Fatal shooting - argument in parking lot

Status
Not open for further replies.
rgp said:
"Effectively, they are strengthening the argument FOR increased gun control by their insistence that it is appropriate to murder someone for a parking lot scuffle or throwing popcorn in a movie theatre."

 To equate the two , is woefully irresponsible & just plain wrong.

The parking lot scenario was not a 'scuffle' ending in murder. It was a physical assault ending in self defense , and tragically a death.
Click to expand...

The two incidents are alike - coward with a gun initiates a confrontation, gets into a scuffle, shoots an innocent man. Claims "I feared for my life". Coward. And there's no need for you to keep proving my point. We all know you support the coward who shot a man who was just protecting his girlfriend from a bully.
 

I think the silence among some re the intimidation factor around an irate male yelling and swearing at a woman is quite telling. I am sure she was frightened. Who wouldn’t be given the level of often lethal violence towards women? Nothing she did merited those tactics. Any man worth his salt would wish to protect his girlfriend from such, my fiancé certainly would, particularly if he believed my life was in jeopardy.
 
There has been a variety of derogatory posts about Mr.Michael Drejka ignored by those favoring excusing the violent attack on Mr. Michael Drejka. Race was brought in at one time as a motive for what took place. No proof of that just speculation. But posting that the driver is an unmarried mother of 3 did which is fact, not derogatory has some exposing their own feelings about un married mothers as something immoral.


Cause or root cause another point that is easy to understand but isn't by those that want to excuse ignorant people that don't care about the reason for handicapped parking.


Simply stated, RCA is a tool designed to help identify not only what and how an event occurred, but also why it happened. Only when investigators are able to determine why an event or failure occurred will they be able to specify workable corrective measures that prevent future events of the type observed.
https://www.env.nm.gov/aqb/Proposed...ibit_18-Root_Cause_Analysis_for_Beginners.pdf


The video in the ops post #1. is pretty clear about how verbal went to a violent physical attack. Protecting could have taken the form of telling the mother of the 3 kids to stay in the car while he QUESTIONED what was going on. Didn't happen and the video is clear on that.


RGP emotions rather than facts rule here but it's good to know there are others like you that like facts. Use of a gun to defend doesn't automatically mean intent to kill as far to many seem to think. Pointing and shooting towards center mass to prevent further harm makes sense to me.
 

The renowned psychiatrist R.D. Laing wrote a marvelous book, “Knots,” detailing the convoluted thought processes human beings often utilise while interacting with each other. This thread stands as a fine example of such.
 
Knight said:
There has been a variety of derogatory posts about Mr.Michael Drejka ignored by those favoring excusing the violent attack on Mr. Michael Drejka. Race was brought in at one time as a motive for what took place. No proof of that just speculation. But posting that the driver is an unmarried mother of 3 did which is fact, not derogatory has some exposing their own feelings about un married mothers as something immoral.


Cause or root cause another point that is easy to understand but isn't by those that want to excuse ignorant people that don't care about the reason for handicapped parking.


Simply stated, RCA is a tool designed to help identify not only what and how an event occurred, but also why it happened. Only when investigators are able to determine why an event or failure occurred will they be able to specify workable corrective measures that prevent future events of the type observed.
https://www.env.nm.gov/aqb/Proposed...ibit_18-Root_Cause_Analysis_for_Beginners.pdf


The video in the ops post #1. is pretty clear about how verbal went to a violent physical attack. Protecting could have taken the form of telling the mother of the 3 kids to stay in the car while he QUESTIONED what was going on. Didn't happen and the video is clear on that.


RGP emotions rather than facts rule here but it's good to know there are others like you that like facts. Use of a gun to defend doesn't automatically mean intent to kill as far to many seem to think. Pointing and shooting towards center mass to prevent further harm makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

Well, it's late and I have had enough wine to waste my time responding to this nonsensical post. Yes, we all understand that you too are defending the murder of an unarmed man over a parking lot scuffle. You're with the coward. We get it.

