Fatal shooting - argument in parking lot

Status
Not open for further replies.
@ DaveA

Yes, I saw interview with store owner who said he called police on Drejka about a month ago.
 

StarSong said:
What happened to the concept of the punishment fitting the crime?
Click to expand...

My thinking too. Parking in a handicapped space is not a criminal offence - it is a parking offence, a misdemeanor. The appropriate penalty would be at best a fine.

A street brawl, and pushing someone roughly to the ground is quite a bit short of a brawl, would probably be considered a summary offence that would land the offender an appearance in a local court on a charge of common assault. The sentence would depend on whether or not the man on the ground had been injured.

Shooting someone in the chest however …

If the law in Florida means that no charge and no court appearance will happen, then I am guessing that the Sheriff has his hands tied.
 
The Sheriff is not the ultimate authority, he simply made the decision not to arrest at the time of the incident. The matter has been passed to the Attorney General and is under investigation.

And Warrigal, you're not qualified to be giving legal opinions about offenses here in the United States.
 

Thanks Applecruncher. I am unfamiliar with the authority/responsibility of the different levels of law enforcement in US.

In reality, I'm not 100% sure what happens over here but for something involving a death it would be handled by the State Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The New South Wales Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) is an independent prosecuting service and government agency within the portfolio of the Attorney General of New South Wales. They would usually wait for the Coroner's report before charging someone.
 
Camper6 said:
What if you are not handicapped but driving a handicap with their car. Is it the car or the person that gets the space. Can I run into the store to get something without getting shot?
Click to expand...

In this state, the handicap placard belongs to the handicapped person. My sister is handicapped and she has a valid handicap placard, which we hang over the rearview mirror of my car when I take her shopping or wherever. Here you legally have no right to park in a handicap space if you do not have that placard displayed (even if you are in a bodycast but don't have a placard).

We made the mistake once of forgetting to hang the placard in a parking lot and came back to the car to see a police officer getting ready to write up a citation. We showed him the placard and he took pity on us (me -- since it's the car that gets the big fat ticket, and here it is about $350). If we hadn't had that placard we would have gotten the citation even though my sister is visibly handicapped. I did get a big lecture about how the law required that placard to be displayed or else, etc. As that officer pointed out to me, fair or not, it's the law, and if you are in one of those spaces, even if the parking lot is empty except for your car, if you don't have a placard hanging you can get that big fat ticket.
 
Forgive me but reading some posts on 'protecting' oneself I cannot believe that it is quite legal to shoot and kill someone for almost anything with the excuse "I am protecting myself" Someone gets to the remaining car parking space before you so your law says you can shoot and kill him/her for doing this. I just cannot understand. Killing anyone by any means in this country is a criminal offence and can lead to a life sentence. In this country one has to have a special license and a very good reason to carry a gun. I have read of a land owner in the US shooting and killing someone just for trespassing on his land and not being charged with murder. I have never been to your country and would be very frightened to do so if I thought I could be shot and killed for some minor offence like parking in a no parking area, accidently straying onto someones property, or any other minor error.
 
I have never been to your country and would be very frightened to do so if I thought I could be shot and killed for some minor offence like parking in a no parking area, accidently straying onto someone's property, or any other minor error.
Click to expand...

Or for calling the police to a lane behind your house because you thought you heard a rape taking place. Middle aged women in their PJs and slippers are such a threat to armed police officers in their patrol car ???

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ustine-damond-lawsuit-20180723-story,amp.html
 
IMO we each have the ability to control the majority of these situations.

By complying with the law and the instructions/commands of law enforcement.

By not engaging strangers that confront us or challenge us including those behind the wheel of a car.

By treating everyone we encounter with respect.

I'm not saying that I agree with the outcome of this parking lot incident or that I agree with the stand your ground laws as written. I am saying that this parking lot incident appears, to me, to fit within the existing laws and if we are disgusted by that we should work to change the laws.
 
Aunt Bea said:
IMO we each have the ability to control the majority of these situations.

By complying with the law and the instructions/commands of law enforcement.

By not engaging strangers that confront us or challenge us including those behind the wheel of a car.

By treating everyone we encounter with respect.

