Fatal shooting - argument in parking lot

Status
Not open for further replies.
applecruncher

applecruncher

SF VIP
Location
Ohio USA
CLEARWATER — Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri announced Friday that his agency will not arrest a man deputies say shot and killed another man during an argument over a handicap parking space.

The incident falls under Florida’s self-defense law known as "stand your ground," the sheriff said during a news conference. The law gives immunity to those in fear of their lives who use force to defend themselves.

The shooting "is within the bookends of ‘stand your ground’ and within the bookends of force being justified," the sheriff said, later adding, "I’m not saying I agree with it, but I don’t make that call."

The agency will forward the case to the State Attorney’s Office for a final decision, Gualtieri said.
The confrontation between Michael Drejka, 47, and Markeis McGlockton, 28, took place in a convenience store parking lot Thursday afternoon. According to deputies, Drejka confronted McGlockton’s girlfriend, Britany Jacobs, about parking in a handicap space without a permit.

McGlockton went up to Drejka and "slammed him to the ground," the sheriff said. Drejka, seconds later while still on the ground, pulled out his handgun and shot McGlockton in the chest. The father of three was pronounced dead soon after.

(more and VIDEO)

https://www.tampabay.com/news/publi...rgument-over-handicap-parking-space_170174041

 

A sad outcome, but the law is the law and the Sheriff is acting appropriately as far as I understand the situation.

The lesson is that the fatality might have been avoided with a little more civility and self control.
 
The sheriff is not the final word on this, and if you watch the video, I don't see a need for the shooter to pull the trigger. Once he pulled his weapon, the other man started backing away. Tragic. The shooter has had other similar confrontations, it seems
 

Where I live I believe that the shooter would be in jail.

I'm not saying that is right or wrong just a different set of laws where I live.

I do believe that the shooter was wrong to engage the woman in the car about where she was parked. Was he spoiling for a fight?

I also believe that the man was wrong to run up and knock the shooter to the ground.

“Choose your battles wisely. After all, life isn't measured by how many times you stood up to fight. It's not winning battles that makes you happy, but it's how many times you turned away and chose to look into a better direction. Life is too short to spend it on warring. Fight only the most, most, most important ones, let the rest go.” - C. JoyBell C.
 
The law gives immunity to those in fear of their lives who use force to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like that's what is wrong with that law. Anybody can shoot anyone for any reason, and then claim they were in fear of their lives. Where do we draw the line? Talk about a slippery slope!
 
Guy sounds like another "harda$$' with a gun. According to the article he'd brandished it before.

It's sad to see so many gun owners living in constant fear while many of us drive the same roads, walk the same streets, and live in the same areas without the NEED for a gun. I only speak for myself. If I was constantly under threat from every yahoo on the street, I'd probably have to go "wild west' and start packing. Hasn't happened yet but I'm fortunate enough not to be hit by lightning either. :) I have thought of "packing" a battery powered drill from time to time. Over a lifetime I'd have had more need for it.

And, yes, I do read the "Armed Citizen" every month when the magazine arrives.
 
So much easier to analyze & judge...after the fact & on hearsay . Things are so much different in the heat of the moment....jmo
 
Interesting that despite fearing for his life shooter was an expert marksman. One shot to victim's heart.

Saw an interview with store owner. He has had problems with shooter; had to call police in a previous incident. Apparently shooter spends a lot of time in that parking.lot watching and confronting people.
 
The article explains that the reason for parking in a handicapped spot was the parking spaces were full, clearly they were not. The boyfriend Markeis McGlockton [father] of the 3 children immediately attacked Michael Drejka. With no audio there is no way for anyone to know if verbal threat was made. Was there cause & did Michael Drejka truly fear for his life? Only he knows the answer to that.


But for parking in handicapped parking this would not have happened.
But for immediately knocking Michael Drejka to the ground this might not have happened.


Would pulling out the gun and pointing it been enough to deter Markeis McGlockton? Probably. But there is no way to know as of now since the law favors Michael Drejka. Personally I think shooting and killing was wrong. A civil lawsuit may change how killing Markeis McGlockton affects Michael Drejka.


Tossing in past history tends to sway thinking. If the only wording in the article stated that 48 yr. old Michael Drejka was confronting a person for illegally parking in a handicapped parking space when he was attacked which is clearly visible in the video. Would that make a difference in how we judge what took place?
 
It's my understanding that stand your ground law protects shooter from civil lawsuit.

And yes, gf didn't tell truth about availability of parking. There were other spaces where she could have parked.
 