"Violent attack"? lol - I had two older brothers and I got beat up every day far worse than the shooter did as per the video, but I never shot either one of them. Root cause? Simple, it was the shooter who was looking for a confrontation, as is his wont. I suppose you would be okay with someone verbally assaulting your wife over a parking issue. As for the unwed mother of three reference, it was clearly not meant as a compliment. As for your RCP link, I doubt it was meant to be used as a tool for criminal investigation and is utterly meaningless as such. And as for facts vs emotion, the facts are NOT on your side. The shooter took aim and killed a man, who was backing away, in cold blood. The shooter may or may not be prosecuted given it took place in Florida. But, go ahead, continue to spout off on here, supporting the coward who pulled the trigger.

p.s. - and for the record, handicapped parking is not holy, sacred ground. It's just a parking spot. Using it improperly is not a capital offense.
 
Hoot N Annie said:
Well, it's late and I have had enough wine to waste my time responding to this nonsensical post. Yes, we all understand that you too are defending the murder of an unarmed man over a parking lot scuffle. You're with the coward. We get it.

"Violent attack"? lol - I had two older brothers and I got beat up every day far worse than the shooter did as per the video, but I never shot either one of them. Root cause? Simple, it was the shooter who was looking for a confrontation, as is his wont. I suppose you would be okay with someone verbally assaulting your wife over a parking issue. As for the unwed mother of three reference, it was clearly not meant as a compliment. As for your RCP link, I doubt it was meant to be used as a tool for criminal investigation and is utterly meaningless as such. And as for facts vs emotion, the facts are NOT on your side. The shooter took aim and killed a man, who was backing away, in cold blood. The shooter may or may not be prosecuted given it took place in Florida. But, go ahead, continue to spout off on here, supporting the coward who pulled the trigger.

p.s. - and for the record, handicapped parking is not holy, sacred ground. It's just a parking spot. Using it improperly is not a capital offense.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The elephant in the room is that the shooter is white and the victim (and his family), black. Not saying race was the shooter's prime motivation nor that it necessarily influenced whether to arrest the shooter, but this would likely have spun out far differently (at least by the news and in the public eye) had the unarmed family been white and the pistol-packing shooter been black, Hispanic or Muslim.
 
rgp, listen to yourself! "Arrogance was the state of mind that set the scenario in motion"... "It was a physical assault ending in self defense , and tragically a death."

Can you possibly really believe all this nonsense? An armed man with an itchy trigger finger needlessly goes up to a car and starts screaming at the woman behind the wheel, possibly threatening her (someone went into the store and apparently told her boyfriend that she was in danger, so he came running out, as most people would do), and HE set the scenario in motion by having an arrogant attitude? Why was this even Drejka's business? Was someone's life being threatened, or someone being physically abused? It was a parking violation!

About your "self defense" comment, that is so absurd that it is actually funny. Drajka initiated the whole thing by needlessly going up to a car and interfering in a matter that did not concern him.
He was probably threatening the woman; I can't imagine that his words were issued in a quiet, reasonable manner. So the boyfriend comes to her defense, hits him, and Drajka kills him in "self defense?" Wow.

Years ago in a sociology class, I remember we read about a study dealing with crime victims. It was a large, broad-range study of all sorts of crime. It found that crimes against white people were prosecuted much more often than crimes against black people. It didn't matter what part of the U.S. it was in; this applied all over the country. The race of the perpetrator didn't matter so much; it was the race of the victim. This was probably about 50 years ago. Some things never change.
 
Camper6 said:
Self defense? I will never buy that argument. One guy with a gun and the other one unarmed? Surely you jest.
Click to expand...

No, no jest....it was self defense , after he was thrown to the ground.

Unlike others I don not claim to know his state of mind / emotion @ that time . Apparently he felt threatened enough to shoot.

And so far the investigation seems to support him........
 
Sunny said:
So, let me get this straight... if a bully with a gun goes up to an unarmed person and verbally attacks him (or his girlfriend), and that unarmed person has an arrogant attitude, that justifies murdering him? The murder victim" set the scenario in motion" so it was all his fault?
Click to expand...

No the arrogant driver set the whole scenario in motion. It escalated fro there .

Had she not shown total disregard fro the law, displayed absolute arrogance in her refusal to move , quite likely none of this would have happened .
 
Hoot N Annie said:
The two incidents are alike - coward with a gun initiates a confrontation, gets into a scuffle, shoots an innocent man. Claims "I feared for my life". Coward. And there's no need for you to keep proving my point. We all know you support the coward who shot a man who was just protecting his girlfriend from a bully.
Click to expand...

