Fatal shooting - argument in parking lot

Status
Not open for further replies.
Butterfly said:
IMHO Drejka doesn't deserve to be out on bail. He is a danger to the public.
Click to expand...

He's still in jail, which is exactly where he needs to be.
Obviously neither he nor anyone he's related to/associated with can come up with $10k in cash or assets. His supporters (online and offline) have given new meaning to the phrase "Talk is cheap".

Hmmm :whome:
 

Confusing wanting the legal system to perform the way it is supposed to with support for Drejka.


This began with a video of a man confronting a driver that was illegally parked. It ended with that man being attacked and shooting towards his attacker. The real crux of this is is the SYG law as his defense. Is that law going to be what acquits him or will the state prove he wasn't in fear of his life? We'll have to wait for that answer.


Would this have happened if the driver apologized for parking illegally and moved the car to one of the open spaces that were pointed out? Or is ignorance and no respect for the needs of the handicapped excuseable?
 
Since the spot was taken while the man went into the store what is the point.

For the point to sink in all that has to be done is take the license number and report it.

A fine might help in the future.

But in any case it's not worth a life.
 
True, but I very much doubt that Drejka was really all that concerned with the parking problems of the handicapped. That was his excuse; he was clearly looking for a fight.
 
There's a lot of anger & rage, and too many people are getting killed. I think we all know that.
But, while I realize some people make understandable observations about guns, rage, race, etc. I just prefer not to have this discussion wander into a general discussion about killings. This discussion is supposed to be about the Drejka/McGlockton shooting. There are plenty of things to say about that specific incident.
Click to expand...

Applecruncher, so you really believe you can keep any discussion strictly on the topic that you prefer? Lots of luck with that! :D
 
Sunny said:
Applecruncher, so you really believe you can keep any discussion strictly on the topic that you prefer? Lots of luck with that! :D
Click to expand...

I don't see it as an issue.of my beliefs and preferences. Anybody can talk about anything. However, since the forum is organized so that members can start a discussion by giving a thread a title, most people respect that by posting thoughts, opinions, and information relating to the subject. It's not that complicated, Sunny, and I'm not going to bat the issue back and forth ad nauseum.
 
Sunny said:
Applecruncher, so you really believe you can keep any discussion strictly on the topic that you prefer? Lots of luck with that!
Click to expand...


Sunny you rightly point out any topic is about expression of opinions. Not everyone bobs their head up & down in agreement. Adding information in their own way opens the door for more input. Ignoring input that doesn't conform to a persons way of thinking says more about that person than it does about the poster that doesn't toe the line of thinking. The popular line of thinking in this thread is confronting a person parked illegally was wrong for standing up for the handicapped. That kind of thinking can be extended to ignoring a child being abducted and ignoring it. Or any number of sceanarios that involve a citizen getting involved.


A decent caring person would not park in a handicapped spot. A decent person would apologize and move their car to an open space when confronted about why they parked in a space set aside for the handicapped. I'll ask again.
Would this death have happened if the driver had parked legally? Or moved when it was pointed out that legal spaces were available?


Definitely unfortunate that death resulted from ignorance on the part of the driver.


Now it's up to the state to prove that the SYG law was not a valid reason to shoot to stop an aggressor that attacked. The state has to weigh the emotional aggression [verbal confrontation] against the [impulsive aggression] that was the attack. Then prove that under the SYG law there was no fear that further harm wasn't possible.
 
Here's part of Wikipedia's description of the STG law:

In Dawkins v. State the court describes "[T]he 'stand your ground' law... provide that a person has a right to expect absolute safety in a place they have a right to be, and may use deadly force to repel an intruder... for a person to be justified in using deadly force, the person must not be 'engaged in unlawful activity".[SUP][1][/SUP]
Click to expand...


So the emphasis seems to be on the place, rather than the situation. Clearly, it was designed to protect people from intruders in their own home, and it completely ignores the reason or justification for using deadly force. So this ridiculous law protects loose cannons like Drejka, who go around clearly looking for excuses for a fight, and are the initiators of the trouble, just because they are in a place where they have a legal right to be? Makes no sense!

Maybe the law could be amended to protect people only in their own homes.
 
Knight said:
Confusing wanting the legal system to perform the way it is supposed to with support for Drejka.


This began with a video of a man confronting a driver that was illegally parked. It ended with that man being attacked and shooting towards his attacker. The real crux of this is is the SYG law as his defense. Is that law going to be what acquits him or will the state prove he wasn't in fear of his life? We'll have to wait for that answer.


Would this have happened if the driver apologized for parking illegally and moved the car to one of the open spaces that were pointed out? Or is ignorance and no respect for the needs of the handicapped excuseable?
Click to expand...


Exactly, and I'll note a fine point you presented.

"will the state prove he wasn't in fear of his life?"

How in the world can we the people or the state 'prove' anyone's emotional state? IMO it is impossible . He reacted to the threat, under the states SYG law, and was a licensed CCW holder. Did he 'over-react' ? I do not know...I wasn't there. And again, who is qualified to & how do we determine such a thing?

As for....

"Would this have happened if the driver apologized for parking illegally and moved the car to one of the open spaces that were pointed out?"

Not likely.
 
