Florida parking lot shooting: Should stand your ground laws apply to cases like this.

[Krichardson]

Both of them went looking for trouble and they both found more than they could handle.

[JenniferG]

He better hope there's no Handicap parking at the prison or he's going to go nuts. The jury delivered justice. This is a lesson of mind your own business.

[Delkal]

Note to self........don't go to the ghetto and start mouthing off to the residents who live there.

[ImminentDanger]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/michael-dr...ry?id=65121107

During the interrogation, which occurred almost six hours after the shooting, Drejka explained that he has a "pet peeve" about people parking in handicap spaces despite not being disabled himself. He said that when he saw Jacobs sitting in a car in the handicap space, he examined the front and rear of her car to see if it had a disabled person parking permit.

"I said, 'it's not very polite to park there when there's other people that need to use this,'" Drejka said he told Jacobs, according to the interrogation video. ''She says, 'Is it affecting you directly?' I said, 'If my mother-in-law rolls in, yes it will.'"

On Wednesday, Jacobs testified that Drejka was yelling and cursing at her for parking in a handicapped spot. She said she was inside the car with her two younger children, an infant and a 3-year-old, and that Drejka "scared" her.

"He was more angry and aggressive. He was yelling and pointing and telling me where I should park," Jacobs testified. "I just wanted this man to leave me alone, just leave me and my babies alone."


https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-worl...g-of-black-man

He said McGlockton's girlfriend, Britany Jacobs, partially put down her window and asked what he was doing. He said he told her it was "not very polite" to park in the spot and "she took that as an affront." He said that sparked an argument that got heated, with Jacobs saying "Do I have to get my man?"

Jacobs, who was waiting in the car with two of her children with McGlockton, testified that Drejka started walking around her car, stopped in the front, and then started pointing and yelling at her for parking in a handicapped spot. She said she eventually cracked the window to hear what he was saying and a screaming match ensued.


https://www.winknews.com/2019/08/23/...-lot-shooting/

10:10 p.m.

The jury sent a confusing note to the judge in the manslaughter trial of a white Florida man charged with fatally shooting an unarmed black man after being shoved during a parking lot altercation.

Circuit Judge Joseph Bulone asked the six-member panel trying Michael Drejka for the July 2018 shooting of Markeis McGlockton what they meant when they sent a note to him late Friday that restated portions of Florida’s self-defense law.

They said they were having difficulties understanding the law. Bulone reread them the lengthy statute, which generally says Drejka could shoot McGlockton if a reasonable person under the same circumstances would believe he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury.

The jury had deliberated past 10 p.m., six hours after they received the case.


https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...vmi-story.html

The verdict came about a half-hour after jurors sent out a note saying they were confused by the state's self-defense law. Circuit Judge Joseph Bulone told them all he could do is reread it for them.

The lengthy statute generally says a shooting is justified if a reasonable person under those circumstances would believe they are in danger of death or great bodily harm. But it also says the shooter could not have instigated the altercation


https://www.wsbtv.com/news/trending-...ting/979019251

While jurors deliberated, they sent a note to the judge seeking clarification for Florida's "stand your ground" statute. The law maintains a shooting is justified if a reasonable person in those circumstances believes they are in danger of death or great bodily harm, The Associated Press reported.


https://www.npr.org/2019/08/23/75392...ground-defense

Jurors took six hours to settle on the verdict. During deliberations, the jurors sent the judge a note saying they were confused by the self-defense law, according to The AP. The judge said he could only read them the law again.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/23/us/fl...jka/index.html

Jury deliberations lasted about six hours, with a brief pause around 9:30 p.m. when jurors sought clarification on the instructions for deciding guilt or innocence.

The judge sent the jury back to the deliberations room after rereading the instructions to them, and about a half hour later the jury announced it had a decision.


================
Comment to follow
...

[ImminentDanger]

How is it possible that the jury can, in good conscience, convict someone of a law THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!???!!!

The judge simply re-read them the law they already had --- They had sent a note asking for an explanation of various parts of that law - But there was no explanation forthcoming upon which the jury could base their decision...

THIS IS NOT JUSTICE - No matter whether you think the guy is innocent or guilty, no one should be convicted by a jury that doesn't understand the law upon which the charge is based...

Would you want a jury convicting you WHEN THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LAW!!!???!!!

...

[streaker69]

How is it possible that the jury can, in good conscience, convict someone of a law THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!???!!!

The judge simply re-read them the law they already had --- They had sent a note asking for an explanation of various parts of that law - But there was no explanation forthcoming upon which the jury could base their decision...

THIS IS NOT JUSTICE - No matter whether you think the guy is innocent or guilty, no one should be convicted by a jury that doesn't understand the law upon which the charge is based...

Would you want a jury convicting you WHEN THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LAW!!!???!!!

...

That very well could be a good basis for appeal. But I do agree with you, it should have been a hung jury if they don't understand the law.

Really fills you with confidence in a "jury of your peers" don't it?

[GunLawyer001]

I disagree with anyone who believes that (a) members of society have no business mentioning that other adults are violating the laws, or (b) that using nothing but words to point out that violation is "instigating" the fight.

This is the mindset of those who are willing to give up their guns because it's the job of the police to deal with crimes. It's a short hop or two from "other people violating the law are none of my business" to "I shouldn't do anything to protect people being attacked near me unless they're close family members" to "I have no business reacting to people attacking me."

[Gaff It]

I disagree with anyone who believes that (a) members of society have no business mentioning that other adults are violating the laws, or (b) that using nothing but words to point out that violation is "instigating" the fight.

This is the mindset of those who are willing to give up their guns because it's the job of the police to deal with crimes. It's a short hop or two from "other people violating the law are none of my business" to "I shouldn't do anything to protect people being attacked near me unless they're close family members" to "I have no business reacting to people attacking me."

Agree totally! Not only do you have a right, in many instances you have a obligation and/or a duty.

[Carnes]

The victim got violently shoved to the ground, then rapidly made the decision to act in defense of himself

The problem with the Monday morning QB's is that from the comfort of your living room there appears to be a whole lot of time between being shoved to the ground and pulling the trigger.

Real life isn't a movie, it is not scripted with actors that make complex analyses and decisions instantaneously. This is especially true when considering the victim wasn't a spring chicken and clearly hasn't made a career out of self-defense.

Going from complaining about unethical parking, to suddenly being slammed to the ground by a much larger, much more physically fit, and clearly hostile individual is a lot to process. Then accessing the gun after having been slammed to the ground isn't going to happen instantaneously either. Dude was probably panicking because he knew he needed to defend himself, but couldn't get the gun out quick enough... that is enough to paralyze even the best people's analysis process.

And really... what do you think would have happened if the victim instead tried to stand-up? Would the now-dead attacker have helped him up, dusted him off, and offered to talk things out?

WTF?

I pity the future armed victims that carry guns, but will second-guess themselves because of bad court decisions like this.

[Krichardson]

Of course the parking lot cop had a right to say whatever he wanted to but you don't aggressively get in people's faces and yell at them when you want to point out how wrong they are.They were both wrong and they both paid for it.