It really irks me at times when I read these types of stories. How is it we all live in the U.S., but different states have different types of self protection laws? Did the shooter really have to shoot to destroy his target, or did he have the option of perhaps just shooting him in the thigh away from vital organs? I know the other side of the argument has usually been; what if the other person also has a weapon and just wounding him/her would allow that person the ability to draw and fire his weapon.

Here in PA, the shooter would have been taken into custody and charged with one of the optional crimes that would have fit this circumstance. Then, after an investigation, including speaking with any witnesses, reviewing any video available, results of the autopsy and so on, the DA would have made the decision on whether to prosecute or pass on it.

It's all but impossible to make a final determination on how this will play out from reading a newspaper article or an incident report, but my best guess is that had this shooting occurred here in PA, the shooter would have been charged with one of a few different crimes, even the lesser crime of assault. If the man who shoved the other man had simply walked away after shoving him to the ground, he would have been charged with assault. However, if he would have continued his assault, then perhaps his shooting may have been considered justifiable.

It's a tough call without doing a full investigation. I'm a believer in allowing people to protect themselves, but where do we draw the line?
 
No audio in any of the videos I've seen, but obviously the confrontation between shooter and gf was loud enough to get the attention of several people entering and exiting the store. After the shooting I saw one onlooker scurrying...can't blame him.

While I'll admit to using handicapped stall in rest room, I've NEVER parked in handicapped spot, even back when I had an injury/leg brace. The fine is quite stiff. People think it's okay "just for a few minutes"...my advice is don't do it.
 
I read the article and watched the video. What is factually known. A person was illegally parked, a concerned citizen confronted the person, the person doing the confronting was attacked, the attacker was shot and died, the law in Florida favors the shooter.


I might seem callous by not being swayed by the inclusion of the man shot was a father of 3, or that the shooter had other confrontations. Take the emotion out and it comes down to but for parking illegally and staying parked when during the confrontation pointing out that spaces were available this would not have happened.

Root cause = not caring about handicapped people.
 
Knight said:
I read the article and watched the video. What is factually known. A person was illegally parked, a concerned citizen confronted the person, the person doing the confronting was attacked, the attacker was shot and died, the law in Florida favors the shooter.


I might seem callous by not being swayed by the inclusion of the man shot was a father of 3, or that the shooter had other confrontations. Take the emotion out and it comes down to but for parking illegally and staying parked when during the confrontation pointing out that spaces were available this would not have happened.

Root cause = not caring about handicapped people.
Click to expand...

I see this as but for the shooter packing a deadly weapon this would have ended with a bloodied nose and wounded pride.
 
I think I better start packin'. This thing just sits here gathering dust. It's a brand new S & W stainless steel 6 shot revolver (in it's holster).

I fired it at the police pistol range and haven't used it since.
 
It's Florida, you'd be surprised how often such occurrences happen. Stand you ground laws there encourage quite a few yahoos to instigate and often it's there word against the dead.
Murders surge in Florida in decade after `Stand Your Ground’ law



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ade-after-stand-your-ground-law-idUSKCN1AU1QL

"Florida’s `Stand Your Ground’ law goes further than laws in other states in defining what can be considered self-defense. In Florida, for example, people aren’t required to retreat when possible to avoid a lethal conflict. A recent change to Florida law also requires self-defense claims to be disproved by prosecutors, not proven by the defenseaaaaaaa'.


There were dozens of these videos and I remember when I lived in Florida hearing of a few of the incidents and others. It's not an everyday thing, but, it happens more than it should and the way the law is written there it gives license for some real crazies to get or at leash think they will get away with murder many times some do.




 
Knight said:
I read the article and watched the video. What is factually known. A person was illegally parked, a concerned citizen confronted the person, the person doing the confronting was attacked, the attacker was shot and died, the law in Florida favors the shooter.


I might seem callous by not being swayed by the inclusion of the man shot was a father of 3, or that the shooter had other confrontations. Take the emotion out and it comes down to but for parking illegally and staying parked when during the confrontation pointing out that spaces were available this would not have happened.

Root cause = not caring about handicapped people.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Somehow I don't see shooter as just a "concerned citizen caring about handicapped people". If so he would have noticed the vehicle in passing and maybe said "that's a handicapped spot" then moved on ...i.e., gone into the store and taken care of this business. He didn't do anything close to that; he was loudly and aggressively fronting off and in the woman's face for quite awhile, to the extent that people exiting and entering the store stopped and took notice.

