation.

In my opinion the guy that was shot intended to continue the assault until the gun came out. This is my opinion but that is how I see it.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

Whitebassfisher said:


> Well, good cops, while out on patrol, will check certain parking lots for handicap parking spot cheaters! :dance:
> 
> All right, I'll be honest here for those that won't realize why I posted this. I rode with Teeroy one night and he did check for cheaters, but there weren't any that particular night. I have been severely chastised by some for my sense of humor in the past, so decided to explain this one.


All the grocery stores around here are notorious for it. And then they say, every time, "But I take my (mom dad uncle) to the hospital for their appointment...." And then I stare at them for a moment.........and explain what handicap parking spots are for...to a grown adult....yea..


----------



## Zeitgeist (Nov 10, 2011)

deltamike112 said:


> This is part of the problem, these are the type of people that will be on the jury. The type of people that are so prejudice, that they see a woman who has lost the father of her children, her partner in life as a she-boon. The type of people who will see her, her children and her husband/boyfriend as less than human. The fact that haute pursuit posted that comment and no one called him out on it but will defend a man confronting a woman over a parking spot. *Letâ€™s me know how a lot of you think.* Iâ€™m literally disgusted at the state of todayâ€™s society.





deltamike112 said:


> Thanks for the replies and the questions guys. I should probably leave this alone at this point but I canâ€™t. The ones who have replied picked select portions of my comment but definitely didnâ€™t touch the part about the woman being called a she-boon by haute pursuit. Why canâ€™t we condemn the racist bs from a person when it happens?


Slow your roll before you accuse the entire board of being racist? A one off comment by a member and you are accusing him of being a racist? Have you ever even met Haute Pursuit before? Do you know Haute Pursuit? Ever been to a 2Cool gathering? Just like the media, throwing racism in your face everyday. This site has been around for 20 years and you just signed on 2 months ago. Get over yourself.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

Zeitgeist said:


> Slow your roll before you accuse the entire board of being racist? A one off comment by a member and you are accusing him of being a racist? Have you ever even met Haute Pursuit before? Do you know Haute Pursuit? Ever been to a 2Cool gathering? Just like the media, throwing racism in your face everyday. This site has been around for 20 years and you just signed on 2 months ago. Get over yourself.


I met HP at a klan rally a while back.


----------



## ibtbone (Oct 7, 2013)

Part Timer said:


> Side bar: did the lady get a fine for parking in a handicap space???


Exactly!
lol

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

Too Tall said:


> This video shows the deceased clearly retreating when the pistol is drawn. JMO but that is not life threatening. It should have ended there. Either way this ends there will be riots.


That's the one thing that makes me say it is probably manslaughter. But... legally, the threat of deadly force is exactly the same as the use of deadly force. If he didn't have a gun, he likely would have gotten a beatdown. But by the letter of the law, using the threat of one to save your *** will get you locked up, if not justified. So if you have justification for pulling one, you have justification for firing it. It's a bad position to be in.



fishinguy said:


> Are you saying that we should expect to be physically assaulted if we call out another person for breaking a law.


Yes, that's exactly what some of them are saying. They won't admit it, because saying it that way sounds bad, but that's still what they are saying. They live in a magical fantasy world where they get to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it, and everybody else better mind their own **** business.

My experience is that they whine like children, though, whenever someone does something that THEY don't like. They are entitled to ride within a foot of your bumper, if they believe that you aren't driving fast enough - and don't you dare complain. But if you're paying with a check at the grocery store and slow them down by 30 seconds, you can bet THAT is their business, and they get to weigh in.


----------



## sea sick (Feb 9, 2006)

Too Tall said:


> This video shows the deceased clearly retreating when the pistol is drawn. JMO but that is not life threatening. It should have ended there. Either way this ends there will be riots.


I'm seeing what you see as well. He was away from and backing up as he was drawing his gun. He never approached him once he recognized the weapon. Took a step back then was shot. 
I'd be surprised if he doesn't go to jail.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

sea sick said:


> I'm seeing what you see as well. He was away from and backing up as he was drawing his gun. He never approached him once he recognized the weapon. Took a step back then was shot.
> I'd be surprised if he doesn't go to jail.


