“Stand your ground” shooter arrested

[Epic Beard Man]

See following video by ABC:

This is a case where stand your ground needs to be re-evaluated especially considering the racial disparity between blacks and whites in states with stand your ground. In this particular case I think it can go either way but more importantly I see the prosecution going after Michael Drejka’s past concerning him antagonizing other patrons parking and using the n-word to several others. I’m glad prosecutors did the right thing.

 

[PureX]

What's really scary is that the top cop believed there was no cause to arrest Drejka. If there were no video, I have no doubt that this killer would have gotten away with it. And very likely would kill again. Because it's clear by his behavior that that's where he was heading all along by carrying a gun and verbally abusing and harassing people. He wanted to shoot someone.

There are people out there that do.

 

[Altfish]

It leads to blacks fearing to be good neighbours, see story here...

This UPS mistake has become a perfect example of how bad things are for African-Americans

 

[YmirGF]

So, let me get this right. The couple with the small child parks in a handicap spot, a spot that CAN be used by people with small kids, in some places (just to expedite their trip to the store) and this jerk get out of his car and harasses the driver. Then the father comes out, pushes the harasser to the ground who then pulls out his gun and fires on the unarmed father. And the top cop didn't think the harasser should have been arrested? Seriously? He shot an unarmed man (over a minor parking spot infraction)! Good lord. I'd be inclined to charge him with murder.

 

[Jumi]

Manslaughter? Looks like murder to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, let me get this right. The couple with the small child parks in a handicap spot, a spot that CAN be used by people with small kids, in some places (just to expedite their trip to the store) and this jerk get out of his car and harasses the driver. Then the father comes out, pushes the harasser to the ground who then pulls out his gun and fires on the unarmed father. And the top cop didn't think the harasser should have been arrested? Seriously? He shot an unarmed man (over a minor parking spot infraction)! Good lord. I'd be inclined to charge him with murder.

We should note that "stand your ground" laws are about self defense.
It is not a license to shoot anyone. There must be a reasonable fear
of loss of life or limb.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See following video by ABC:

This is a case where stand your ground needs to be re-evaluated especially considering the racial disparity between blacks and whites in states with stand your ground. In this particular case I think it can go either way but more importantly I see the prosecution going after Michael Drejka’s past concerning him antagonizing other patrons parking and using the n-word to several others. I’m glad prosecutors did the right thing.

I don't see this going well for Drejka. The comparisons are already being drawn between this and the Zimmerman case, but Zimmerman was able to successfully argue that he was being continually attacked. This was one case of assault by the victim. There was no continual attack nor did their appear to be a threat of one.

 

[Stanyon]

The cop probably did not know the full story at the time but the shooter is clearly an idiot and deserves to be punished. That said, I see people parking in handicap zones all the time when they clearly aren't and without a handicap sign or tag, is it laziness or just not giving a damn?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Manslaughter? Looks like murder to me.

They are all "murder", but legally a murder charge requires some forethought. Manslaughter will still get him locked up for a good portion of his life and is much easier to prove.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The cop probably did not know the full story at the time but the shooter is clearly an idiot and deserves to be punished. That said, I see people parking in handicap zones all the time when they clearly aren't and without a handicap sign or tag, is it laziness or just not giving a damn?

Laziness and not giving a damn, while contemptible, don't justify summary execution.

 

[PureX]

I don't see this going well for Drejka. The comparisons are already being drawn between this and the Zimmerman case, but Zimmerman was able to successfully argue that he was being continually attacked. This was one case of assault by the victim. There was no continual attack nor did their appear to be a threat of one.

There was no video of Zimmerman being "continually attacked". And just like this guy, he was looking for an altercation while carrying a hand gun. This is why the 'stand your ground' law is BS. First of all, it's completely unnecessary as we are all allowed to defend ourselves against a potentially deadly attack with deadly force, anyway. And secondly because it gives these nut-jobs a license to pack guns and go out looking for altercations that will enable them to use them to shoot someone. Which is exactly what happened with Zimmerman, and what happened with this guy.

There are people out there that want to shoot someone. And this stupid law is making it easier for them to do it, and get away with it.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

What's really scary is that the top cop believed there was no cause to arrest Drejka. If there were no video, I have no doubt that this killer would have gotten away with it. And very likely would kill again. Because it's clear by his behavior that that's where he was heading all along by carrying a gun and verbally abusing and harassing people. He wanted to shoot someone.

