View Full Version : Duty to retreat laws
Grand58742
07-05-18, 07:47
Are so effing stupid, I can't even comprehend.
https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/policereports/article/Victim-of-Norwalk-assault-gets-18-months-for-not-13044078.php
A Bridgeport man who was assaulted by three juveniles while he was at work in Norwalk will have to spend 18 months in jail for stabbing one of the attackers.
“I was defending myself,” Jeffrey Sumpter, 21, told Judge John Blawie on Monday morning at the Stamford courthouse when he was sentenced for stabbing one of the males in the leg last October. Blawie told Sumpter that he understood and believed his version of events, but he said he had to follow the letter of the law.
Sumpter, dressed in a white prison jumpsuit with short sleeves, did not reply. His public defender Howard Ehring said unlike a state like Florida, which has a law allowing its residents to stand their ground, Connecticut law requires Sumpter to retreat from the beating he was given at the Dunkin’ Donuts where he worked. After being assaulted inside the coffee shop, Sumpter ran outside and stabbed one of the men.
Bold emphasis added by me.
Tried looking for more info on the situation, but nothing that really changes the fact he was jumped by three individuals and defended himself. Yes, he was a convicted felony, but still...
https://www.thehour.com/news/article/Police-Bridgeport-man-charged-in-weekend-stabbing-12249306.php
Way to go, CT. You should be very proud of yourselves...
The_War_Wagon
07-05-18, 08:07
"BE a victim - come visit Connecticut!"
Chamber of Commerce oughta try that as an ad campaign for tourism - I'm sure it'll go over well...
After being assaulted inside the coffee shop, Sumpter ran outside and stabbed one of the men.
Sounds like the beating was already over and he escalated it by running outside and stabbing one?? Also, there is this from the comments section at the above link:
"I'm not a real lawyer...but I like to play one on the internet. When first reading this article I thought the punishment was draconian enough to complain to politician. However, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the Stamford court was very lenient to this young man. If you check the State of Connecticut criminal website you will find that this lad was arrested in Stamford for carrying a dangerous weapon in May of 2015...he then declined the court's invitation to join them and caught a failure to appear. Then while on the run he caught an assault and carrying a dangerous weapon in Bridgeport and was sentenced to probation. He was then arrested for the assault and carrying a dangerous weapon in Norwalk. On the violation in Bridgeport he caught 20 months in jail...In Stamford he got five years after 18 months concurrent to Bridgeport so the lawyers and judge did him well with 18 months concurrent to the 20 months in Bridgeport...NO extra jail time at all. Then, I suspect, he was given probation with a condition of NO KNIVES. Further reading would indicate that in his situation he not only had a duty to retreat in safety... but not to pursue with a knife. If I'm incorrect with this analysis just reply...but it seems to me that the district attorney and lawyer cut this young lad a real break in Stamford."
PatrioticDisorder
07-05-18, 08:28
NYS is duty to retreat, I despise that state on many levels. I wish I’d never been born there.
Grand58742
07-05-18, 08:31
After being assaulted inside the coffee shop, Sumpter ran outside and stabbed one of the men.
Sounds like the beating was already over and he escalated it by running outside and stabbing one?? Also, there is this from the comments section at the above link:
"I'm not a real lawyer...but I like to play one on the internet. When first reading this article I thought the punishment was draconian enough to complain to politician. However, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the Stamford court was very lenient to this young man. If you check the State of Connecticut criminal website you will find that this lad was arrested in Stamford for carrying a dangerous weapon in May of 2015...he then declined the court's invitation to join them and caught a failure to appear. Then while on the run he caught an assault and carrying a dangerous weapon in Bridgeport and was sentenced to probation. He was then arrested for the assault and carrying a dangerous weapon in Norwalk. On the violation in Bridgeport he caught 20 months in jail...In Stamford he got five years after 18 months concurrent to Bridgeport so the lawyers and judge did him well with 18 months concurrent to the 20 months in Bridgeport...NO extra jail time at all. Then, I suspect, he was given probation with a condition of NO KNIVES. Further reading would indicate that in his situation he not only had a duty to retreat in safety... but not to pursue with a knife. If I'm incorrect with this analysis just reply...but it seems to me that the district attorney and lawyer cut this young lad a real break in Stamford."
If the beating was inside the shop and he stabbed one outside, wouldn't presumption be they followed him outside when he was trying to leave?
And I don't care about his past history, the simple fact remains he was in a three on one situation and defended himself against an attack.
You want to play those odds without weapons?
If the beating was inside the shop and he stabbed one outside, wouldn't presumption be they followed him outside when he was trying to leave?
I am reading it differently, that he followed them outside.
If the beating was inside the shop and he stabbed one outside, wouldn't presumption be they followed him outside when he was trying to leave?
And I don't care about his past history, the simple fact remains he was in a three on one situation and defended himself against an attack.
You want to play those odds without weapons?
No, not really.
But, most of us are not criminals who, in 3 years, have wracked up multiple charges of carrying weapons we shouldn't, nor would any of us get assaulted at our place of work, and instead of calling the police to report the assault, go on our merry day as if nothin happened.
Which do we assume? A Felon known to Carry weapons used in this incident, has gotten in trouble carrying them, and doesn't call 911 when they should have and when they left he got "jumped". Or, is it a guy who got attacked, had his ego hurt, and went outside to confront them with the knife? Especially because the article says: "Spilled outside". Did they drag him out, or did he run out? Did he direct them outside, or what?
We won't know. Unless we have access to more actual evidence, we can't assume shite. What I do know though, is, it looks really bad for the guy. We don't know the ages of the attackers either, I mean, if this was 3 hoodlum 13-14 year olds, yeah, that's gonna look even worse.
I am not saying I agree with the state's determination of Dangerous Weapons, but I am saying that usually criminality isn't followed up by "Good-Guy-Furever" living. The individual may find a way to coexist between criminality and normalcy, but it's very rarely "out-of-the-life"; and I have a hard time looking at it differently without evidence of such.
Grand58742
07-05-18, 09:50
No, not really.
But, most of us are not criminals who, in 3 years, have wracked up multiple charges of carrying weapons we shouldn't, nor would any of us get assaulted at our place of work, and instead of calling the police to report the assault, go on our merry day as if nothin happened.
Which do we assume? A Felon known to Carry weapons used in this incident, has gotten in trouble carrying them, and doesn't call 911 when they should have and when they left he got "jumped". Or, is it a guy who got attacked, had his ego hurt, and went outside to confront them with the knife? Especially because the article says: "Spilled outside". Did they drag him out, or did he run out? Did he direct them outside, or what?
