Would you consider this a "good shoot"?

[shooter444]

I hear ya, airedalex2!

Too old for kick boxing anymore, and too young to die!



Which is why, violence on the older patriot citizens, may not have the exact results an attacker is hoping for.

[knockonit]

me thinks a good shoot, hard to determine what was m ind set of victim, if me, i'd a thought the second person out the door was also coming to kick my arse, how was he to know he wasn't gonna have to deal with two attackers, some times in panic moments the brain doesn't assimilate all the info fast enough,

he was right to put this one down, bummer as he will have to live with it, but it was simple assault, and being an older guy, and supposedly handicaped, well. .....................................

[AZ1]

She parked in a handicapped spot when she shouldn't have. She gets confronted and he comes to her "rescue" pushing the man as hard as he can. If you're going to get violent with someone it better be worth it. Arguing over a parking spot is not worth it. He made no attempt to resolve the conflict peaceful. He attacked immediately. A push like that can cause serious bodily injury. The video and the quotes in the article tell me a lot about this couple. I feel no sympathy for him.

[Desert Rat]

That is tough for me, The attacker shoved him very hard and there was definitely a disparity of force. It appears that the attacker may have been backing up once the firearm was pulled. I too wonder if the third person was going to attack as well, but I am not sure if the victim saw him. He may have been focused on the large man that just sent him flying.
When I ask myself if a reasonable person would be in fear of their life, I think you could argue yes.

[338lapua]

I agree with 338lapua. Don't lay your hands on another.

As much as I still think it wasn't that good of a good shoot there is a element in this country that has been emboldened to pull crap like this, maybe this will make the next one stay civil but probably not.

[338lapua]

And that is exactly why I have a million dollar liability umbrella policy.

And why I have a private plane and a pile of bail money, I am not sticking around for the aftermath.

[mikeAZ]

Hummm, let's see. Parking in a "handicap" space "for just a minute", that's OK. Ain't no whitey tellin me were to park..... Now my Big guy violently shoves the other guy to the ground and gets ready for more .... Damm, he got himself shot.... IB suing everyone.

[Viper 1-26 INF]

While the shooter might be good from a legal standpoint, I don't think anyone was in the right in this situation. According to another article I read (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fl ... er-n893646), the shooter has a history of instigating fights with people and threatening others with a handgun. Seems like he has nothing better to do than start s*** with people, and might have been waiting for an opportunity where he could legally shoot someone. The deceased is an idiot for shoving the shooter, and his girlfriend should have never parked in the handicap spot. In my opinion, if somebody shoves you, after you are the one starting the confrontation, then backs off, and then you shoot them, you're kind of a little b!tch. So, basically I see both parties as being in the wrong. To me the shooter's, what I consider to be long, pause between drawing on the deceased and then firing, shows that he was thinking about something... the question is was it fear, or whether he could get away with it. I can understand someone getting pissed off about someone parking in a handicap spot that shouldn't be, I have spinal injuries with osteoarthritis and scoliosis and will be needing a knee replacement in the next few years (I still park at the end of the lot though), but getting all up in someone's sh!t and starting a fight over it doesn't usually solve the initial problem. If the shooter wanted to say anything he should have left it at "Hey, you know you're parked in a handicap zone?" If they don't move, take a picture of them parked in the handicap zone showing their license plate and report it. All I see in this situation are idiots all around.

I might add, though, that if audio for the altercation was present that could sway my opinion if the deceased in fact verbally threatened the shooter in some way after he had drawn his weapon on him.

[Harrier]

The article I read on Fox said a witness who frequents the store, indicated the guy has done this several times before- and threatening to use his gun (don't know if just verbally or he pulls it) I got the impression he trolls the lot for people parked in the HC spot and then verbally berates and threatens them. He doesn't appear handicapped so why is this his hot button?

This time he got into it with the girlfriend waiting in the car, and the boyfriend comes out of the store only to find his girl in a confrontation- so I would assume he steps in to defend her... Not sure why he assaulted the guy the way he did but it all went south from there... another theory is that they had history from before and the shooter went looking for him. That might explain the attack on sight aspect.

I really think he over-reacted but due to the physical assault without warning, I'm probably going to go with it as a legal shoot but I wonder whether he instigated and staged the whole thing for that purpose ...after reading the Florida statues here at the least this should be investigated further and perhaps there is cause to charge him, IDK, I'm on the fence.

[zonie77]

I've watched the video multiple times. If I was on a jury I would have to vote good shoot.

The victim, Drejka, was not excited, screaming, gesturing at the woman in the car. The perp, McGlockton, walloped him with no warning. If you consider Drejka's angle looking at McGlockton he might not have seen M's small step back. With no sound we don't know if there was a threat from M.
Barring some evidence that we don't know I go with Drejka being justified.

[Chuck]

I do not recognize this as a 'good shoot'.
We who carry have a responsibility to avoid conflicts.
Yes, he was assaulted.
No, he was not in fear of his life.

[shooter444]

I think the legally correct definition of "fearing for one's life", after being blind side body slammed by a physically superior attacker, can ONLY BE DETERMINED by the victim.

No other person on earth can speak for the one victimized!

ONLY he/she can relate his/her state of mind during a physical attack, period, imo!

[Miker12]

I think the legally correct definition of "fearing for one's life", after being blind side body slammed by a physically superior attacker, can ONLY BE DETERMINED by the victim.

No other person on earth can speak for the one victimized!

ONLY he/she can relate his/her state of mind during a physical attack, period, imo!

This thought process allows for "victimization" and "what I feel" instead of facts. So based on your statement I can conclude that a "rape" victim is justified after a drunk fu*k?

[Steve_In_29]

This thought process allows for "victimization" and "what I feel" instead of facts. So based on your statement I can conclude that a "rape" victim is justified after a drunk fu*k?

Actually there is a good bit of "feel" involved in the process. What puts a 20yo healthy stud in fear of their life is not the same thing that would do so for a 60yo feeble person or for a 30yo woman.

[shooter444]

This thought process allows for "victimization" and "what I feel" instead of facts. So based on your statement I can conclude that a "rape" victim is justified after a drunk fu*k?

From my limited legal education, in a court of LAW, the TESTIMONIAL FACT of a victim's mental state during an attack, can only be qualified by the victim.

A victim testimony of "WHAT I FEEL" in a legal proceeding IS THE ONLY TRUE AND VALID FACT TO A VICTIM'S STATE OF MIND !

How could it be any other way?

Testimony of strangers who don't know the victim is not normally considered legally valid, or of any worth. Or, as in this case, a stranger on the internet, claiming to know the definitive state of mind of a victim of violence from watching a silent video, is a prime example of victimization after the fact.

As to your date rape comparison, I can't see the correlation. I feel, there seems to be something a little more in line with projection, than fact? If you could expand on this a little bit, maybe I could understand better.

What I will say, is, as with any victim of violence, a rape victim's testimony to her state of mind, is usually the only legally valid fact to "state of mind", for a legal record. That doesn't mean other non-professional opinions can't be considered, but, they rarely over shadow a victim's testimony.