I'm leaning towards him being one of the many who have a concealed carry permit and wake up thinking "I hope some SOB tries to mess with me today".
 
applecruncher said:
Hmmm. Somehow I don't see shooter as just a "concerned citizen caring about handicapped people". If so he would have noticed the vehicle in passing and maybe said "that's a handicapped spot" then moved on ...i.e., gone into the store and taken care of this business. He didn't do anything close to that; he was loudly and aggressively fronting off and in the woman's face for quite awhile, to the extent that people exiting and entering the store stopped and took notice.

I'm leaning towards him being one of the many who have a concealed carry permit and wake up thinking "I hope some SOB tries to mess with me today".
Click to expand...

That's my take, too. That he will apparently not be charged with a crime is bound to embolden others to start using deadly force over similarly minor issues.
 
StarSong said:
That's my take, too. That he will apparently not be charged with a crime is bound to embolden others to start using deadly force over similarly minor issues.
Click to expand...

Consider this........

A person pulls into a handicapped parking space, they are not handicapped, no one in their vehicle is handicapped, and they have no handicapped credentials on their vehicle or their person. That person knows that they are wrong....period.

Along comes another citizen, and reminds them that they are wrong, and in violation. In their arrogance that driver defies this citizen....just as they did the law itself. The scene then escalates from there....and ends as it did in this case.

IMO , whom ever set the scenario in motion, is indeed responsible for the outcome of scenario.

As such, let us go back to the beginning , how could all this have been avoided? First & foremost the driver should have obeyed the law. Second , after breaking the law , and displaying absolute arrogance they should have at least recognized their error , when reminded of such by the citizen....and moved the vehicle .

So again...exactly who is responsible for the outcome ?
 
So, which one exactly "set the scenario in motion?" The guy who committed a minor parking infraction, or the guy who started verbally abusing his girlfriend?

This is what happens when you have private citizens trying to enforce their version of the law.
 
rgp said:
Consider this........

A person pulls into a handicapped parking space, they are not handicapped, no one in their vehicle is handicapped, and they have no handicapped credentials on their vehicle or their person. That person knows that they are wrong....period.

Along comes another citizen, and reminds them that they are wrong, and in violation. In their arrogance that driver defies this citizen....just as they did the law itself. The scene then escalates from there....and ends as it did in this case.

IMO , whom ever set the scenario in motion, is indeed responsible for the outcome of scenario.

As such, let us go back to the beginning , how could all this have been avoided? First & foremost the driver should have obeyed the law. Second , after breaking the law , and displaying absolute arrogance they should have at least recognized their error , when reminded of such by the citizen....and moved the vehicle .

So again...exactly who is responsible for the outcome ?
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, it sounds like you're ok with some pistol packing one-man vigilante shooting a grandchild of yours to death for the dastardly offense of parking in a handicap spot and not backing off when taken to task by someone who appointed himself sheriff of the parking lot?

For the record, I'm not ok with that for my grandchildren - or for yours, for that matter.

Good grief, Florida. Repeal this idiotic law already!
 
IMO everyone involved acted badly.

It is interesting that the woman broke the law by parking in a handicapped parking space.

The nosy man with the gun didn't break the law by talking to the woman.

The boyfriend broke the law by assaulting the nosy man with the gun.

Yet the nosy man that didn't break the law by talking to the woman or defending himself from a physical assault is becoming the villain.

This whole story is very strange and very tragic.

It's also very interesting how we can all read the same story, see the same video and form such diverse opinions about who was right and who was wrong.

I don't hold out much hope for our country ever coming together and finding a peaceful way forward.

Very sad.
 
The more that's revealed about Michael Drejka, the more I'm convinced this was not just an isolated incident with a tragic outcome. It's just a little tooooooo "convenient".

Drejka has quite a history of waiting in store parking lots then confronting people. When you spend a lot of time lurking in parking lots, the chances of seeing someone wrongfully park in a handicapped space are high.

It's clear to me Drejka looks for fights. He also got into a road rage incident and brandished his gun.

Advocate for the handicapped? Um, no, I don't think so. :rolleyes:

He's a thug salivating and creating opportunities to use his gun.
 
applecruncher said:
The more that's revealed about Michael Drejka, the more I'm convinced this was not just an isolated incident with a tragic outcome. It's just a little tooooooo "convenient".

Drejka has quite a history of waiting in store parking lots then confronting people. When you spend a lot of time lurking in parking lots, the chances of seeing someone wrongfully park in a handicapped space are high.

It's clear to me Drejka looks for fights. He also got into a road rage incident and brandished his gun.

Advocate for the handicapped? Um, no, I don't think so. :rolleyes:

He's a thug salivating and creating opportunities to use his gun.
Click to expand...

I completely agree.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top