We won't know. Unless we have access to more actual evidence, we can't assume shite. What I do know though, is, it looks really bad for the guy. We don't know the ages of the attackers either, I mean, if this was 3 hoodlum 13-14 year olds, yeah, that's gonna look even worse.
I am not saying I agree with the state's determination of Dangerous Weapons, but I am saying that usually criminality isn't followed up by "Good-Guy-Furever" living. The individual may find a way to coexist between criminality and normalcy, but it's very rarely "out-of-the-life"; and I have a hard time looking at it differently without evidence of such.
The problem we have is one of definition. He was charged with carrying "a dangerous weapon" previously. You and I both know that's a pretty ambiguous term. Normally (I could be wrong here) the media reports if it was a firearm, so there is that possibility it was nothing more than a pocketknife.
Regardless and taking history out of the mix, I don't care if he was convicted in the past of "carrying a dangerous weapon" or whatnot. Hell, the judge even said he was defending himself, but "had to follow the letter of the law" in sentencing. That's a cop out in my mind.
Averageman
07-05-18, 10:27
Failed Culture.
Even if you try and get away from it, even if you get a straight job and attempt to do the right thing, your past is always going to follow you. It's where you live, it's your mind set, it's all you know and all of the people around you.
I had a friend that I worked with who joined the military to change his life and leave his neighborhood. He explained to me that he was a thug, did some robberies and twenty plus years later, he still looks at a situation from the mindset of a criminal. Yeah, I could hold up that guy, or yes, this place would be easy to rob.
He's a Church going Father of three, keeps his suburban dream going, but after all these years, the wolf still lives.
I think this is key, if accurately written: After being assaulted inside the coffee shop, Sumpter ran outside and stabbed one of the men.
My take is that the hoodlums were in retreat with him following and that he could have stayed in the store and watch them run.
Of course we don't know if the paper reported accurately. It does not say whether he was convicted by a jury, at a bench trial, or entered a plea.
The judges statement that he understood and believed his version of events, but he said he had to follow the letter of the law can be taken several ways: 1) 'yeah, you are getting screwed, sorry' or 2) 'I believe that they attacked you first while you were minding your business at work, but the law says once they are in retreat you don't get to follow them and get your pound of flesh.'
I'm going with two.
Here is what Connecticut says:
Connecticut does not have a stand-your-ground law, but instead requires an individual to retreat when able to do so. Under state law, the use of deadly force that might otherwise have been justifiable is not warranted if someone “knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety...by retreating...” (CGS § 53a-19(b)); State v. Garrison, 203 Conn. 466, 472, (1987)). https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0172.htm
PHYSICAL FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
A person is justified in using reasonable physical force on another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force. The defender may use the degree of force he reasonably believes is necessary to defend himself or a third person. But deadly physical force cannot be used unless the actor reasonably believes that the attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.
Additionally, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force if he knows he can avoid doing so with complete safety by: (my emphasis)
1. retreating, except from his home or office in cases where he was not the initial aggressor or except in cases where he is assisting a peace officer at the officer's directions;
2. surrendering possession to property the aggressor claims to own; or
3. obeying a demand that he not take an action he is not otherwise required to take.
Lastly, a person is not justified in using physical force when (1) with intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he provokes the person to use physical force, (2) use of such force was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law, or (3) he is the initial aggressor (unless he withdraws from the encounter, effectively communicates this intent to the other person, and the other person continues to or threatens to use physical force)(CGS § 53a-19). https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0847.htm
The "with complete safety" is what I would have a problem with. Sure, maybe they could have locked all the doors at the restaurant and called the police or maybe he decided he wasn't going to be a victim again.
ETA, I'm not trying to excuse him breaking the law, if indeed he did.
I think this is key, if accurately written: After being assaulted inside the coffee shop, Sumpter ran outside and stabbed one of the men.
My take is that the hoodlums were in retreat with him following and that he could have stayed in the store and watch them run.
Great minds think alike!
Grand58742
07-05-18, 11:57
Great minds think alike!
The problem is we don't know. I'm certainly never going to justify someone chasing down an attacker (or other criminal) to extract their pound of flesh as we've seen in cases before. However, normally the media reports such things if they do happen. Which wasn't the case this time so it begs one to ask "why" in reading the article and verdict. You know the media loves to report on crazy people chasing down an attacker. However, the first article did state the fight "spilled outside" so there is that potential for escape for the victim here.
My point of the matter, this case is just an example of, is any state that denies or heavily restricts it's citizens the right to:
A: Bear arms to include pocket knifes (if it was one)
B: Castle doctrine/SYG laws
C: Not use force in an attempted escape
Opens itself up to far more victims than it should. Furthermore, take the individual's background out of this case (with the known though vague facts) and judge on merits alone. Individual was assaulted by "underage youth." Individual fought back. One got stabbed. Individual was arrested, charged and convicted even though the judge believed he was defending himself, but had to follow the law. Such things are not written in stone and a judge very well could challenge such laws based on exigent circumstances. Which this one did not.
What happens when it's a 70 year old woman being assaulted by "underaged youth" and she fights back? Does she have the ability to retreat? Does she go to jail for stabbing someone if it happens? Does she believe herself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm?
LMT Shooter
07-05-18, 13:47
......I'm certainly never going to justify someone chasing down an attacker (or other criminal) to extract their pound of flesh.....
Are you referring to a legal or moral justification? I know a bit about the law on this, probably not as much as some others here, and I know that there is little or no legal justification for chasing down ones attacker after the fact, but morally I have zero problem with it. I don't apply this belief to cases where the victim chases down the wrong person. The world would be a far better place if more victims did this, because the overwhelming majority of criminals do not truly fear the consequences they face in court.
What did or did not happen is irrelevant to the fact that "duty to retreat" laws get innocent people killed all the time.
Even those who are lawfully armed, who are in a "stand your ground" state are going to leave IF the opportunity presents itself to completely avoid conflict altogether. I can think of few situations where I want to get into a gunfight where I might be killed as a consequence when the opportunity to leave exists.
It's funny how criminals are allowed to attack you and the moment they decide they no longer have an advantage they suddenly become the victim. Same mindset that has people believe they can shoot three cops and the moment other cops arrive they can simply put their hands up and expect to be taken into custody without incident.