I'm not saying that I agree with the outcome of this parking lot incident or that I agree with the stand your ground laws as written. I am saying that this parking lot incident appears, to me, to fit within the existing laws and if we are disgusted by that we should work to change the laws.
Click to expand...


Once again, very well said Aunt Bea.....
 
I was shopping in Safeway yesterday when I thought of this thread. Right as I was leaving, there was an older man in the store saying something to customer service, he said he already called police and then the worker announced a car description over the intercom and asked that the owner come to the service desk. The older man walked out ahead of me.

When I started walking to my car, I saw the man sitting in his vehicle, blocking a car from leaving a handicap spot. He had a handicap plate. As I passed him, I looked at the car in the spot and didn't see any handicap plate or placard. The man asked me if that was my car, and I told him no, I don't park in handicap spaces. I left and there was still no sign of any police entering the parking lot.
 
SeaBreeze said:
I was shopping in Safeway yesterday when I thought of this thread. Right as I was leaving, there was an older man in the store saying something to customer service, he said he already called police and then the worker announced a car description over the intercom and asked that the owner come to the service desk. The older man walked out ahead of me.

When I started walking to my car, I saw the man sitting in his vehicle, blocking a car from leaving a handicap spot. He had a handicap plate. As I passed him, I looked at the car in the spot and didn't see any handicap plate or placard. The man asked me if that was my car, and I told him no, I don't park in handicap spaces. I left and there was still no sign of any police entering the parking lot.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry for the older man who presumably is handicapped and therefore entitled to the space. I would think this would be an exceptionally low priority for the police and am wondering if the older gent could get into legal trouble of his own for false imprisonment by illegally blocking the car. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The man's actions are understandable but nevertheless fall under the category of vigilante justice. Suppose he and the car owner got into a scuffle - as per this thread - and the car owner shot him because of feeling threatened and therefore decided to "stand his ground?"
 
StarSong said:
I'm sorry for the older man who presumably is handicapped and therefore entitled to the space. I would think this would be an exceptionally low priority for the police and am wondering if the older gent could get into legal trouble of his own for false imprisonment by illegally blocking the car. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The man's actions are understandable but nevertheless fall under the category of vigilante justice. Suppose he and the car owner got into a scuffle - as per this thread - and the car owner shot him because of feeling threatened and therefore decided to "stand his ground?"
Click to expand...

I agree, he shouldn't have blocked him. I personally have never confronted someone using a handicap spot with no validation. I figure that's the police's business to do such things, not mine. There's sometimes a sign warning of a $500 fine for such an action, we have one by our post office like that. I don't know what happened when the owner of the car came out, but I suspect it might have at least lead to an oral argument. I have no idea if calling 911 is a valid reason for illegal parking...something else I wouldn't have done. :confused: Maybe just take a picture of the offending car and license plate in that spot and turn it in to the local police station? At least the guy might get a follow-up warning.
 
Aunt Bea said:
IMO we each have the ability to control the majority of these situations.

By complying with the law and the instructions/commands of law enforcement.

By not engaging strangers that confront us or challenge us including those behind the wheel of a car.

By treating everyone we encounter with respect.

I'm not saying that I agree with the outcome of this parking lot incident or that I agree with the stand your ground laws as written. I am saying that this parking lot incident appears, to me, to fit within the existing laws and if we are disgusted by that we should work to change the laws.
Click to expand...

Could you elaborate?

So the shooter gets to confront a stranger and control the outcome I gather, he has no bearing on what took place, he gets a free ride just because the law says it's okay it sounds like that's what you're saying.

Not one person is saying it's okay to park illegally, NO ONE, not I or anyone else, but, I also wouldn't go around making it my business to sit in parking lots waiting to confront people who do just so I can get into an argument or fight. The right thing to do one is feels the need to be protective of parking spaces would be to call the police, take a pic include license plate and report it. Why put oneself in a dangerous situation. Why, because he knew he was packing.

We that feel disgust are right to feel so and are always doing what we can in our own ways to fight these ridiculous laws. Again, those who think so little of human life as to feel so blase about it to turn the situation around on a person taking a bullet over, be it illegally, parking in a space SMH. How very callous to be able to shift blame so easily, is it always so cut in dry in life to place human beings in this kind of a vacuum wear killing them just comes down to one wrong justifies another.

