I don't see how Drejka has a stand your ground defense between his history of starting fights over that very parking spot, McGlockton retreating after gun drawn, and the text of the Florida "Stand Your Ground" Law which doesn't include parking lots/spots:

quote:

776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
(a) Nondeadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force; or
(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
(2) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(3) The presumption set forth in subsection (2) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened; or
(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27; s. 4, ch. 2014-195; s. 1, ch. 2017-77.

Bottom line...he's going to drop a buttload of bucks defending himself from the civil suit that's coming...if you are going to use deadly force, it had better be worth it by saving your life or someone else's...if it doesn't involve that type of life or death (or injury) situation, just walk away...your future and finances will be better off...and your ego will heal ...

"It's a hell of a thing killing a man...you take away all his got and all he's ever gonna have"...

These are words to think about if you have the luxury.

He may yet be charged. A grand jury should examine the incident.
And this shows that no matter how minor an issue may be to you, there may someone willing to shoot you over it.

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:
I don't see how Drejka has a stand your ground defense between his history of starting fights over that very parking spot, McGlockton retreating after gun drawn, and the text of the Florida "Stand Your Ground" Law which doesn't include parking lots/spots:

Agreed. Contrary to the horrible reporting, this is not likely to be an open and shut Stand Your Ground case as the sheriff noted.

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:
I don't see how Drejka has a stand your ground defense between his history of starting fights over that very parking spot, McGlockton retreating after gun drawn, and the text of the Florida "Stand Your Ground" Law which doesn't include parking lots/spots:

Yeah, you know what, I looked into this sheriff. He doesn't sound any better than the douchebag in Broward County. My take is that he's using this case as a way to shine a negative light on the Stand Your Ground Law and concealed carry permit holders and maybe hopefully force the State to change the law. This sheriff is no friend to the 2nd amendment or law abiding citizens who exercise their right to carry.

This was just the first article I picked:

Florida Alert: Pinellas Sheriff Bob Gualtieri threatens to shoot concealed carriers
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2015
SUPPORT NRA-ILA
DATE: December 11, 2015
TO: USF & NRA Members and Friends
FROM: Marion P. Hammer
USF Executive Director
NRA Past President


The following news article explains why Pinellas County, Florida, citizens and gun owners all over the state are expressing concern over comments made by Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri in a story by the News Service of Florida yesterday, 12/10/15.



http://thegunwriter.blogs.hera...-concealed-carriers/

Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri threatens to shoot concealed carriers


Posted on December 11, 2015
by Lee Williams

In my humble opinion, it appears as though Pinellas County Sheriff Bob
Gualtieri may be ready for the rubber gun squad.

The good sheriff said Thursday that law abiding citizens exercising their
Second Amendment rights will be “thrown down on the ground with a gun pointed at them — or worse.”

He also said if a concealed carry unknowingly enters a bank during a robbery,
the citizen is “going to take one in the chest because he’s a threat.”

What’s troubling the lawman, who’s also an attorney?

The Florida Police Chiefs Association voted Thursday to support open carry
legislation — and that’s a bill the good sheriff staunchly opposes.

You’ll remember Sheriff Gualtieri. He’s not known for his support of guns,
gun owners or pro-gun legislation.

In May of 2013, he vowed to start enforcing a little-used county ordinance
that requires background checks at local gun shows for all private sales. The
county ordinance gathered dust since it was enacted in 1998. Violators faced
misdemeanor charges. After garnering a few headlines, the plan fizzled. Gun
shows were held without any problems. No arrests were ever made.

A year later he called the Firearms Mandatory Evacuation bill — which is now
law — “crazy” and “absurd,” saying it would allow people to carry concealed
firearms into a riot, rather than when they’re fleeing their homes.

And he’s been fighting the open-carry legislation with bad info.

A county sheriff who’s threatening to shoot his constituents for exercising
their Second Amendment rights is a worrisome situation, which I hope gets
whispered into the ear of Gov. Rick Scott.

The governor needs to take swift action now, before a law abiding Pinellas
County resident is “thrown down on the ground with a gun pointed at them — or
worse.”

The sheriff’s statements constitute official sanction for his deputies to use
excessive force — or even deadly force — on gun owners.

And quite frankly, that should scare the hell out of everyone who lives in
Pinellas County, regardless of whether they own or carry a gun.

Here’s the story from the News Service of Florida that details the sheriff’s
threats:

NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA
12/10/2015

POLICE CHIEFS WILL BACK REVISED OPEN-CARRY BILL

By MARGIE MENZEL
THE NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA

THE CAPITAL, TALLAHASSEE, December 10, 2015……….Acknowledging “momentum” behind a proposal that would allow people with concealed-weapons licenses to openly carry guns, the Florida Police Chiefs Association said Thursday its board of directors had voted to back the controversial measure — as long as changes designed to protect law-enforcement officers are included.