In your opinion was the shooter justified in drawing his weapon?


----------



## sea sick (Feb 9, 2006)

fishinguy said:


> In your opinion was the shooter justified in drawing his weapon?


Yes.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

sea sick said:


> Yes.


Same here and the pause between the gun coming out and the trigger being pulled was my only question. The first time I noticed the attacker was backing up and the shooter should have left it at that but then I was thinking more about whether the gun should be drawn in the first place. Once I decided that he was justified in drawing the weapon it made me think more about "don't draw a weapon unless you plan to use it". In that line of thinking the shooter had recognized the danger and had already determined he needed to defend his self. He was drawing the weapon with intent to pull the trigger. The timing between the gun being drawn and the trigger pulled is all we have left to question. Hard for me to make the determination about how long you have from the draw to the trigger pull to remain justified. The guy that was shot also had stopped backing up when the trigger was pulled.


----------



## sea sick (Feb 9, 2006)

fishinguy said:


> Same here and the pause between the gun coming out and the trigger being pulled was my only question. The first time I noticed the attacker was backing up and the shooter should have left it at that but then I was thinking more about whether the gun should be drawn in the first place. Once I decided that he was justified in drawing the weapon it made me think more about "don't draw a weapon unless you plan to use it". In that line of thinking the shooter had recognized the danger and had already determined he needed to defend his self. He was drawing the weapon with intent to pull the trigger. The timing between the gun being drawn and the trigger pulled is all we have left to question. Hard for me to make the determination about how long you have from the draw to the trigger pull to remain justified.


Agree.....from the moment the gun was drawn it was over.
The guy wasn't holding a weapon or advancing. Guns get pulled on people thousands of times a day, ask the cops. They don't always shoot when its pulled out.
The shooter knew once he hit the deck and looked up, he was guna shoot. 
He did right by getting it out and preventing anymore harm to himself, but there was no life threatening situation in the moment he pulled the trigger.


----------



## bushwhacker (Sep 30, 2015)

It's my opinion that you pull a weapon to end someone's life, not to force your will on another person. I am a hypocrite in some ways because I have pointed a gun at someone while I was being robbed, in order to dissuade their evil ways, but had no real intention of shooting.
I have no idea what the outcome of this case may be, or what I would have done in this circumstance, but how much of a beating should the shooter have taken before fearing for his life?


----------



## TxAirhedz (Jul 23, 2017)

First, let me say, I donâ€™t have a CHL. Though I know I should. But Iâ€™ve talked to some CHL holders and theyâ€™ve all said that if you do draw your weapon you better use it. Because if you donâ€™t you can get into trouble for brandishing a weapon. 

If thatâ€™s the case and youâ€™re in this same situation I can see where a person might draw their weapon as the shooter did but during that split second you might have a second thought about it. Like â€œdo I really want to do this?â€ But, by then, your gun is already out. So is there, or is there no turning back at that point?

I really hope if Iâ€™m faced with a similar situation Iâ€™m able to just let it go. But until youâ€™re there no one really knows what they would do.


----------



## DIHLON (Nov 15, 2009)

pocjetty said:


> That's the one thing that makes me say it is probably manslaughter. But... legally, the threat of deadly force is exactly the same as the use of deadly force. If he didn't have a gun, he likely would have gotten a beatdown. But by the letter of the law, using the threat of one to save your *** will get you locked up, if not justified. So if you have justification for pulling one, you have justification for firing it. It's a bad position to be in.
> 
> Yes, that's exactly what some of them are saying. They won't admit it, because saying it that way sounds bad, but that's still what they are saying. They live in a magical fantasy world where they get to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it, and everybody else better mind their own **** business.
> 
> My experience is that they whine like children, though, whenever someone does something that THEY don't like. They are entitled to ride within a foot of your bumper, if they believe that you aren't driving fast enough - and don't you dare complain. But if you're paying with a check at the grocery store and slow them down by 30 seconds, you can bet THAT is their business, and they get to weigh in.


If this is directed at me, you have serious issues. You don't know a **** thing about me. And the fact that you remember everything I post is pretty *********** creepy.