Once you cross certain lines there are no "time outs" or "I give." And if the violence and aggression you brought to some innocent person follows you back out the door, you really shouldn't be surprised. Sadly the law of the land in certain states doesn't support such realities.
I think this is key, if accurately written: After being assaulted inside the coffee shop, Sumpter ran outside and stabbed one of the men.
My take is that the hoodlums were in retreat with him following and that he could have stayed in the store and watch them run.
And if it turns out they simply went outside to get a gun so they could return and kill you, then what? And if he locked the doors and they got a gas can out of the trunk and started a fire at the front door, then what?
As for me, I'd rather not have to put my faith in the good intentions of bad people. Once you've done the 3 on 1 assault you've shown you are capable of pretty much anything.
And if it turns out they simply went outside to get a gun so they could return and kill you, then what?You following them outside armed with a knife just made their job of shooting you easier. Now they don't have to go back inside to do it.
And if he locked the doors and they got a gas can out of the trunk and started a fire at the front door, then what?Go out the backdoor.
As for me, I'd rather not have to put my faith in the good intentions of bad people. Once you've done the 3 on 1 assault you've shown you are capable of pretty much anything.I agree. However, even in stand your ground states. Once contact is broken and then you follow them, you're the aggressor whether we like it or not.
NYH1.
After being assaulted inside the coffee shop, Sumpter ran outside and stabbed one of the men.
Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes.
I agree. However, even in stand your ground states. Once contact is broken and then you follow them, you're the aggressor whether we like it or not.
Not in Texas. Texas allows you to pursue criminals in many cases.
PatrioticDisorder
07-05-18, 18:10
What did or did not happen is irrelevant to the fact that "duty to retreat" laws get innocent people killed all the time.
Even those who are lawfully armed, who are in a "stand your ground" state are going to leave IF the opportunity presents itself to completely avoid conflict altogether. I can think of few situations where I want to get into a gunfight where I might be killed as a consequence when the opportunity to leave exists.
It's funny how criminals are allowed to attack you and the moment they decide they no longer have an advantage they suddenly become the victim. Same mindset that has people believe they can shoot three cops and the moment other cops arrive they can simply put their hands up and expect to be taken into custody without incident.
Once you cross certain lines there are no "time outs" or "I give." And if the violence and aggression you brought to some innocent person follows you back out the door, you really shouldn't be surprised. Sadly the law of the land in certain states doesn't support such realities.
I’m glad to see I am not the only one who thinks this way!
You following them outside armed with a knife just made their job of shooting you easier. Now they don't have to go back inside to do it.
Or maybe you actually stop them. There are no guarantees either way which is why "duty to retreat" laws suck.
Go out the backdoor.
If there is one and they haven't blocked it with a dumpster. Again, no guarantees either way so I look at "good guys" vs. "bad guys", who started it and factors such as disparity of force.
I agree. However, even in stand your ground states. Once contact is broken and then you follow them, you're the aggressor whether we like it or not.
NYH1.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Seen it go both ways.
Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes.
I'm going with "after being attacked by three men the victim was not in a rationale state of mind and likely felt his life was still under threat and genuinely believed he was still defending himself from the three attackers."
I've seen people fail to apply calm logic and reason simply because they had a kitchen fire and did almost everything wrong. Some people calmly get the fire extinguisher and put out the fire, others start bailing water from the pool with a bucket and make a mess of everything. Hard to expect a better response from the same kind of people when three guys are kicking the crap out of you.
Not saying he did it right or anything like that, just saying I usually defer to the ACTUAL victim in these situations.
Or maybe you actually stop them. There are no guarantees either way which is why "duty to retreat" laws suck.
If there is one and they haven't blocked it with a dumpster. Again, no guarantees either way so I look at "good guys" vs. "bad guys", who started it and factors such as disparity of force.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Seen it go both ways.
I'm going with "after being attacked by three men the victim was not in a rationale state of mind and likely felt his life was still under threat and genuinely believed he was still defending himself from the three attackers."
I've seen people fail to apply calm logic and reason simply because they had a kitchen fire and did almost everything wrong. Some people calmly get the fire extinguisher and put out the fire, others start bailing water from the pool with a bucket and make a mess of everything. Hard to expect a better response from the same kind of people when three guys are kicking the crap out of you.
Not saying he did it right or anything like that, just saying I usually defer to the ACTUAL victim in these situations.
Perfectly said, Styer.
Some forget that the actions of the victim are completely the cause and direct response of the initial aggression.
Logically and honestly speaking, actions have real consequences in the form of reactions and if we are all really meant to be held to some ridiculous standard that in this type of surprise extremis situation when our lives are being threatened and our physical and mental state being severely disrupted, which causes extremely different reactions from every individual- we are meant to just take a life threatening beating and have a normal everything is fine response? That doesn't make any sense.
We are animals of survival and instinct. "Don't start none,, won't be none" comes to mind.
Perfectly said, Styer.
Some forget that the actions of the victim are completely the cause and direct response of the initial aggression.
Logically and honestly speaking, actions have real consequences in the form of reactions and if we are all really meant to be held to some ridiculous standard that in this type of surprise extremis situation when our lives are being threatened and our physical and mental state being severely disrupted, which causes extremely different reactions from every individual- we are meant to just take a life threatening beating and have a normal everything is fine response? That doesn't make any sense.
We are animals of survival and instinct. "Don't start none,, won't be none" comes to mind.
I would only add, in a more perfect world all members of the jury and the judge would have to be "victims of assault" to truly be one of your peers, but our legal system is so perverse that anyone with a genuine understanding of what it is like to be attacked in a similar manner is automatically excused.
And if it turns out they simply went outside to get a gun so they could return and kill you, then what? And if he locked the doors and they got a gas can out of the trunk and started a fire at the front door, then what?
IF is not generally a legal consideration - reasonable belief based on the facts known to the person at the time is generally what they are looking for.
As for me, I'd rather not have to put my faith in the good intentions of bad people. Once you've done the 3 on 1 assault you've shown you are capable of pretty much anything.
There are not too many laws that support your view so far as chasing the guys down to finish it after they have broken contact(none that I'm aware of). So most likely you would be putting your faith in the good intentions of a jury of your peers should you follow you own counsel.
Having said that, if you actually read the Connecticut Statute you would find that it isn't that unreasonable except that, as apparently some of you wish, you can not follow someone who is in retreat to count coup.
