Convenient store stand-your-ground shooter charged

[Lewdog]

The bottom line is simply this.

The defendant was perfectly within his legal rights to tell the woman she was illegally parked and she should move her car. to a legal parking space and there was no shortage of them.

A reasonable person would have apologized and moved the car. However this black woman was not a reasonable person. She threw a fit, as in the vernacular 'she went off' on the defendant' telling him just to wait till her man got back and he would fuck him up.

She was outraged no doubt because a white man dared to tell her that she was wrong to park in a handicap spot. She also knew that since the defendant was a frail older man that he would be no match for her and her and her younger and muscular man and thus she told him they would fuck him up.

This was reported by a witness.

Again what was wrong with this jury??? Political correctness is the best explanation. So many due to the media b.s. always want to think black folk are always innocent and most especially if they are unarmed not recognizing or knowing that black men---usually young black men have beaten countless people to death.

The state spun all that around to claim that the defendant was threatening the black woman. Ridiculous, but they got away with it because the jury failed in their duty no doubt being devotees of political correctness as so many are. As in--the black person is always the victim.

If the black woman had acted reasonably there would have been no argument and nothing would have happened. Instead she instigated a chain of events that led to the death of her boyfriend.

She will not admit it for sure --yet I am sure she feels a lot of guilt. By her arrogance, anger, stupidity and resentment of a white man pointing out her violation of handicap parking she is the one most responsible for the death of her b/f other than her b/f himself who high on drugs was impaired no doubt to such an extent that he did not even bother to try and find out what was going on before he assaulted the defendant.

When the black guy exited the store all he saw was the defendant pointing his finger and arguing with his g/f. Was that reason enough to assault someone? Of course not.

A terrible miscarriage of justice and it will have far reaching ramifications.

Just another example of the current cultural war, which has been going on for a long while now. It has not reached the point of a civil war and may not but there is a terrible division in America. We are more divided now than at any time since The War Between The States and it is getting steadily worse and it is going to get much,much worse.

Yeah but you are leaving out some very important details... like how the shooter was well-known to be a trouble-maker at that store and getting into confrontations with others, and LIED to law enforcement about what was clearly seen on tv. Parking in a handicap spot is no doubtingly wrong and deserves a ticket, however isn't stand your ground worthy. The boyfriend had no idea the woman had made that threat as he was in the store, and all he saw when he came out was a man standing at the driver's window of the car in a loud argument with his woman. His reaction to that, especially once again given the man's reputation, was not wrong.

 

[Muhammed]

He had every right to tell the woman she should not have parked in the handicapped spot. He in no way threatened her but the state was able to convince the jury of that.

Yet, you are right because in todays political climate one must be very,very careful in dealing with a protected class of people.

However, at first he did not even realize there was anyone in the car due to the tinted windows...as he was checking the rear of the car and then the front of the car for handicapped placards the black lady rolled down her window and essentially went off on him. Instead of walking away he tried to persuade her that she was in the wrong but it resulted in a heated argument with her actually threatening him.

His biggest mistake though as previously pointed out was talking to the police without his lawyer.

When you don't take the stand in your own defense ...probably doesn't go over well with the jury. . Right to carry or stand your ground is unaffected. You can reargue all you want...your side was wrong before and still is. He had every opportunity to deescalate and leave when they were arguing .....but didn't.

Nobody has any obligation to deescalate a conversation. See the 1st amendment.

Actually... there is a law called "terroristic threats" that often goes along with serious arguments and is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

There was no "terroristic threat" you fucking moron.

I was responding to your stupid response that "Nobody has any obligation to deescalate a conversation. See the 1st amendment."

That's obviously wrong. You should be more careful about trying to demean other's intelligence when you are the one wrong.

I am 100% correct, moron.

 

[Lewdog]

When you don't take the stand in your own defense ...probably doesn't go over well with the jury. . Right to carry or stand your ground is unaffected. You can reargue all you want...your side was wrong before and still is. He had every opportunity to deescalate and leave when they were arguing .....but didn't.

Nobody has any obligation to deescalate a conversation. See the 1st amendment.

Actually... there is a law called "terroristic threats" that often goes along with serious arguments and is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

There was no "terroristic threat" you fucking moron.

I was responding to your stupid response that "Nobody has any obligation to deescalate a conversation. See the 1st amendment."

That's obviously wrong. You should be more careful about trying to demean other's intelligence when you are the one wrong.

I am 100% correct, moron.

You are 100% delusional.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

For the record, and despite all the "racist Nazi bigot" labels our resident leftists have thrown at me over my past year on this forum, I believe the jury made the right call.