----------



## sea sick (Feb 9, 2006)

bushwhacker said:


> It's my opinion that you pull a weapon to end someone's life, not to force your will on another person. I am a hypocrite in some ways because I have pointed a gun at someone while I was being robbed, in order to dissuade their evil ways, but had no real intention of shooting.
> I have no idea what the outcome of this case may be, or what I would have done in this circumstance, but how much of a beating should the shooter have taken before fearing for his life?


You answered your own question. After the guy hit the ground and pulled that gun out, it looked to me as the beating was stopped. The guy didn't lunge or jump at him or close any distance or reach for anything himself. He recognized the older guy on the ground had a gun and understood what that ment.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

sea sick said:


> You answered your own question. After the guy hit the ground and pulled that gun out, it looked to me as the beating was stopped. The guy didn't lunge or jump at him or close any distance or reach for anything himself. He recognized the older guy on the ground had a gun and understood what that ment.


however all of that didn't happen in several seconds...it happened in a split second. The shooter had just been violently attacked by an opponent MUCH larger than him. He fell to the ground, pulled his weapon and fired. The fact that in a split second, the attacker suddenly started to back up is relevant however what you or I or any other reasonable person would to after just being violently attacked may or may not come up in trial. This DEFINITELY isn't a case for murder and the fact that it took a week and a half of liberal media coverage to get them to charge the guy with manslaughter tells me that this one won't be an easy conviction for the prosecution. This should give us ALL pause to think what would actually happen if we were in a similar situation. I'm not a veteran of combat nor a law enforcement officer. II DO hold a LTC and regularly practice with my weapon, however unless you've actually been put in a situation like this, you have no idea how you'd react. I'd like to think that I'd be calm enough to not pull a weapon...however had this guy not pulled his weapon and had started to get up again, who's to say he wouldn't have been in a lot more danger?
LEGALLY this isn't an open and shut case.


----------



## TexasWineGuy (Jun 19, 2017)

Something for all of you to consider about the old man on the ground:

Some of the training I have taken includes the theory of "Action vs. Reaction". It's a well proven theory used by military and Law Enforcement, backed up tests.

One of the main experiments used to test this theory is done by having one person stand with a handgun (blanks) pointed directly at a second person. The 2nd person has a handgun (blanks) pointed down at the ground by his side. The test goes as this: The 2nd person is the "Action" person, meaning that he fires his weapon FIRST, at the man with a handgun _already_ pointed directly at him.

In at least 50% of the test runs the 2nd man, with handgun pointing DOWN at the ground will hit the first man - before the first man has time to REACT and simply pull his trigger.

Apply this to the old man on the ground. He had just been attacked. Even though he had his handgun out, he would haven been in the "reaction" position which means he would, at best, had a 50% chance of stopping the other man if he chose to attack again.

If I'm on the jury - not guilty. Not an ideal situation but not everyone here is considering all of the variables.

TWG


----------



## sea sick (Feb 9, 2006)

photofishin said:


> however all of that didn't happen in several seconds...it happened in a split second. The shooter had just been violently attacked by an opponent MUCH larger than him. He fell to the ground, pulled his weapon and fired. The fact that in a split second, the attacker suddenly started to back up is relevant however what you or I or any other reasonable person would to after just being violently attacked may or may not come up in trial. This DEFINITELY isn't a case for murder and the fact that it took a week and a half of liberal media coverage to get them to charge the guy with manslaughter tells me that this one won't be an easy conviction for the prosecution. This should give us ALL pause to think what would actually happen if we were in a similar situation. I'm not a veteran of combat nor a law enforcement officer. II DO hold a LTC and regularly practice with my weapon, however unless you've actually been put in a situation like this, you have no idea how you'd react. I'd like to think that I'd be calm enough to not pull a weapon...however had this guy not pulled his weapon and had started to get up again, who's to say he wouldn't have been in a lot more danger?
> LEGALLY this isn't an open and shut case.