A law to park and a law to kill, never thought to equate them, only in America; justfred, yes, you should be afraid to visit, your feelings are very justified, especially after reading what's been posted in this thread. You are getting a good look into the minds and souls of a good portion of quite a few Americans, scary isn't it. Frightens me too.
 
I once had to confront a couple of young women who had just parked in a disabled space outside a hearing clinic. I needed it because I was taking my quite crippled auntie in for a hearing test. The nearest big multi-storey carpark was around the corner and there was no lift to take you up or down the three levels and Auntie could not have managed that. Also, she couldn't really be left on the footpath while I drove away to find a place to leave the car.

I pulled up behind the young women and said firmly "I need that space". They tried to say that they were just going into the bank but I cut them off in a stern voice, repeating "I NEED that space" and they decided to drive off and let me have it. If they hadn't I suppose I might have noted their number and made a complaint but I'll never know how that would have turned out.

My husband has a disability sticker and it is always on display in our only car but if I am on my own I never take a disabled space because I can walk the necessary 100 metres unaided. I did use a disabled/mothers' nappy change toilet yesterday at a shopping centre because there was a queue out the door for the ladies and I was having a weak bladder day.

I don't know what will happen in the case of the car park vigilante but it is a very tragic outcome that could have been avoided at a number of points if the people concerned had been a little more considerate of others. Shouting rarely helps anyone.
 
Warrigal, in your situation that's differen't, the guy in the situation wasn't requesting use of the space, as a matter of fact, when he confronted another driver in such a situation that driver asked if he needed the space for his handicapped mother and the gun carrying guy became more enraged and wanted to fight even more.

Sure, we should all be more considerate of those who need the spaces, this incident had nothing to do with that. Apples and oranges.
 
SeaBreeze said:
I agree, he shouldn't have blocked him. I personally have never confronted someone using a handicap spot with no validation. I figure that's the police's business to do such things, not mine. There's sometimes a sign warning of a $500 fine for such an action, we have one by our post office like that. I don't know what happened when the owner of the car came out, but I suspect it might have at least lead to an oral argument. I have no idea if calling 911 is a valid reason for illegal parking...something else I wouldn't have done. :confused: Maybe just take a picture of the offending car and license plate in that spot and turn it in to the local police station? At least the guy might get a follow-up warning.
Click to expand...

I am a big believer that the justice system eventually catches up with scofflaws, as does karma. Personally, I try to not add to people's misery index by turning them in even when I see them committing a minor legal infraction. I may tut-tut, but otherwise move on with my day. (People endangering themselves or others are another matter entirely.)

The old man in your story was likely fuming over this, raising his BP and stress to unhealthy levels before he even had a confrontation with the offending car owner. He wasted his time, his peace of mind, and possibly his health. And for what? The possible satisfaction of having a tattle-tale "gotcha" moment?
 
justfred said:
Forgive me but reading some posts on 'protecting' oneself I cannot believe that it is quite legal to shoot and kill someone for almost anything with the excuse "I am protecting myself" Someone gets to the remaining car parking space before you so your law says you can shoot and kill him/her for doing this. I just cannot understand. Killing anyone by any means in this country is a criminal offence and can lead to a life sentence. In this country one has to have a special license and a very good reason to carry a gun. I have read of a land owner in the US shooting and killing someone just for trespassing on his land and not being charged with murder. I have never been to your country and would be very frightened to do so if I thought I could be shot and killed for some minor offence like parking in a no parking area, accidently straying onto someones property, or any other minor error.
Click to expand...

Would you park in a space set aside for handicapped? What would your response be? If you were told you are on private property. What would your response be?? If you haven't already, go back to the ops 1st. post & watch the video, then read the article that goes along with the video.

I'm glad there is a video. Seeing the older man check the car both front & back for a plate & the windshied for a placard is clear. Seeing him point to open legal spaces is clear. Seeing the man stand about two feet away from the car never touching the car or reaching in to touch the driver is clear. Seeing the boyfriend approach, the driver [a woman] get out of the car and appear to reach out to touch the man not so clear. Really clear is the immediate violent shove, hard enough to knock the man to the ground. Last is the man that was shot still facing the man on the ground turning when shot then running into the store.