Drejka was attacked by McGlockton, that is undeniable. Because of the attack, Drejka pulled his firearm - an acceptable "use of force" to prevent further attack. 9 times out of 10, that's all you need to do - brandish. But he fucked up. McGlockton was clearly retreating and Drejka shot him anyway. That doesn't make it murder, because he almost certainly didn't go to the gas station with the intent to kill someone - but it definitely makes it manslaughter. He won't get 30 years, but whatever he does get he deserves.

c

Easy to say that in hindsight and with a slow motion video and especially since it was not you who had been knocked to the ground and under threat of further attack.

One of the first rules in self defense is if you pull your weapon you better use it.

If you watch the full video in normal speed you will see the black guy rushing out of the store and with no idea of what was going on and to add to that made no attempt to find out.

Perhaps due to the fact he was high on drugs-- as soon as he reaches Drejka he violently with much force shoves him to the ground. Drjka never saw him coming.

Then if you watch closely you will see him advance on Drjka who has fallen on his gun hand and injured his arm. He takes one or two steps towards Drejka llying on the ground but Drejka manages to pull his weapon out at which point the black guy stops his advance and takes one or two steps backward....most likely Drejka did not even notice that...he was dazed and traumatized and all he really knew was that he had been violently attacked and he thus felt with justification that his life was in danger or he might suffer further grievious bodily harm as the g/f had said they would fuck him up.

No doubt his adrenaline was pumping wildly and he was in great fear---not even to mention all this happened very quickly and he only had a couple of secs. to decide to fire or not to fire. Unfortunately, the jury was misled by the slow motion video which made it appear Drejka had much more time than he had to make his decision.

One should also remember the black guy was a young muscular 6' two hundred pounder whilst Drejka was a diminutive frail older fellow with health issues...he would probably not have even been able to defend himself adequately from the g/f.

Not even to mention there was another guy hot on the black guys heels.....so there were 3 potential threats to Drejka --the black guy, his g//f and the other guy hot on the black guys heels.

Drejka did go to the gas station with the intent to act as an armed vigilante as he did on prior occasions. He was also the initial aggressor causing unarmed McGlockton to justifiably fear for his families life. McGlockton was also unarmed & retreating when Drejka shot to kill. Drejka did murder, should be charged, convicted & sued for more than enough to care for McGlockton's surviving family.

Absolute nonsense. He went to the store to buy something as he did just about every day--living close by.

Talking to someone is not being aggressive.

The g/f response was aggressive and threatening ---saying 'when my man gets here we will fuck you up.'

McGlockton had no idea what was going on. When he came out of the store all he saw was a white guy arguing with his g/f and pointing at his g/f.

Talking and or pointing to someone is not threatening. McGlocton did not fear for his families life--if he had been that responsible he would not have been driving around high on drugs with his kids in his car not even to mention he had a history of assault.

He was simply outraged that a white guy would be arguing with his g/f. Most likely trying to show off by humiliating the white dude.

You with your overly simplistic thoughts would have fit right in with the incompetent pc jury that essentially is sending an older and frail man to jail in a outrageous mis-carriage of justice.

Nope.

For the record, and despite all the "racist Nazi bigot" labels our resident leftists have thrown at me over my past year on this forum, I believe the jury made the right call.

Drejka was attacked by McGlockton, that is undeniable. Because of the attack, Drejka pulled his firearm - an acceptable "use of force" to prevent further attack. 9 times out of 10, that's all you need to do - brandish. But he fucked up. McGlockton was clearly retreating and Drejka shot him anyway. That doesn't make it murder, because he almost certainly didn't go to the gas station with the intent to kill someone - but it definitely makes it manslaughter. He won't get 30 years, but whatever he does get he deserves.

Drejka did go to the gas station with the intent to act as an armed vigilante as he did on prior occasions. He was also the initial aggressor causing unarmed McGlockton to justifiably fear for his families life. McGlockton was also unarmed & retreating when Drejka shot to kill. Drejka did murder, should be charged, convicted & sued for more than enough to care for McGlockton's surviving family.

Nope.

 

[Muhammed]

Nobody has any obligation to deescalate a conversation. See the 1st amendment.

Actually... there is a law called "terroristic threats" that often goes along with serious arguments and is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

There was no "terroristic threat" you fucking moron.

I was responding to your stupid response that "Nobody has any obligation to deescalate a conversation. See the 1st amendment."

That's obviously wrong. You should be more careful about trying to demean other's intelligence when you are the one wrong.

I am 100% correct, moron.

You are 100% delusional.

^^^
Projection.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Justice may get served in the case of man being shot defending his girlfriend that parked in handicap spot.

White man charged with fatally shooting black man in Florida | My Connection from Cox

In North Carolina, if you are the aggressor you can't claim you were standing your ground.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

The bottom line is simply this.

The defendant was perfectly within his legal rights to tell the woman she was illegally parked and she should move her car. to a legal parking space and there was no shortage of them.

