Posted on 07/25/2018 9:36:45 AM PDT by libstripper
To me immediately I knew this was not a justified killing
And in front of the man’s five year old son
And the more you learn about the coward who shot him and his history of brandishing his gun starting trouble
What amazed me is probably 80 percent of freeper men are the sorts who think it’s justifiable to murder someone for knocking you down or hitting you
It’s called steel courage for a reason
After two decades of bang list parcipitstion here it’ll never look the same again
Freeper men apparently don’t fight...they shoot
Simply absurd to me and yes the sherrif is wrong
This guy makes ccw folks look bad
He’ll get charged at some point
Agreed
Remember this story next time you hear some macho guy boasting of how he would never allow a stronger to insult his “weaker sex” kin.
You cannot kill an unarmed man because you feel threatened
Does anyone here have balls.
The video would have “feel good video of the day” potential if the shooter weren’t being such an a-hole for making a big deal over where they were parked. The deceased made the bigger mistake by getting violent in the first place.
If you kill anyone who pushes you down
You sure aren’t kickass
You’re a coward
You should reflect
Somehow I don't think this is the last we'll see of Mr. Drejka.
Did he stop the assault because he saw a gun?
Face it, we don’t fear guys like the shooter. We fear guys like the pusher because they beat people to death every day. He assaulted the guy because he was entitled to assault him just like he was entitled to that handicapped spot.
shooter has issues and had he minded his own beeswax none of this would have happened.
SO WHAT if she parked in the wrong spot? Call a cop and let him ticket her. Not his job to go around correcting other folks.
and no, i don’t park handicapped. But i don’t look at the people that do to make sure they should be. Not my job.
Agreed.
He deserved to die for pushing a man to the pavement
Really
Have you ever been in a fight
There was no continued threat at that point and the shooter had plenty of time to make that assessment.
You have conflated revenge with defense.
Girl in parking in handicapped spot quoted in a news report “I’ve got the right to park anywhere I want”.
My takeaway:
1) Girl had the right to violate the law and park anywhere she wanted.
2) Her boyfriend had the right to assault anyone he wanted.
3) Guy on the ground had no rights except to take a beating.
And the five year old was right there
Are freepers scared of five year olds too
> If I found someone was talking to my wife in that manner, they may find themselves getting shoved to the ground. <
Hmm....that leads to some rather interesting questions. What was the soon-to-be shooter saying to that woman in the car? Was it a polite - if stern - conversation? Or was he threatening to assault her?
I watched the video, and based on what I could see the attacker backed way off when the busybody pulled his gun. There did not appear to be a need to shoot. The now-dead guy was overzealous in his reaction when he shoved the guy, but I saw no justification for the shooting. No, I wasn’t there, and of course there is no audio. I don’t know how I would react if I saw someone harassing my spouse and kid. Hopefully would first address the situation verbally rather than a knee-jerk body slam.
Good luck with that.
Does your Wife make a habit of illegally parking in Handicap Spaces and then deciding to get out of the car when someone calls her on it rather than just driving away?
LOL
There have been numerous threads about this the last few days and they all end up with the same amount of butt hurt. I’m just here to stir the pot.
My 2 cents.
Don’t be an a-hole, you’ll eventually meet a bigger one. This time it was McGlockton’s turn. But sooner or later Drejka will draw the short straw.
Plus, if there’s a civil case (100% likely), Drejka is not going to enjoy being in front of that jury.
This is why he wasn't arrested. It's not Stand Your Ground. It's the self defense immunity provisions.
"...the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful."
As the article points out, he's also wrong on other things, like subjective fear being sufficient to claim self defense. Which is probably why he decided there wasn't probable cause. But I expect other people will disagree with him and the shooter will be charged.
784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
According to what I’ve read, the dead guy didn’t threaten by word or act, he just did the deed. That’s Battery according to Florida law (and that of other places):
784.03 Battery; felony battery.—
(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
Where does that leave us? Well, according to what I’ve read, the shooter was “talking” to the dead guy’s woman and doing so loudly enough to attract the attention of passersby. We don’t seem to know whether or not his talk constituted an “unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to” the woman, but if it did his talk constituted an assault. The dead guy may have reasonably believed the shooter was assaulting his woman (threatening by word or act to do violence) and acted in accord with the Florida Stand Your Ground law which states:
776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly 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 other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force. (Emphasis added.)
I wrote “the dead guy may have believed”, but we don’t know what he believed. I believe the whole thing needs to be put before a jury.
Maybe, if one has to put someone else on the ground, it’s advisable to close with the adversary and make sure they aren’t able to harm you when you retreat, just by disarming them if possible and necessary. That’s a hard problem.
Drejka will probably be charged with the homicide. But if he's not and the self defense story is bought, Florida has self defense immunity from civil suits.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.