Sounds allot like a local case , where a 13 yr/old black kid, shot & killed a 14 yr/old black kid... This too happened in a parking lot. Something about one kid taking the other kid's drug dealing space. Stared with an argument, and then escalated from there.
 
applecruncher said:
@ AprilT

Yes, that's my point.

There's a lot of anger & rage, and too many people are getting killed. I think we all know that.
But, while I realize some people make understandable observations about guns, rage, race, etc. I just prefer not to have this discussion wander into a general discussion about killings. This discussion is supposed to be about the Drejka/McGlockton shooting. There are plenty of things to say about that specific incident.
Click to expand...

The thread title mentions no names, or a particular state.

It merely says....

"Fatal shooting-argument in parking lot"
 
I haven't seen any mention of Drejka having a wife/gf/kids. One would think supportive relatives and friends would be helping him make bail or at least speaking out - if they exist.

Also nothing about a job/career or income.
 
How in the world can we the people or the state 'prove' anyone's emotional state? IMO it is impossible.
Click to expand...

I agree, rgp. And therein lies the problem. Anyone shooting anyone else for whatever reason can always say they feared for their life. And how can anyone argue with that?

Someone who is armed, and who initiated the conflict in the first place, should not have any reason to fear for his life against an unarmed man, even if he comes on swinging with both fists. That's why I think
SYG is a terrible law.
 
Sunny said:
I agree, rgp. And therein lies the problem. Anyone shooting anyone else for whatever reason can always say they feared for their life. And how can anyone argue with that?

Someone who is armed, and who initiated the conflict in the first place, should not have any reason to fear for his life against an unarmed man, even if he comes on swinging with both fists. That's why I think
SYG is a terrible law.
Click to expand...

I think concealed carry is a terrible law. If the gun was exposed I doubt there would have been any kind of argument.

How can you argue that he feared for his life?

You can't. The jury will determine whether they believe you or not after reviewing the evidence.

So before you start shooting be prepared for a day in court.
 
Camper6 said:
I think concealed carry is a terrible law. If the gun was exposed I doubt there would have been any kind of argument.

How can you argue that he feared for his life?

You can't. The jury will determine whether they believe you or not after reviewing the evidence.

So before you start shooting be prepared for a day in court.
Click to expand...

I completely agree, Camper.
 
Sunny said:
I agree, rgp. And therein lies the problem. Anyone shooting anyone else for whatever reason can always say they feared for their life. And how can anyone argue with that?

Someone who is armed, and who initiated the conflict in the first place, should not have any reason to fear for his life against an unarmed man, even if he comes on swinging with both fists. That's why I think
SYG is a terrible law.
Click to expand...


Well, I do agree with the first part, yes of course they could be lying, but again how do we know?

Here I disagree........."and who initiated the conflict in the first place,"

He didn't initiate the conflict, the driver did...then the BF escalated it, then etc,etc.
 
Camper6 said:
I think concealed carry is a terrible law. If the gun was exposed I doubt there would have been any kind of argument.

How can you argue that he feared for his life?

You can't. The jury will determine whether they believe you or not after reviewing the evidence.

So before you start shooting be prepared for a day in court.
Click to expand...


I actually in large part agree here.

I think if we are going to 'carry'? Have them right on our hip for the world to see.

But then there is the hassle problem from ?? Like the lady in a local restaurant , who called the police because this guy was carrying open. Yes I was there, heard every word. It all checked out, he was legal, etc...but still....hassle.
 
Sunny said:
I agree, rgp. And therein lies the problem. Anyone shooting anyone else for whatever reason can always say they feared for their life. And how can anyone argue with that?


Someone who is armed, and who initiated the conflict in the first place, should not have any reason to fear for his life against an unarmed man, even if he comes on swinging with both fists. That's why I think
SYG is a terrible law.
Click to expand...


What conflict? Pointing out open parking spaces after checking both front & rear for a plate and checking the mirror & dash board for a placard IMO doesn't constitute initiating a conflict. Being ignorant and not moving & without audio it's not possible to know what was said by the driver.


For sure the video depicts battery. Intent for further harm? Again no audio so no way to know. I have admitted I like the thought a citizen would speak up and say something to ignorant people about parking in spaces set aside for handicapped people. Minor as this was the intent to have ignorant people be aware their actions are wrong is the right thing to do.
Zero doubt the SYG law is not perfect. This incident may be the catalyst for review & change.
 
Knight said:
What conflict? Pointing out open parking spaces after checking both front & rear for a plate and checking the mirror & dash board for a placard IMO doesn't constitute initiating a conflict. Being ignorant and not moving & without audio it's not possible to know what was said by the driver.


For sure the video depicts battery. Intent for further harm? Again no audio so no way to know. I have admitted I like the thought a citizen would speak up and say something to ignorant people about parking in spaces set aside for handicapped people. Minor as this was the intent to have ignorant people be aware their actions are wrong is the right thing to do.
Zero doubt the SYG law is not perfect. This incident may be the catalyst for review & change.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Drejka was yelling and cursing, told the woman to move her f'kin car...this is backed up by witnesses, one of whom went to get McGlockton. Drejka can be seen on the video gesturing.

I know you want to paint Drejka as a polite citizen who cares about the handicapped :rolleyes:, but it's not gonna fly. Not here, and not in court.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top