A reasonable person would have apologized and moved the car. However this black woman was not a reasonable person. She threw a fit, as in the vernacular 'she went off' on the defendant' telling him just to wait till her man got back and he would fuck him up.

She was outraged no doubt because a white man dared to tell her that she was wrong to park in a handicap spot. She also knew that since the defendant was a frail older man that he would be no match for her and her and her younger and muscular man and thus she told him they would fuck him up.

This was reported by a witness.

Again what was wrong with this jury??? Political correctness is the best explanation. So many due to the media b.s. always want to think black folk are always innocent and most especially if they are unarmed not recognizing or knowing that black men---usually young black men have beaten countless people to death.

The state spun all that around to claim that the defendant was threatening the black woman. Ridiculous, but they got away with it because the jury failed in their duty no doubt being devotees of political correctness as so many are. As in--the black person is always the victim.

If the black woman had acted reasonably there would have been no argument and nothing would have happened. Instead she instigated a chain of events that led to the death of her boyfriend.

She will not admit it for sure --yet I am sure she feels a lot of guilt. By her arrogance, anger, stupidity and resentment of a white man pointing out her violation of handicap parking she is the one most responsible for the death of her b/f other than her b/f himself who high on drugs was impaired no doubt to such an extent that he did not even bother to try and find out what was going on before he assaulted the defendant.

When the black guy exited the store all he saw was the defendant pointing his finger and arguing with his g/f. Was that reason enough to assault someone? Of course not.

A terrible miscarriage of justice and it will have far reaching ramifications.

Just another example of the current cultural war, which has been going on for a long while now. It has not reached the point of a civil war and may not but there is a terrible division in America. We are more divided now than at any time since The War Between The States and it is getting steadily worse and it is going to get much,much worse.

Yeah but you are leaving out some very important details... like how the shooter was well-known to be a trouble-maker at that store and getting into confrontations with others, and LIED to law enforcement about what was clearly seen on tv. Parking in a handicap spot is no doubtingly wrong and deserves a ticket, however isn't stand your ground worthy. The boyfriend had no idea the woman had made that threat as he was in the store, and all he saw when he came out was a man standing at the driver's window of the car in a loud argument with his woman. His reaction to that, especially once again given the man's reputation, was not wrong.

He was not a confrontational person. There was only one previous incident at the store with a truck driver....who was a convicted felon and liar. Yet the jury no doubt chose to believe the truck driver regarding the altercation with Drejka.

He did not lie to law enforcement...he simply did not see all that was revealed in the slow motion video. Nor should he....anyone that has ever been through a traumatic event will not remember every detail. Plus he was interrogated that night for 6 hrs. that same night when he no doubt was still in truama.

It is police dept. policy to wait a few days to question a police officer who has been involved in a shooting to let him clear his thoughts and recover from the truama...but here they were ganging up on Drjka in a intterogation room for 6rs. immediately after the shooting. Outrageous.

Stand your ground was not applicable in this case.

The defense considered it but rejected it and went with a simple self defense argument. He had been knocked to the ground and the perp was hovering over him. His only recourse was to draw his weapon and fire. To say otherwise is not being realistic. He was not in a position to flee.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Justice may get served in the case of man being shot defending his girlfriend that parked in handicap spot.

White man charged with fatally shooting black man in Florida | My Connection from Cox

In North Carolina, if you are the aggressor you can't claim you were standing your ground.

It was not a stand your ground case. That is media b.s. His lawyers went with simple self defense.

Pluls Drjka was not the aggressor. There was only 2 aggressive people on that scene--the g/f and her man.

Talking to someone and advising them they are illegally parked is not being agressive or threatening. Running up to a stranger without any idea of what is going on and violently knocking him to the ground is aggressive.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Just like in the Zimmerman case we see people making all kinds of claims without knowing the facts of the case. I spent two days watching the trial on livestream video.


I will sign off with this: At one time i had a job where I was in routine contact with very dangerous people. I carried 3 things for defense: pepper spray, a knife and a pistol.

Thus I had 3 options to fit whatever confrontation I became involved in.

That was long before all this hoopla about guns. A great many people now are against guns and very much so to the point where like this incompetent jury in Clearwater, fl.-- they will assume if you carry a concealed weapon you are already guilty.

Thus all you folks that carry a concealed weapon might want to switch to a knife...very,very effective at close quarters-- if you know how to use one. And if you have to go before a jury they will be much more sympathetic.

 

[Vastator]

Agree, he over reacted. While I wholeheartedly support law enforcement there are some who let the badge and the gun go to their head. The situation did not warrant a shooting. He should have gotten up and done his best to whip some ass. Be a man about it. Manslaughter is the right charge.