The law specifically states that you have no duty to retreat if: except that the actor shall not be required to retreat if he is in his dwelling, as defined in section 53a-100, or place of work and was not the initial aggressor, or if he is a peace officer or a private person assisting such peace officer at his direction, and acting pursuant to section 53a-22,
Prior to that the statute says you are justified in using deadly physical force to protect yourself from a force likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless YOU CAN, WITH COMPLETE SAFETY, avoid the use of force by:
1) retreat (the dwelling exemption is here)
2) surrendering property to a person claiming a right thereto
3) by complying with a demand to abstain from performing an act which you are not obliged perform.
That complete safety phrase is pretty strong statutory language, and to me the framers of the statute were erring on the side of the assaulted party, while still conveying that using deadly force because "I will not be slandered' or 'I have been wronged' is not an appropriate action.
Statute is here: https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2005/title53a/sec53a-19.html
And, once again, we are ALL interpreting the story the way we want to based on very little information.
And, once again, we are ALL interpreting the story the way we want to based on very little information.
Mild correction, I'm stating my views based upon beliefs of the way things should be, I have no real facts regarding this incident.
For all I know, three gang bangers caught another gang banger by himself and this is what happened. And in that scenario...who cares what happens. But I view the law in terms of victims and attackers so I have to ask "what if" and until further information presents itself I have to view the victim as someone who did nothing to deserve the attack and I have to view the attackers as predatory feral humans who search for and victimize those they believe cannot defend themselves.
And if it proves to be the case of the latter, I only wish the victim had managed to completely eliminate all attackers and in one act make the world a slightly better place while at the same time regaining his confidence as a person who will not justify and unprovoked attack and will stand up and account for himself whenever possible.
If I get jumped by three attackers who have no cause and I am beaten beyond my ability to respond, you can rest assured that if my faculties and abilities return to me in a reasonable time I am going to resume the actions my attackers initiated in the hopes of a more favorable outcome and I will do my best to skew any odds into my favor.
I didn't go out at night and find them and attack them. They went out of their way to find me, and I would hope there would be severe consequences. And I'm not talking about probation and suspended sentences. I'm talking about every morning they get out of bed there is pain that is a constant reminder to just leave people the hell alone.
RetroRevolver77
07-06-18, 22:54
A guy I went to high school with, a couple grades younger, died after getting punched one time, falling down and hitting his head. I don't see how a state could legislate that someone has to get assaulted or have retreated enough to warrant the use of deadly force.
Alaskapopo
07-06-18, 23:17
Are so effing stupid, I can't even comprehend.
https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/policereports/article/Victim-of-Norwalk-assault-gets-18-months-for-not-13044078.php
Bold emphasis added by me.
Tried looking for more info on the situation, but nothing that really changes the fact he was jumped by three individuals and defended himself. Yes, he was a convicted felony, but still...
https://www.thehour.com/news/article/Police-Bridgeport-man-charged-in-weekend-stabbing-12249306.php
Way to go, CT. You should be very proud of yourselves...
It says he ran outside and stabbed one of the men. No longer self defense at that point the beating was over.
Averageman
07-07-18, 13:00
It says he ran outside and stabbed one of the men. No longer self defense at that point the beating was over.
I dunno, I don't think one size fits all laws like duty to retreat seem to work very well, kind of like three strikes. Every situation is different, that's why we have Judges and Juries in court rooms.
If they came in to where he was working, gave him a beat down and mentioned "We're going to your house to meet the Family." on the way out the way out the door, does "duty to retreat" still apply?
I don't live there and that's not my culture, but I'm pretty sure that isn't beyond the scope of normal behavior for predators.
I dunno, I don't think one size fits all laws like duty to retreat seem to work very well, kind of like three strikes. Every situation is different, that's why we have Judges and Juries in court rooms. If they came in to where he was working, gave him a beat down and mentioned "We're going to your house to meet the Family." on the way out the way out the door, does "duty to retreat" still apply?
I don't live there and that's not my culture, but I'm pretty sure that isn't beyond the scope of normal behavior for predators.
As you mentioned, a judge or a jury having knowledge of all that transpired found him guilty, or else he plead out.
Anything we say without that knowledge is conjecture.
I think one thing that you are all overlooking is that the Connecticut statute essentially says you have no duty to retreat from an assailant unless you can do so with no assumption of risk, that is what 'completely safe' means as opposed to 'reasonably do so.'
platoonDaddy
07-07-18, 14:48
Dang, so the fight ended when they left the shop, so pursuing them is the 2nd fight. As stated prior, what if they went for a gun, how friging dumb
Law of Self Defense: Self-Defense Claim Lost When Defender Becomes Aggressor
Self-Defense Fails If Defender Becomes Aggressor
The failure of Sumpter’s claim of self-defense is found in the element of innocence. How can that be, you might ask, given that it’s uncontested that the three aggressors attacked HIM. Because, as the media itself reports: “After being assaulted inside the coffee shop, Sumpter ran outside and stabbed one of the men.”
That is a problem. In the eyes of the law what we have here is not a single fight in which Sumpter defended himself against the attack of the three aggressors. That fight did happen, but it also ended, when the aggressors left the coffee shop.
When Sumpter then pursued them and stabbed them, he became the aggressor in a second fight. As the aggressor in this second fight he lost the element of innocence, and thus lost self-defense as a justification for his stabbing one of the aggressors.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/07/self-defense-claim-lost-when-defender-becomes-aggressor/
Dang, so the fight ended when they left the shop, so pursuing them is the 2nd fight. As stated prior, what if they went for a gun, how friging dumb
Law of Self Defense: Self-Defense Claim Lost When Defender Becomes Aggressor
Self-Defense Fails If Defender Becomes Aggressor
The failure of Sumpter’s claim of self-defense is found in the element of innocence. How can that be, you might ask, given that it’s uncontested that the three aggressors attacked HIM. Because, as the media itself reports: “After being assaulted inside the coffee shop, Sumpter ran outside and stabbed one of the men.”
That is a problem. In the eyes of the law what we have here is not a single fight in which Sumpter defended himself against the attack of the three aggressors. That fight did happen, but it also ended, when the aggressors left the coffee shop.
When Sumpter then pursued them and stabbed them, he became the aggressor in a second fight. As the aggressor in this second fight he lost the element of innocence, and thus lost self-defense as a justification for his stabbing one of the aggressors.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/07/self-defense-claim-lost-when-defender-becomes-aggressor/
I've seen this a couple times when the victim turned out to be a capable fighter / martial artist. I know one guy personally who had a knife pulled on him during an attempted robbery, actually got stabbed a couple times when he resisted but when he disarmed his attacker and started to really do some damage in return he was charged with "armed assault" because they considered his "black belt status" to constitute a weapon.