There are people out there that do.

Right and that’s the problem with a lot of cases like this and even cases where actual police misconduct occurs. Without video proof it didn’t happen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There was no video of Zimmerman being "continually attacked". And just like this guy, he was looking for an altercation while carrying a hand gun. This is why the 'stand your ground' law is BS. First of all, it's completely unnecessary as we are all allowed to defend ourselves against a potentially deadly attack with deadly force, anyway. And secondly because it gives these nut-jobs a license to pack guns and go out looking for altercations that will enable them to use them to shoot someone. Which is exactly what happened with Zimmerman, and what happened with this guy.

There are people out there that want to shoot someone. And this stupid law is making it easier for them to do it, and get away with it.

Correct, I said that Zimmerman was able to argue successfully that he was continually attacked. His story was corroborated by the forensic evidence. This man clearly was only attacked once. But claiming that Zimmerman was "looking for an altercation" is pure fabrication on your part. The two cases are not similar at all. Florida appears to be too loose with their handing out of concealed carry permits. Events in Zimmerman's past might have taken away that permit in other states, I have no clue about the background of this latest shooter.

 

[PureX]

Correct, I said that Zimmerman was able to argue successfully that he was continually attacked. His story was corroborated by the forensic evidence. This man clearly was only attacked once. But claiming that Zimmerman was "looking for an altercation" is pure fabrication on your part. The two cases are not similar at all. Florida appears to be too loose with their handing out of concealed carry permits. Events in Zimmerman's past might have taken away that permit in other states, I have no clue about the background of this latest shooter.

Zimmerman had appointed himself some sort of neighborhood security guard. He was LOOKING for an altercation while carrying a gun.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Zimmerman had appointed himself some sort of neighborhood security guard. He was LOOKING for an altercation while carrying a gun.

Your opinion on the "LOOKING" claim. He was found innocent for a good reason. He did have a good case. The prosecution was largely political. He may not have been a decent person but that is no excuse for an illegal assault. People laugh that he was getting beat up, but then forget about the possible result of such assaults. This was a "one and done". The shooter should have called 911. In a busy part of the city, during the daytime. He had no excuse. He appears to have shot in rage rather than in self defense.

 

[PureX]

Your opinion on the "LOOKING" claim. He was found innocent for a good reason. He did have a good case. The prosecution was largely political. He may not have been a decent person but that is no excuse for an illegal assault. People laugh that he was getting beat up, but then forget about the possible result of such assaults. This was a "one and done". The shooter should have called 911. In a busy part of the city, during the daytime. He had no excuse. He appears to have shot in rage rather than in self defense.

And if it was dark, and no one was around, he would have claimed he was being "continually attacked", just like Zimmerman did. And he would get away with it, just like Zimmerman did. Because in Florida, and Texas, and a few other states, some fool playing "lawman" with a loaded pistol is considered acceptable behavior.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Zimmerman had appointed himself some sort of neighborhood security guard. He was LOOKING for an altercation while carrying a gun.

In my opinion, the person that was entitled to "stand his ground" in that situation was Trayvon Martin given that he was the one being followed around the neighbourhood and probably feared for his life.

 

[sun rise]

We should note that "stand your ground" laws are about self defense.
It is not a license to shoot anyone. There must be a reasonable fear
of loss of life or limb.

That's the theory. But reasonable fear in some minds is a white being afraid of any male with dark skin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And if it was dark, and no one was around, he would have claimed he was being "continually attacked", just like Zimmerman did. And he would get away with it, just like Zimmerman did. Because in Florida, and Texas, and a few other states, some fool playing "lawman" with a loaded pistol is considered acceptable behavior.

Claiming it is one thing. There would be no evidence of a continual attack. In fact the evidence would be contrary to that. There was evidence of a continual attack in Zimmerman's case. This is a very poor comparison.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In my opinion, the person that was entitled to "stand his ground" in that situation was Trayvon Martin given that he was the one being followed around the neighbourhood and probably feared for his life.

But he wasn't. You need to look back on the trial. Zimmerman followed him for a bit when he ran. He called in 911 and quit following. There was no evidence that he continued to follow Martin. If I remember correct Martin even called his girlfriend and said that he was going back. Acckk! I don't want to dig up that case again.

ETA: I will have to retract that last claim. He was on the phone with Trayvon, he did not say he was going back.