Bullshit. If the shooter had been an officer in uniform, more than half of the detractors would be rallying to his defense.

 

[Penelope]

Agree, he over reacted. While I wholeheartedly support law enforcement there are some who let the badge and the gun go to their head. The situation did not warrant a shooting. He should have gotten up and done his best to whip some ass. Be a man about it. Manslaughter is the right charge.

Bullshit. If the shooter had been an officer in uniform, more than half of the detractors would be rallying to his defense.

No, he would of wrote a ticket.

 

[Brain357]

Lot of conservatives here who would convict the guy ....the film is damning.......side angle especially.............

Florida man found guilty of manslaughter in parking lot shooting that led to 'Stand Your Ground' trial
Guy didnt take the stand in his own defense....

Good to see justice. Makes you wonder how many get away with murder when there isn’t a video though.

 

[rightwinger]

Justice was served

 

[Bush92]

Justice may get served in the case of man being shot defending his girlfriend that parked in handicap spot.

White man charged with fatally shooting black man in Florida | My Connection from Cox

Don’t lay hands on people if you aren’t prepared to face ultimate consequences.
Florida gun owner who claimed self-defense convicted in 'Stand Your Ground' case

 

[Bush92]

Lot of conservatives here who would convict the guy ....the film is damning.......side angle especially.............

Florida man found guilty of manslaughter in parking lot shooting that led to 'Stand Your Ground' trial
Guy didnt take the stand in his own defense....

Good to see justice. Makes you wonder how many get away with murder when there isn’t a video though.

Many? You’re fucking living in a delusional world. Too MANY criminals get away with their crimes.

 

[Bush92]

Zimmerman 2.0

What was Zimmerman found guilty of?

Being a “white-Mexican” according to New York Times , liberal communist anti-white rag that you can wipe your ass with.

 

[Bush92]

Good. Asshole deserves to be punished for what he did over a fucking parking space.

Don’t fuck with people if you’re not prepared to face the consequences. This pussified millennial society has a learning curve to meet.

 

[miketx]

Good. Asshole deserves to be punished for what he did over a fucking parking space.

You didn't see where the guy he shot violently knocked him down?

 

[KissMy]

For the record, and despite all the "racist Nazi bigot" labels our resident leftists have thrown at me over my past year on this forum, I believe the jury made the right call.

Drejka was attacked by McGlockton, that is undeniable. Because of the attack, Drejka pulled his firearm - an acceptable "use of force" to prevent further attack. 9 times out of 10, that's all you need to do - brandish. But he fucked up. McGlockton was clearly retreating and Drejka shot him anyway. That doesn't make it murder, because he almost certainly didn't go to the gas station with the intent to kill someone - but it definitely makes it manslaughter. He won't get 30 years, but whatever he does get he deserves.

Drejka did go to the gas station with the intent to act as an armed vigilante as he did on prior occasions. He was also the initial aggressor causing unarmed McGlockton to justifiably fear for his families life. McGlockton was also unarmed & retreating when Drejka shot to kill. Drejka did murder, should be charged, convicted & sued for more than enough to care for McGlockton's surviving family.

Nope.

Yes

For the record, and despite all the "racist Nazi bigot" labels our resident leftists have thrown at me over my past year on this forum, I believe the jury made the right call.

Drejka was attacked by McGlockton, that is undeniable. Because of the attack, Drejka pulled his firearm - an acceptable "use of force" to prevent further attack. 9 times out of 10, that's all you need to do - brandish. But he fucked up. McGlockton was clearly retreating and Drejka shot him anyway. That doesn't make it murder, because he almost certainly didn't go to the gas station with the intent to kill someone - but it definitely makes it manslaughter. He won't get 30 years, but whatever he does get he deserves.

Drejka did go to the gas station with the intent to act as an armed vigilante as he did on prior occasions. He was also the initial aggressor causing unarmed McGlockton to justifiably fear for his families life. McGlockton was also unarmed & retreating when Drejka shot to kill. Drejka did murder, should be charged, convicted & sued for more than enough to care for McGlockton's surviving family.

Nope.

Wrong! - If Drejka concern was for handicapped people, he would taken a picture or wrote down tag number & reported it to police & then told the driver she is not displaying a handicap tag. But instead of informing her & on her & moving on, Drejka argued, pointing his finger & continued closing in on her for over a minute & 20 seconds as other customers stopped & stared in amazement. The Store owner & others said he repeatedly was there intimidating people instead of only watching & reporting. That is not the actions of a neighborhood watch, but is the actions of an armed vigilante.

 

[rightwinger]

Good. Asshole deserves to be punished for what he did over a fucking parking space.

You didn't see where the guy he shot violently knocked him down?

He suffered no injuries and the victim was backing away at the time he fired