He was convicted when the jury bought the line that "once the attacker was helpless, he had a DUTY to stop his actions" and the only good part is the judge decided he didn't need to go to jail. This was back in 1978 in Florida and the defense attorney trotted out some horseshit like "being a black belt is like having a gun."
The_War_Wagon
07-07-18, 17:36
Even if Republicans are in the minority in states like CT, I'd be filibustering just to change the name of the bill to - "Duty to BE a VICTIM" - so as to be on record, regarding the CONSEQUENCES of stupid, donkey, legislation! :mad:
I've seen this a couple times when the victim turned out to be a capable fighter / martial artist. I know one guy personally who had a knife pulled on him during an attempted robbery, actually got stabbed a couple times when he resisted but when he disarmed his attacker and started to really do some damage in return he was charged with "armed assault" because they considered his "black belt status" to constitute a weapon.
He was convicted when the jury bought the line that "once the attacker was helpless, he had a DUTY to stop his actions" and the only good part is the judge decided he didn't need to go to jail. This was back in 1978 in Florida and the defense attorney trotted out some horseshit like "being a black belt is like having a gun."
Was this a criminal of a civil case? If it was a criminal case his attorney would be the defense attorney. If it was civil, it would be the defense attorney if he was the appellant and we were speaking of the plantiff's attorney.
Either way, your friend's attorney had the right to object on foundation issues. Although I understand if his attorney didn't, because I've been involved in cases and had some weak attorneys let stuff get through. The judge tends to get irate if you say 'this is where you should object' to the prosecutor from the stand - in my experience that is all that has kept most officers from doing that very thing.
Was this a criminal of a civil case? If it was a criminal case his attorney would be the defense attorney. If it was civil, it would be the defense attorney if he was the appellant and we were speaking of the plantiff's attorney.
Either way, your friend's attorney had the right to object on foundation issues. Although I understand if his attorney didn't, because I've been involved in cases and had some weak attorneys let stuff get through. The judge tends to get irate if you say 'this is where you should object' to the prosecutor from the stand - in my experience that is all that has kept most officers from doing that very thing.
I think it was criminal because I remember him seriously worried about jail time, unless you can actually go to jail for a civil matter. But I could have sworn it was the defense attorney for the attacker, but it could have been a prosecutor. I wasn't actually there and got the info second hand from the individual in question.
I remember the impression it made on me that if you take steps to protect yourself others will portray you as the "bad guy" even when you were the person who was attacked. Colored my views on the subject from a pretty early age.
Grand58742
07-24-18, 07:40
And then you have this:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/us/florida-stand-your-ground-fatal-shooting/index.html
Florida's "stand your ground" law could save a man from prosecution after he fatally shot another man following a heated argument over a parking space at a convenience store.
The shooting took place Thursday after Britany Jacobs, 24, parked in a handicapped-accessible spot at the Circle A Food Store in Clearwater, according to a news release from the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.
Sheriff's detectives said Michael Drejka, 47, approached Jacobs while her boyfriend Markeis McGlockton, and the couple's 5-year-old son, Markeis Jr., went into the store. Drejka and Jacobs began arguing about her parking in the handicapped parking space.
Witnesses told police that McGlockton came outside, walked over to Drejka while he was arguing and "forcibly pushed" Drejka, causing him to fall.
In response, the news release stated, Drejka pulled out a handgun while he was on the ground and shot McGlockton in the chest.
"Witnesses say McGlockton walked back into the convenient store where he collapsed," the release stated. He was taken to a hospital where he died.
Here's the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idbrk0c2KpU
There's always more to the story, but this one certainly looks unjustified.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-24-18, 07:49
I wouldn't have shot, yet- but I sure would have pulled my CCW. But then again, I would have just shot the lady a crusty look rather than go all hall monitor on her. If we had a society where people didn't park in handi places and just walk up and shove people to the ground would be the best thing.
Grand58742
07-24-18, 08:01
I wouldn't have shot, yet- but I sure would have pulled my CCW. But then again, I would have just shot the lady a crusty look rather than go all hall monitor on her. If we had a society where people didn't park in handi places and just walk up and shove people to the ground would be the best thing.
Depending on what I saw, I'd think presenting wouldn't be irrational at all.
Shooting a person after they backed away? I'd be surprised if this one doesn't go to court and he gets convicted.
Yeah, my guess is he gets convicted. IMHO, just because someone gives you a hard shove back or a hard shove back and you go down, doesn't justify the use of deadly force and shooting the person. Now if the guy that shoved him continued and proceeded to beat the shit out of him, you might have a George Zimmerman Travon Martin type situation.
Averageman
07-24-18, 10:14
That video should convict him. I think once he was down and drew, the guy backed up/off. Had the gun not been there it might have been a beat down for the guy on the ground, as it is the guy saw the gun and began to retreat.
I'm no expert, but that's what I saw and if it goes to a civil trial, that's likely what the jury will see.
My Father and Mother in Law both require walkers to get around. If we take them grocery shopping, it takes me a minute to unload unfold and get them moving. If I can I try and do this close to the entrance to the store. There are a lot of people that are way too impatient when they have to wait 45 seconds for me to do that.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-24-18, 11:12
How do the changes in the FL law make it harder to charge him. It would seem that SYG wouldn't be a safe harbor for him here since, while he was attacked, he didn't appear to be under attack at the time of the shooting? Cases like this can erode the public confidence in SYG laws, and I don't want to go back to where you have to do a full French retreat and get a not signed in triplicate before I can shoot someone jumping on my head.
Depending on what I saw, I'd think presenting wouldn't be irrational at all.
Shooting a person after they backed away? I'd be surprised if this one doesn't go to court and he gets convicted.
Already determined he won't be charged. He met the letter of the law for using deadly force, so he's within the bookends of the law, to quote the local sheriff.
Already determined he won't be charged. He met the letter of the law for using deadly force, so he's within the bookends of the law, to quote the local sheriff.
It was also mentioned in one article that the attorney general is taking a look at it. They could still forward charges.
It was also mentioned in one article that the attorney general is taking a look at it. They could still forward charges.
I would just about bet, this is what we will see happen.
I wouldn't have shot, yet- but I sure would have pulled my CCW.
I would not have shot or drawn my gun, because I am not ****ing stupid enough to be the Handicap Police.
Already determined he won't be charged. He met the letter of the law for using deadly force, so he's within the bookends of the law, to quote the local sheriff.