Wrong...he shot a person in self defense , protecting himself , after that very person attacked him.
 
Florida man charged with murder after another handicapped parking dispute

https://www.nbc4i.com/news/state-ne...icapped-parking-space-turns-deadly/1331019067

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL (AP) - A South Florida man has been charged with murder after being accused of stabbing another man during a dispute over a handicapped parking spot.

Oswald Zambrano died Thursday, more than 10 days after the confrontation.
The South Florida Sun Sentinel reports that Zambrano was parked in a handicapped spot outside a daycare when Julio Ramos berated him for illegally using the parking spot.

Authorities say Ramos stabbed Zambrano as the argument escalated.
Ramos is charged with second-degree murder.

Another death from a dispute over a handicapped parking spot across the state has put a renewed focus on Florida's "stand your ground law."

In Clearwater Florida, a white man who shot an unarmed black man has not been arrested as authorities determine whether the self-defense law gives him immunity from prosecution.
 
rgp said:
No, no jest....it was self defense , after he was thrown to the ground.

Unlike others I don not claim to know his state of mind / emotion @ that time . Apparently he felt threatened enough to shoot.

And so far the investigation seems to support him........
Click to expand...

I know but you have no right to shoot someone if he is not attacking you. Where was the threat. Did the guy back off or did he keep coming at him?

So far. There was a case in Canada that escalated into a confrontation. The guy kept coming after his neighbor even though the guy pulled a weapon and fired it into the air. Then he fired past him. The guy kept coming and it was not his property line. Then he tried to hit him in the arm or the shoulder and the guy was hit in the chest.

He went to court and the jury decided to drop the charge of first degree murder. See the difference?

Once again two guys and a female.
 
Sunny said:
rgp, listen to yourself! "Arrogance was the state of mind that set the scenario in motion"... "It was a physical assault ending in self defense , and tragically a death."

Can you possibly really believe all this nonsense? An armed man with an itchy trigger finger needlessly goes up to a car and starts screaming at the woman behind the wheel, possibly threatening her (someone went into the store and apparently told her boyfriend that she was in danger, so he came running out, as most people would do), and HE set the scenario in motion by having an arrogant attitude? Why was this even Drejka's business? Was someone's life being threatened, or someone being physically abused? It was a parking violation!

About your "self defense" comment, that is so absurd that it is actually funny. Drajka initiated the whole thing by needlessly going up to a car and interfering in a matter that did not concern him.
He was probably threatening the woman; I can't imagine that his words were issued in a quiet, reasonable manner. So the boyfriend comes to her defense, hits him, and Drajka kills him in "self defense?" Wow.

Years ago in a sociology class, I remember we read about a study dealing with crime victims. It was a large, broad-range study of all sorts of crime. It found that crimes against white people were prosecuted much more often than crimes against black people. It didn't matter what part of the U.S. it was in; this applied all over the country. The race of the perpetrator didn't matter so much; it was the race of the victim. This was probably about 50 years ago. Some things never change.
Click to expand...


" An armed man with an itchy trigger "....so your using your mind reading skills once again?

 "needlessly goes up to a car and starts screaming at the woman behind the wheel,"..........So you decide need ? is that in every issue? or just this one ?

"possibly threatening her"........So you assume the worse was said?


"So the boyfriend comes to her defense, hits him, and Drajka kills him in "self defense?" Wow."

Yes when someone hit you , it is time to defend yourself...Mr, Drajka did just that.


IMO, your last paragraph has no bearing on this case.

Is this an attempt by you to turn this into a racial issue?
 
Camper6 said:
I know but you have no right to shoot someone if he is not attacking you. Where was the threat. Did the guy back off or did he keep coming at him?

So far. There was a case in Canada that escalated into a confrontation. The guy kept coming after his neighbor even though the guy pulled a weapon and fired it into the air. Then he fired past him. The guy kept coming and it was not his property line. Then he tried to hit him in the arm or the shoulder and the guy was hit in the chest.

He went to court and the jury decided to drop the charge of first degree murder. See the difference?

Once again two guys and a female.
Click to expand...

"I know but you have no right to shoot someone if he is not attacking you."

 He was attacking Drajka , he threw him to the ground...and in states where SYG prevails , one does have a right to shoot.