Well I am a USMC veteran.I have been in combat. I have also pulled my weapon here in the states 3 times and fired on one of those occasions. Police were involved in those 3 occasions. Different then what happened here, but you are right. Until you are in those shoes. I can say what I would have done doesnt mean it would of played out that way. 
It's going to be a tough day in court for everyone.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

sea sick said:


> Well I am a USMC veteran.I have been in combat. I have also pulled my weapon here in the states 3 times and fired on one of those occasions. Police were involved in those 3 occasions. Different then what happened here, but you are right. Until you are in those shoes. I can say what I would have done doesnt mean it would of played out that way.
> It's going to be a tough day in court for everyone.


thank you for your service to our country by the way


----------



## gbollom (Apr 16, 2012)

photofishin said:


> however all of that didn't happen in several seconds...it happened in a split second. The shooter had just been violently attacked by an opponent MUCH larger than him. He fell to the ground, pulled his weapon and fired. The fact that in a split second, the attacker suddenly started to back up is relevant however what you or I or any other reasonable person would to after just being violently attacked may or may not come up in trial. This DEFINITELY isn't a case for murder and the fact that it took a week and a half of liberal media coverage to get them to charge the guy with manslaughter tells me that this one won't be an easy conviction for the prosecution. This should give us ALL pause to think what would actually happen if we were in a similar situation. I'm not a veteran of combat nor a law enforcement officer. II DO hold a LTC and regularly practice with my weapon, however unless you've actually been put in a situation like this, you have no idea how you'd react. I'd like to think that I'd be calm enough to not pull a weapon...however had this guy not pulled his weapon and had started to get up again, who's to say he wouldn't have been in a lot more danger?
> *LEGALLY this isn't an open and shut case*.


Couldn't be more accurate. Will be interesting to see the ruling when it's all said and done


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

stammster said:


> You may think itâ€™s a bad shoot, but you have to admit it was a good shot.


No, said what I meant. As all this plays out a miss would have been better.


----------



## tngbmt (May 30, 2004)

i have been shoved backward, fell to the ground, hit my head (diag. w/concussion).. and i was carrying a small 380 ankle holster. in my case getting up seeing the robber taking money and running i decided not to fire at him. he was arrested after robbing a second store later the same day. 

getting over the shock of free falling, my back then head hitting the ground took more than a few seconds. pulling the gun out, safety off looking up to see him jumping the counter then running was eternity. but through all of that eternity, i did not see his face. i knew couldnt put a bullet in his back. if that split second as i look up and he was facing me and i could place one in his chest it may have turned ugly.. there is no way i could determine if he was moving forward/backward in the ground position, shocked, impaired vision. i would rely on the training.. ask later. i support the shooter.


----------



## stammster - temporary (Jul 20, 2009)

If it goes that far, it will be a jury of his peers.

Here is the way I see it, if it happened in the following locations.
California ... guilty
Texas ... not guilty
Florida ... hung jury
Canada ... black guy is alive, but on trial for assult or man slaughter because white guy canâ€™t carry a gun.


----------



## Leo (May 21, 2004)

I saw today that the shooter was found guilty of manslaughter.


----------



## thedudeabides (May 6, 2018)

Good. Glad to see common sense and legal outcome converge. Stand your ground doesn't start and stop when its convenient for the shooter. 

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk


----------



## mrsh978 (Apr 24, 2006)

Shooter was aggressively assaulted first. My first thought on seeing video is guy is gonna get curb stomped further. Backing away as it appears doesnâ€™t mean he wonâ€™t finish what he started. Stand your ground may be wrong phrase here , but self defense from a larger , aggressive repeat felon will be painted during trial. Heâ€™ll walk. Senseless yes. Thatâ€™s todayâ€™s fellow man


----------



## mrsh978 (Apr 24, 2006)

This sorta rings of Ferguson. Guy beating cop after he just stole beer- then folks are amazed he got shot ? Again, if folks would be good citizens - pistolas wouldnâ€™t be needed .


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

https://abcnews.go.com/US/michael-d...ing-victim-stepped-contrary/story?id=65121107

A Florida jury deliberated for just six hours before finding a man guilty of manslaughter in the 2018 killing of an unarmed father he shot in front of his family in a dispute over a handicap parking space.

Michael Drejka had argued he acted in self-defense, and initially invoked the controversial "stand your ground" law that earned widespread attention during the trial of Neighborhood Watch volunteer George Zimmerman in 2013 killing of African-American teenager Trayvon Martin.