Not exactly. The Police decided not to arrest/ charge him. I imagine the DA will impanel a GJ, indict him, try him, and convict him.
Trayvon Martin all over again, this time prosecution has video.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-24-18, 17:02
I would not have shot or drawn my gun, because I am not ****ing stupid enough to be the Handicap Police.
As I noted in my post.
As I noted in my post.
I know, I was highlighting his stupidity. Active Self Protection Channel has good commentary, most of us are on the same page with.
I dunno, a young healthy man's first action when he sees an old man with a cane arguing with his girlfriend is to assault him. Kinda has a reckless disregard for life. Probably would have continued his assault until the man was unconscious or dead. Don't put me on the jury, the old man would walk (well, hobble) free.
Also charge the girlfriend with murder. Her crime caused the death of her boyfreind.
Andy
PatrioticDisorder
07-24-18, 18:27
I would not have shot or drawn my gun, because I am not ****ing stupid enough to be the Handicap Police.
Something about not allowing yourself around stupid people in stupid places at stupid times...
At a minimum this is a grey area case, it should definitely go to a grand jury. The shove was hard, it could have potentially caused the older more fragile man to hit his head on the concrete, creating an epidural hematoma and potentially killing him if unrecognized in time.... However, he waited too long after drawing his pistol, the younger guy didn’t appear to want to do anymore harm and in fact made a slight movement backwards after seeing the pistol... Add to the fact that the shooter was reportedly known for harassing people, he does appear to have been looking for trouble and he finally found it. I realize his ass was chaffed recognizing the dead man’s girlfriend illegally parked in a handicap spot, but it was not his job to enforce the law. Looks like manslaughter to me.
The thread is about a duty to retreat... Or is it? Perhaps the key here is what is the point do you confront others about their bad behavior. Sometimes in life you see bad behavior, then just move on with your life and put some distance between yourself and the offender. Getting into an argument or possible fight just isn't worth the hassle sometimes.
Then there are times when you are being confronted, and you really have nowhere to go. Once I was pumping gas into my truck at a Shell Station on Central Avenue in Albuquerque. The was this Black fellow yelling profanities at me, ever creeping closer. The closer he got, the more vile he became. My .357 Smith & Wesson was in the console between the front seats, so I put the lock on the pump to keep filling up and I went to the open driver's door and retrieved my handgun, then continued handling the gas pump nozzle. My thought was if the Black fellow got too close, I'd just douse him with 89 octane gas, then see what happens. I was in a tight space and I was not going to move away from my truck if he lunged. If he had I would have shot him. He saw the gun, spun around and walked off, still spouting profanities.
In New Mexico, your vehicle is an extension of your home for keeping and using a gun for defense. Staying close to the truck gave me stronger legal standing if the situation would have gone south.
Grand58742
07-24-18, 19:41
How do the changes in the FL law make it harder to charge him. It would seem that SYG wouldn't be a safe harbor for him here since, while he was attacked, he didn't appear to be under attack at the time of the shooting? Cases like this can erode the public confidence in SYG laws, and I don't want to go back to where you have to do a full French retreat and get a not signed in triplicate before I can shoot someone jumping on my head.
From a lawyer acquaintance of mine in FL that works with PDs, please ignore the anti-NRA slant, he's not a big pro-2A guy.
Been watching the coverage of this, and something not discussed is the burden of proof on a SYG defense.
The law was changed last year, with the backing of the NRA but over objections of prosecutors and many in law enforcement. Now, if a defendant claims it, the burden is on the state to show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not entitled to the defense.
The concern of the opponents was exactly what happened here. Even if this was wrong, the state would have had an almost impossible time overcoming the defense. As long as its debatable, it's tough for a charge to even be made in the first place.
Here, though the shooter is arguing with the girlfriend, the first physical act of aggression is by the boyfriend shoving the guy. Given that it is at least debatable, the facts do not clearly and convincingly show the defense does not apply.
Further:
That's just it. The defense doesn't have to prove it. The state must affirmatively disprove it.
The Sheriff was likely covering his bases by not charging him, but I'd imagine (as others have opined) the DA could push it.
saw that video
so a idiot sees another idiot park so the one idiot goes up to the other idiot
that idiot runs in gets the other idiot who comes out and idiot shoves idiot and idiot shoots idiot and one idiot is dead
they need to take all the idiots and shoot them all eventually we will have less idiocy :)
yeah not sure this was a good shoot and sure lawyers will be doing some civil follow up ? not sure about FL law though but this is not over I reckon
I'd imagine the survivors have personal injury lawyers in a holding pattern above their residence.
PatrioticDisorder
07-25-18, 05:51
saw that video
so a idiot sees another idiot park so the one idiot goes up to the other idiot
that idiot runs in gets the other idiot who comes out and idiot shoves idiot and idiot shoots idiot and one idiot is dead
they need to take all the idiots and shoot them all eventually we will have less idiocy :)
yeah not sure this was a good shoot and sure lawyers will be doing some civil follow up ? not sure about FL law though but this is not over I reckon
If stand your ground is invoked, the shooter will be immune from civil liability.
If stand your ground is invoked, the shooter will be immune from civil liability.
thanks :)
edit with the link AK posted below
was curious as I know most places they are two separate things just usually you wait for the criminal side to be done which often can help with how much and how you go after the civil side
Averageman
07-25-18, 15:40
This is the type of SYG that feeds the anti's.
The guy was a jackass. He could have done a half dozen things to avoid shooting that guy.
He was living out a fantasy and all it cost was a life.
If stand your ground is invoked, the shooter will be immune from civil liability.
I'm not so sure.. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/florida-politics-blog/fl-reg-stand-your-ground-ruling-20170928-story.html
PatrioticDisorder
07-25-18, 20:14
I'm not so sure.. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/florida-politics-blog/fl-reg-stand-your-ground-ruling-20170928-story.html
Florida State Supreme Court absolutely sucks, they are a state equivalent to the 9th circus, which is odd considering FL generally leans heavily right with the legislature on the state level. The picture of one of the Justices, Hirsch, tells me all I need to know, it’s clear from a quick glance that he’s completely emasculated. Thank you for letting me know about this, I was unaware of yet another shitty ruling from these fools.
Moose-Knuckle
07-26-18, 03:13
This is yet another perfect example (the FL shooting case) of why you do your best to mind your own business when out in public.
If you are that pissed that some oxygen thief parked illegally in a handicap spot (yes that grinds my gears too) then call the proper authorities and report it. They won't do anything but at least you won't get assaulted by said oxygen thief and catch a murder rap cause you went all Paul Kersey.