I can't read that man's [Drajka] mind...I do not know when or to what degree he felt threatened. But it appears the investigation by the authorities supports his action.

We live under our state of law, not under the state of my opinion. But in this case they seem to be one in the same.
 
rgp said:
"I know but you have no right to shoot someone if he is not attacking you."

 He was attacking Drajka , he threw him to the ground...and in states where SYG prevails , one does have a right to shoot.

I can't read that man's [Drajka] mind...I do not know when or to what degree he felt threatened. But it appears the investigation by the authorities supports his action.

We live under our state of law, not under the state of my opinion. But in this case they seem to be one in the same.
Click to expand...

No he did not continue attacking. That's the difference you don't understand. There was no threat to his life. Has there been an investigation ?
 
Again, shooter, threatened, Rich Kelly, I believe his name is say, store owner says he did the displayed same thing, guy in video says shooter even called this guys job threatening to kill him, hopefully they can verify that call and if true, that's just more proof of intent. In the frame in the video you can see McGlockton stop and turning away. You can slow down the video with the button on the bottom right left of the youtube words. better video in the second link.


Funny how legal minds can see who was in the wrong at the final moments. Again, go to the button and where it says settings you can slow the video down.
 
Well, from watching the video it appears to me that the victim was backing up and heg begun to turn away when he was shot. In my mind that should negate the protection of SYG. In my state we don't have SYG, but we do have healthy self-defense laws and here self-defense doesn't fly if the victim is retreating. Here there was a fairly recent case on that very issue and the appellate courts so ruled.
 
Camper6 said:
No he did not continue attacking. That's the difference you don't understand. There was no threat to his life. Has there been an investigation ?
Click to expand...


No, you apparently do not understand...I never said he [continued] to attack...I said Drajka was attacked.

"There was no threat to his life."

Now you're a mind reader as well?.........If he felt his life was threatened ? It doesn't matter what you & or I think. The stand your ground component in the law says he had a right to shoot. Don't like that ? Work to change the law...for the next incident.

This case has been & is being investigated . So far the investigation supports Drajka's action.
 
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...
The "attacker" as you call him was walking away when he was shot...so HOW was he a threat?!! That's some BS!!

 
OneEyedDiva said:
The "attacker" as you call him was walking away when he was shot...so HOW was he a threat?!! That's some BS!!
Click to expand...


Monday morning quarterbacking is so easy.....

So you have a better perception of the threat from where you are?...days later, than he did, in the heat of the moment, in the moment. ?
 
U.S.
Minneapolis police shooting: No charges to be filed against officers in death of Thurman Blevins
No charges are expected to be filed against the officers involved in a fatal police shooting in Minneapolis, according to a statement from the county attorney.


According to the statement, Thurman Blevins allegedly ignored multiple commands to show his hands, took a gun out of his pocket and turned toward the officers in the June incident.
"Mr. Blevins represented a danger to the lives of" the officers, thereby making the shooting "authorized" under state law, Hennepin County attorney Mike Freeman said in a statement.A longer statement put out by the county attorney's office stated that witness testimony, body camera footage and forensic testing proved that Blevins had a gun in his hand.


The two officers fired a total of 14 shots, with four hitting Blevins, according to authorities.
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/minneapol...black-man-070108023--abc-news-topstories.html

How could this be relevant to the shooting in the parking lot in Florida?

The video has no audio so no way to know what was said if anything by Markeis McGlockton while Michael Drejka, was on the ground. Still close enough even if backing up to re position to do something is possible, but not a fact. Adrenaline and the heat of the moment are part of this. I'm not a mind reader so if Michael Drejka believed McGlockton was still a threat it's up to the state to prove that isn't true.

What is interesting to me "two officers fired a total of 14 shots, with four hitting Blevins"

14 shots from trained police officers and 4 hitting Blevins. The state will have to prove intent to kill or some lesser charge which could be difficult. Shooting once towards center mass doesn't translate to Michael Drejka, wanting to kill. Would Michael Drejka, claiming he shot to deter being attacked again and killed be unreasonable to claim ?
It will be interesting to find out what the state determines. Hopefully the op will follow up.

The sequence of events has a start point, that point was parking illegally. Tragic for sure over an ignorant driver setting in motion the series of events, that escalated to Markeis McGlockton ending up dead.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top