The stand your ground law is about self protection. There is no audio, so the actions that are clear on the video will most likely determine if any criminal charges are filed. Only mind readers know what was thought/said or felt by the 3 people in the video. I'll go by what was visible.
 
AprilT said:
Warrigal, in your situation that's differen't, the guy in the situation wasn't requesting use of the space, as a matter of fact, when he confronted another driver in such a situation that driver asked if he needed the space for his handicapped mother and the gun carrying guy became more enraged and wanted to fight even more.

Sure, we should all be more considerate of those who need the spaces, this incident had nothing to do with that. Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...



"when he confronted another driver in such a situation that driver asked if he needed the space for his handicapped mother and the gun carrying guy became more enraged and wanted to fight even more."

 So....you were there ? Heard it all, first hand?....

Please elaborate...
 
AprilT said:
Could you elaborate?
Click to expand...

"he gets a free ride just because the law says it's okay"

Isn't that what the law is intended to do?

IMO a law has no value if we are unwilling to apply it equally to everyone.

If we can't in good conscience apply it equally then IMO it is a bad law and it needs to be amended/rewritten or struck down.

Personally, I think that Drejka is a jerk but it appears that he did everything right in acquiring his gun and his carry permit.

It also appears that he stayed within the limits of the stand your ground law.

The problem is that my personal opinion of Drejka has no value when it comes to the law and that's the way it should be in a free society.
 
Aunt Bea said:

"he gets a free ride just because the law says it's okay"

Isn't that what the law is intended to do?

IMO a law has no value if we are unwilling to apply it equally to everyone.

If we can't in good conscience apply it equally then IMO it is a bad law and it needs to be amended/rewritten or struck down.


We don't apply it equally

Personally, I think that Drejka is a jerk but it appears that he did everything right in acquiring his gun and his carry permit.

It also appears that he stayed within the limits of the stand your ground law.

I disagree with your assessment as I see it, the guy appeared to be backing away from Drejka, so though Drejka stood his ground, he no longer had reason to shoot and thus this is why we have courts to decide, not just viewers on forums being the deciders, good thing.

The problem is that my personal opinion of Drejka has no value when it comes to the law and that's the way it should be in a free society.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is good one person's opinion isn't the deciding factor and reason can be the deciding factor in a court of law where people can decide if the law at hand is indeed sensible and is truly applicable as meant to be in each case instead of just chucking off people's lives as nothing more than a case of convenience to the law at hand.

This is why we have courts and why people take their cases to court to fight a law where they see it being misapplied in any given case. Stand your ground doesn't mean you get to be trigger happy, it means you stand and the other person has the space to retreat, now if they keep coming at you in a way that you feel you or others feel threaten of great harm, then you have that right to take whatever course you deem necessary. You don't get to provoke, or shoot someone when they are backing away as more reasonable people hopefully will have a chance to decide as they have done so in other cases.
 
AprilT said:
Yes, it is good one person's opinion isn't the deciding factor and reason can be the deciding factor in a court of law where people can decide if the law at hand is indeed sensible and is truly applicable as meant to be in each case instead of just chucking off people's lives as nothing more than a case of convenience to the law at hand.

This is why we have courts and why people take their cases to court to fight a law where they see it being misapplied in any given case. Stand your ground doesn't mean you get to be trigger happy, it means you stand and the other person has the space to retreat, now if they keep coming at you in a way that you feel you or others feel threaten of great harm, then you have that right to take whatever course you deem necessary. You don't get to provoke, or shoot someone when they are backing away as more reasonable people hopefully will have a chance to decide as they have done so in other cases.
Click to expand...


So.....you were there, in that mans mind?...And knew exactly the threat he felt?...and when he felt it? And of course you know exactly what he should have done? And he did not do as you approve?
 
rgp said:
So.....you were there, in that mans mind?...And knew exactly the threat he felt?...and when he felt it? And of course you know exactly what he should have done? And he did not do as you approve?
Click to expand...

I think that's the key.

After Drejka was assaulted by McGlockton he may have been so severely shaken and his adrenaline could have been pumping to the point where he fired automatically or he may, in fact, be a stone cold killer. I believe that the chain of events is on Drejka's side and we will never know any more than we can see in the video.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top