As for the CT guy, he would probably not be billed here in TX if it even went that far.
This is yet another perfect example (the FL shooting case) of why you do your best to mind your own business when out in public.
If you are that pissed that some oxygen thief parked illegally in a handicap spot (yes that grinds my gears too) then call the proper authorities and report it. They won't do anything but at least you won't get assaulted by said oxygen thief and catch a murder rap cause you went all Paul Kersey.
As for the CT guy, he would probably not be billed here in TX if it even went that far.
Florida guy is indicted. http://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20180813/clearwater-man-charged-in-controversial-stand-your-ground-shooting
You know, it would do everyone who carries to sit down with someone who actually testifies, prosecutes, or teaches use of force law, in other words a credentialed expert, and discuss the pros and cons of avoiding the use of force when it is possible to safely avoid using force.
It is sorrowful to think that perhaps someone taking advice from a less than knowledgeable source would make a decision based on inaccurate instruction and shoot someone, putting themselves in the cross hairs for criminal prosecution.
I am amazed at the number of folks who unknowingly spout erroneous information that can lead themselves or another to assumed liability, based on info they got from the third shitter down.
Florida guy is indicted. http://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20180813/clearwater-man-charged-in-controversial-stand-your-ground-shooting
Doesn't mean anything..... so was George Zimmerman. And we know how that turned out........
You know, it would do everyone who carries to sit down with someone who actually testifies, prosecutes, or teaches use of force law, in other words a credentialed expert, and discuss the pros and cons of avoiding the use of force when it is possible to safely avoid using force.
It is sorrowful to think that perhaps someone taking advice from a less than knowledgeable source would make a decision based on inaccurate instruction and shoot someone, putting themselves in the cross hairs for criminal prosecution.
I am amazed at the number of folks who unknowingly spout erroneous information that can lead themselves or another to assumed liability, based on info they got from the third shitter down.
Some of that information is included in our state's CCW class. One of our local training groups does a specific class on use of force laws in addition to their CCW and other classes.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-14-18, 09:01
Some of that information is included in our state's CCW class. One of our local training groups does a specific class on use of force laws in addition to their CCW and other classes.
That is pretty much all the CO CCW class is (was for me) since we don't have a live fire section. The guy I had was pretty good. By the end of it, you start to wonder if it is worth it to shoot anyone.
Some of that information is included in our state's CCW class. One of our local training groups does a specific class on use of force laws in addition to their CCW and other classes.
I understand that, and I've seen some of the well meaning codgers teaching in our state. My go to CCW instructor is a District Court Judge, who is also a former County Attorney.
On the other hand, I have a friend who retired to the Boundary Area in Minnesota. By coincidence he was in town to see a new grandchild last week and we met for coffee. He told us about his adventures keeping his mouth shut during his CCW class, especially when the instructor said, I'll give you a few minutes to read over the liability section.
As far as I'm concerned it is a subject that almost universally is inadequately instructed.
For those with $400 and two days to spare, I highly recommend this...
https://massadayoobgroup.com/mag-20-classroom/
I am not part of the Massad Ayoob Group and I make no money on promoting this or any other class. I've taken this class several times and each time I gain new appreciation for it. My only complaint is they no longer offer the Tueller Drill. I've taken that several times as well, and it's an eye opener.
Mods, if I am not allowed to post a link to a class, I apologize and fell free to delete.
Moose-Knuckle
08-14-18, 13:49
Florida guy is indicted. http://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20180813/clearwater-man-charged-in-controversial-stand-your-ground-shooting
Saw that yesterday and was going to post but didn't have time, IMHO it wasn't a good shoot from what I saw on the video released.
Grand58742
08-15-18, 12:39
Doesn't mean anything..... so was George Zimmerman. And we know how that turned out........
Way different situation with GZ.
titsonritz
01-10-19, 01:11
Florida guy is indicted. http://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20180813/clearwater-man-charged-in-controversial-stand-your-ground-shooting
Doesn't mean anything..... so was George Zimmerman. And we know how that turned out........
Probably not going to help the prosecutor's case that the homicide detective has been fired for being a drunk.
Homicide detective arrested and fired after showing up intoxicated at crime scene (https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/homicide-detective-arrested-fired-intoxicated-crime-scene/)
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. – A Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office homicide detective who has played a leading role in the case against parking-lot shooter Michael Drejka was arrested and fired after he showed up intoxicated to a death investigation scene, according to the agency
Predictably, John Trevena, one of Drejka’s attorneys, said he plans to raise the arrest at trial during cross examination.
“His lack of credibility, I believe, is fatal to the state’s case,” Trevena said. “Was he drunk when he investigated the Drejka shooting?”
Call me a wuss but there were plenty of times I could have dropped the hammer on someone and been cleared, but elected not to.
But it was a lot less paperwork and coal dragging to not do so.
I hear it all the time “A Democrat who needs to be mugged” but one gets EXTREMELY Liberal when they are a Republican getting indicted.
Doubly so if you have all this training that says you know better.
12 people too stupid to get out of Jury duty really don’t care about split times, how fast you run the El Prez, or how much you sank into your Roland Special.
You may well get No Billed but it won’t be a fun ride. I have never once heard a private or public citizen say “oh boy, shooting that street urchin on a humbug was totally worth the legal fees!”
Not sure how Zimmerman would have turned out had there been video &/or he hadn't made the switch from writing letters to the editor critical of Sanford PD over the 2011 Justin Collison/Sherman Ware incident to doing ride alongs with them and writing letters to the editor praising Sanford PD.
Probably not going to help the prosecutor's case that the homicide detective has been fired for being a drunk.
Homicide detective arrested and fired after showing up intoxicated at crime scene (https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/homicide-detective-arrested-fired-intoxicated-crime-scene/)
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. – A Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office homicide detective who has played a leading role in the case against parking-lot shooter Michael Drejka was arrested and fired after he showed up intoxicated to a death investigation scene, according to the agency
Predictably, John Trevena, one of Drejka’s attorneys, said he plans to raise the arrest at trial during cross examination.
“His lack of credibility, I believe, is fatal to the state’s case,” Trevena said. “Was he drunk when he investigated the Drejka shooting?”
That might fly, if he was the only one on scene, and if there are no witnesses as to his state of sobriety.