The jury in the Drejka trial came to its guilty decision late Friday after less than a full day of deliberation.


----------



## Won Hunglo (Apr 24, 2007)

He talked way too much before getting a lawyer. It made all the difference in this case. Had he had a good "after the bang" plan this never goes to a jury. Everything he said made this case against him.


----------



## Tigerhead52 (Oct 9, 2016)

> Shooter was aggressively assaulted first.


Physically assaulted, yes. But the wife was verbally assaulted first. Big mistake.



> My first thought on seeing video is guy is gonna get curb stomped further.


I've never pursued getting a CHL. I'm not sure what they teach you. Do they say you have the right to use lethal force if you think you're about to take an *** whipping? I've had at least one *** whipping in my life and I didn't think I was going to be killed. Would I have the right to use lethal force in that situation? Serious question.



> Backing away as it appears doesnâ€™t mean he wonâ€™t finish what he started.


Doesn't mean he will either.



> Stand your ground may be wrong phrase here , but self defense from a larger , aggressive repeat felon will be painted during trial.


Well, I guess when you verbally accost a woman (I believe with a small child) and you don't check to see how big the ole boy is first, you could get the surprise of your life. But at that point in time you have already put the wheels in motion and you have to make a decision. Apologize, take an *** whipping, pull a gun and hope he backs off, or shoot first and ask questions later.



> Heâ€™ll walk. Senseless yes. Thatâ€™s todayâ€™s fellow man


Yep. So many lives changed over a handicap parking space. No winners, only losers. Before we had handicap parking, it was just another patch of concrete. Now it's a grave marker.


----------



## mrsh978 (Apr 24, 2006)

I missed the boat on this one.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Seems like people see what they want to see. I saw a guy shoot another guy in the back. But, but, but. what if? Guy is still dead


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

poppadawg said:


> Seems like people see what they want to see. I saw a guy shoot another guy in the back.


LOL. I guess you proved your own point. People really do see what they want to see. McGlockton was killed by a single gunshot wound to the chest... from the front. Nobody disputes that.

The whole case really hinged around the fact that McGlockton backed up a couple of steps before he was shot. Of course, he didn't back up until after he saw the gun, but that doesn't matter. He was no longer threatening the guy on the ground. McGlockton DID step toward the man after blindsiding him and knocking him to the ground. If the guy had fired the shot while McGlockton was still closing on him, he would have gotten by with it.

In Florida (just like Texas) a person is justified in THREATENING to use deadly force if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent severe bodily harm. So he was justified in pulling and pointing the gun, at the time that part happened. It was those two backward steps that said he was no longer in danger of bodily harm.

The woman _was not_ justified in parking in a handicapped space.
Drejka _was_ justified in saying something to her, as long as he didn't threaten her. (There is no Mind Your Own Business law, no matter what some people think.)
McGlockton _was not_ justified in physically assaulting Drejka.
Drejka _was_ justified in drawing his weapon, at the moment he did it.

Up till then, everything was on Drejka's side. The whole thing hinged on those two backward steps - about one second of time. It's worth noting that the gun was very effective in preventing a beating, even without pulling the trigger.


----------



## c hook (Jul 6, 2016)

*right on yhe money*



pocjetty said:


> LOL. I guess you proved your own point. People really do see what they want to see. McGlockton was killed by a single gunshot wound to the chest... from the front. Nobody disputes that.
> 
> The whole case really hinged around the fact that McGlockton backed up a couple of steps before he was shot. Of course, he didn't back up until after he saw the gun, but that doesn't matter. He was no longer threatening the guy on the ground. McGlockton DID step toward the man after blindsiding him and knocking him to the ground. If the guy had fired the shot while McGlockton was still closing on him, he would have gotten by with it.
> 
> ...


the two backward steps, are indeed a game changer. bad deal all the way around. :texasflag


----------



## stdreb27 (Aug 15, 2011)

I watched that video. People were watching that across the parking lot. Before the boyfriend stepped in. 

NOT going to give the politicians that much credit. But this scenario plays well in how Texas Law is written. With killing someone being illegal and then defining justified Defence from prosecution.


----------