A spokeswoman confirmed that the police chiefs’ group had contacted the sponsors of the proposal (SB 300/HB 163), Sen. Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, and his son, Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, who both say they’re on board with the changes.

“The police chiefs understand that momentum is building,” association spokeswoman Sandi Poreda said. “And because of their concerns for police officers’ safety, they wanted to go ahead and reach out to the bill sponsors and work on these amendments, which they believe will better protect officers.”

If the measure passes, 1.45 million Floridians with concealed-weapons permits would be able to openly carry guns. Opponents — including a number of Florida sheriffs — warn that people who openly display guns could get hurt as a result, either by criminals or law enforcement.

Gun bills will be heavily debated during the 2016 legislative session, which starts Jan. 12. Along with the open-carry proposal, lawmakers are looking at allowing people with concealed-weapons licenses to carry guns on college and university campuses and are considering a proposal to shift a burden of proof in “stand your ground” self-defense cases.

By a vote of 15-7, the police chiefs association’s board of directors — who represent law-enforcement agencies in different districts of the state — agreed to support the open-carry bill when the amendments are adopted.

In a “Red Alert” email Wednesday to association members, Executive Director Amy Mercer cautioned that the police chiefs’ group “reserves the right to oppose the bill in the future, particularly if our amendments are changed or removed or if other amendments are added that are found not to be in the best interest of the FPCA and our members.”

Lawmakers will consider four proposed amendments, which have not yet been filed.
One amendment would add a provision to the Senate bill. The amended version would include House language stating that a person who displays a firearm “intentionally … in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense” is not covered by the proposed open-carry law.

Second, both current versions of the proposal would allow fines to be imposed on people — including police officers — who infringe on others’ rights to openly carry guns, unless probable cause exists to believe that crimes have been committed. A proposed amendment would ease that standard for law officers, who would be required to have “reasonable suspicion” before stopping people to verify or investigate the carrying of guns.

Third, the current proposal states that no one who infringes on the right to openly carry guns — including police officers — would be immune from legal consequences.

However, the agreement between the Gaetzes and the police chiefs association specifies that nothing in the bill would be intended to restrict a law enforcement officer’s ability or authority to conduct investigations as otherwise allowed by law.

“Sovereign immunity is a vital tool that allows law enforcement officers to perform their duties without fear of frivolous lawsuits,” Mercer wrote. “Officers will not fear losing sovereign immunity when investigating a person open or concealed carrying.”
The fourth amendment would require a holster for purposes of openly carrying a firearm.

The original versions of the bills have started moving through House and Senate committees. Matt Gaetz said Thursday he expects the changes to be added when lawmakers return to the issues after the first of the year.

“In the next committee in which the bill is heard, either the House Judiciary Committee or the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is my expectation that those amendments will be adopted,” Matt Gaetz said.

The Florida Sheriffs Association would not comment Thursday. But Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, a staunch opponent of open carry, said the four amendments wouldn’t make the bill acceptable to him — or safe for people who openly display their guns.

For instance, he said, if an officer arrives at the scene of a crime and sees someone with a weapon, “At a minimum, they’re going to be thrown down on the ground with a gun pointed at them — or worse.”

And if good citizen with a concealed weapon walks into, say, a bank during an armed robbery, Gualtieri added, “he’s going to take one in the chest because he’s a threat.”

“It’s not good for Florida, it’s not good for the economy, it’s not good for tourism,” he said.

Don Gaetz, however, pointed to the emerging differences between opponents such as Gualtieri and the police chiefs association.

“Well, he now will have the opportunity to debate that issue with his fellow law-enforcement officers who are taking a different view than he is,” Don Gaetz said.
National Rifle Association lobbyist Marion Hammer, who strongly backs the measure, dismissed the critics.

“That’s rhetoric. That’s reaching,” she said. “Every time we do something to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners, somebody will come up with a ‘what if?’ "

https://www.nraila.org/article...t-concealed-carriers

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:
I don't see how Drejka has a stand your ground defense between his history of starting fights over that very parking spot, McGlockton retreating after gun drawn, and the text of the Florida "Stand Your Ground" Law which doesn't include parking lots/spots:

Drejka doesn't have a case to stand-on for the civil trail. Anyone that's gotten a CCL knows there's two big cautionary points that are made if you draw-down on someone: your life better be in danger and you're protecting your loved ones/property. McGlockton was an ass for parking in the wrong spot but, that's no reason for Drejka to initiate a confrontation, particularly being armed. McGlockton escalates with the shove but, backs away after Drejka draws. Drejka shoots without provocation.

I don't know how it works in FL, but in AZ, if you're not charged because it's a, legally-speaking, "good shoot," you also cannot be sued civilly.

if that is a justifiable shooting, the video sure doesn't show it.

From a law enforcement perspective, if some bag of shit had just pushed me violently to the ground, and then started backing away with his hands up, the justification for deadly force is gone. It would be nearly impossible to articulate why I was in fear for my life based on the video. The shooters problems are just beginning.

quote:

Originally posted by arfmel:

Both of them are idiots and assholes.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
My take is that he's using this case as a way to shine a negative light on the Stand Your Ground Law and concealed carry permit holders and maybe hopefully force the State to change the law.

Without reading much about this incident or knowing anything at all about the sheriff, that was my immediate suspicion. It’s hardly unusual for a law enforcement head or prosecutor to use a case to promote his agenda to change the law: “Oh yes, it’s terrible that he’s going to get away with this horrible crime, but there’s nothing I can do about it. The legislature needs to change the law.” The antigun crowd loves these cases because they can say, “See, see: We said blood would be running in the streets, and that’s what happened!”

There can be a thousand incidents in which someone justly defended himself, but they’re all nullified by one like this.

The average person won’t know what the law really says and the politicians (especially those who don’t like the law as it stands) will cave to the pressure.

The boyfriend is definitely an ass. He shoves that guy extremely hard, but I don’t see it as a good shoot based only on that video.

Animal assaults a guy and gets shot. Don't care.

Neither me nor that asshat have the ability or obligation to police handicapped parking. Just because someone doesn’t outwardly appear to be disabled doesn’t mean they are not. Not all disabilities come with a limp. Sometimes people forget to put the plastic sign on their mirror if they don’t have a handicapped plate.

I know friends that would qualify for one of these handicapped license plates but choose not to have one. I also have a few friends that have one and probably don’t really need one.

I have better things to occupy my mind.
Mike

A good rule I heard long ago, don't go anywhere with a gun (or get yourself into situations) that you wouldn't go without a gun.

quote:

Originally posted by comet24:
Guy definitely shoves the other to the ground with force.

Not convinced shotting him was necessary but all I have a is the short video clip so no idea what else may have been involved here.

Not sure what everyone else is seeing, but I see a big guy come right at him, push him violently to the ground and keep coming right at him to follow up, maybe start kicking him while he's on the ground, right up to the point he sees the gun pointed at him. That IMO makes pulling the gun a reasonable act.

Big guy does back off then, though. And at that point, in NC, that would be enough to make this a bad shot. Reason being, a big guy backing away is not enough to put you in reasonable fear of great bodily harm, even if the guy had just thrown you to the ground. At that point, shooting (here in NC) would not be legit.

I do think if he'd drawn and shot right away while the big guy was still approaching, there might be justification, but after he had backed off, probably not.

I sense the reason the press is calling this a 'stand your ground' shot is that they disagree with the law and want to get the public's knickers twisted.

Popping up a level, independently of the legality (or illegality) of the shot, arguing about a parking space is a stupid thing to do in the first place, fighting about it is worse, and getting into a situation where one is exposed either to being thrown to the ground or shot is worse yet. The guy who got shot had options, too - he did not have to escalate a verbal interchange into physical violence. He could have gotten in the car, had the driver pull away, and flipped the other guy a bird as they rode away, for example.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:

I sense the reason the press is calling this a 'stand your ground' shot is that they disagree with the law and want to get the public's knickers twisted.

They're calling it a Stand Your Ground case because the sheriff specifically cited that law as to why he won't charge Drejka.

quote:

Originally posted by tk13:

quote:

Originally posted by arfmel:

Both of them are idiots and assholes.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

Actually, you have to include the Sherriff in that statement as well, making it read "all three are idiots and assholes".

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
He may yet be charged. A grand jury should examine the incident.

Just going by what I've read: If I were on such a grand jury I'd vote to indict.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
And this shows that no matter how minor an issue may be to you, there may someone willing to shoot you over it.

Part and parcel of our increasingly uncivil "civilization."

McGlockton had no business parking in the spot he did.

Drejka had no business getting all up in Jacobs' face.

McGlockton had no business getting physical with Drejka.

Venturing into territory in which I'm but a layman: There is a principle in law known as "dirty hands." This is where SYG will not save you. You can't start something, use deadly force to defend yourself when it goes bad for you, then claim "SYG!"

Don't want none, don't start none. Sherrif is grandstanding.