But, then again, those pesky facts:
George D. Moffett Jr., 48, was off-duty before he responded about 10:30 p.m. Thursday from his home in Riverview to a fatal shooting at 10610 Gandy Boulevard in St. Petersburg, according to the Sheriff’s Office.
It isn't like he was fired for keeping hootch in his desk and swilling it down during the day.
Myself, absent this happening before, since he was called out, he would be riding a desk until drug and alcohol counseling was completed and he got his DL back.
We once got in a heck of a disturbance with a drunk wrecker driver, who we had called out. Had a heck of a time convincing him that we were going to take him home and have the another driver take the car to impound. Part of the problem was that we were all pretty much on friendly terms with the guy and that, plus his intoxicated state, lead to him thinking he didn't have to take the ride. Visions of the headlines were flashing in front of my eyes throughout that whole ordeal.
Shit happens.
Law enforcement is a cruel profession.
I seen good people become drunks and dopers and outright evil and racist people become Chiefs and Majors.
Guys that have enough training and felony arrests to be Rambo still on the street and females who do bare minimum become LTs with ease(usually on their knees) and freak out when they see a dead body.
Nothing ever changes. It's just all broken. All you can do is be you and keep going
titsonritz
08-26-19, 16:36
He's going down. Stand your ground does mean shooting someone over a HC parking space will fly and rightly so...
In a case that brought national attention to Florida’s controversial "Stand Your Ground" law, a jury Friday night convicted a licensed gun owner on manslaughter charges.
Jurors deliberated for six hours following a weeklong trial.
The defendant, Michael Drejka, was accused of killing Markeis McGlockton in the parking lot of a convenience store in Clearwater on July 19, 2018, after arguing with McGlockton's girlfriend over a handicapped parking space. Drejka claimed he fatally shot McGlockton in self-defense after initially invoking Stand Your Ground.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-michael-drejka-second-amendment-guilty-manslaughter-mcglockton
titsonritz
08-26-19, 16:36
double tap
I disagree with this verdict. At most he was disturbing the peace bitching about handicapped spots but when ol buddy comes in and shoves him down, he did it with some authority. I am pretty sure he was talking shit and the guy was not wanting a fight he might lose gave him a shot to the chest.
Ol Buddy could have used his words, used verbal judo, called the police but slamming the guy down was certainly not to his favor. Sistah girl could likewise have simply moved the car if she felt so “threatened” but she was 100% giving him backmouth.
This boils down to not wanting to piss off the black folks like with Zimmerman and avoid protests and rioting and looting.
I fully expect this to be overturned on appeal. He didn’t just nudge him. He was getting over aggressive and was making a move and the guy had to get it on.
Don’t put people you do not know into positions where they are on the ground.
Also the oft fabled “good shoot” doesn’t mean Popular shoot.
When I took the CCW class in N.C. the instructor made a point of it and reiterated several times that if I am the one who starts the altercation, then smoke the dude in self defense, I’m effed in the A.
Seems like the old man here started the ball rolling that lead to him having to shoot. Seems like he is the aggressor so maybe the verdict is right?
I wonder if Reeves is now requesting everyone forget that he brought up Drejka?
https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/with-pasco-stand-your-ground-case-in-limbo-curtis-reeves-asks-judge-ease-bail-restrictions-20190710/
When I took the CCW class in N.C. the instructor made a point of it and reiterated several times that if I am the one who starts the altercation, then smoke the dude in self defense, I’m effed in the A.
Seems like the old man here started the ball rolling that lead to him having to shoot. Seems like he is the aggressor so maybe the verdict is right?
All things multi-dimensional. Like...you cant go around all "Wish a mothereffer would" but at the same time....you cant totally put yourself out.
This story could have gone a totally different way.
Older guy bitches at not having a spot because young, unhandicapped people took it. The Female is backmouthing and he gets frustrated because on a moral level he is right he just has no authority.
Baby Daddy barrels out "Aw HELL naw" and shoves the old dude down rather hard and takes an aggressive stance.....
only lets say old dude doesn't have a gun here. Whatever happens is up to a larger, younger man hepped up on pride and testosterone who has already demonstrated the physical ability to knock the older man down. He could have beaten his ass to death for "disrespeck" or spit on him and called it good. But at that point it was in the younger man's discretion to how much further it went.
I believe had he nof been shoved over like that it would not have escalated that far. Maybe younger man should have been the bigger man and said "Sir, I see you are upset. My baby mama will move the car. Sorry to put you out. You don't need to be excited or afraid"
But no. "Oh HELL NAW" and a body check.
Would I have shot him? as a robust and large middle aged man who has,spent his entire adult life tuning up grown ass men; probably not.
But lessay I was older, lower end of medium.height, and have just been knocked down on the ground by a younger, stronger man that I simply cannot fight and I dont kmow if he's gonna kill me but he is in an aggressive posture....well that changes things. All I would be thinking is he can beat my ass and I just wamted to use the handicapped spot.
Let's say that was you or your father.
Naw, naw. I side with the shooter here but with a bit of dissent. He could have just told store owner. confrontations can be unpredictable but when he got grounded then the younger male pushed it too far.
Had the altercation been purely verbal and older dude shot; by all meams Guilty. But naw. This verdict was solely to avoid looting and whining. I expect it to be overturned
All things multi-dimensional. Like...you cant go around all "Wish a mothereffer would" but at the same time....you cant totally put yourself out.
This story could have gone a totally different way.
Older guy bitches at not having a spot because young, unhandicapped people took it. The Female is backmouthing and he gets frustrated because on a moral level he is right he just has no authority.
Baby Daddy barrels out "Aw HELL naw" and shoves the old dude down rather hard and takes an aggressive stance.....
only lets say old dude doesn't have a gun here. Whatever happens is up to a larger, younger man hepped up on pride and testosterone who has already demonstrated the physical ability to knock the older man down. He could have beaten his ass to death for "disrespeck" or spit on him and called it good. But at that point it was in the younger man's discretion to how much further it went.
I believe had he nof been shoved over like that it would not have escalated that far. Maybe younger man should have been the bigger man and said "Sir, I see you are upset. My baby mama will move the car. Sorry to put you out. You don't need to be excited or afraid"
But no. "Oh HELL NAW" and a body check.
Would I have shot him? as a robust and large middle aged man who has,spent his entire adult life tuning up grown ass men; probably not.
But lessay I was older, lower end of medium.height, and have just been knocked down on the ground by a younger, stronger man that I simply cannot fight and I dont kmow if he's gonna kill me but he is in an aggressive posture....well that changes things. All I would be thinking is he can beat my ass and I just wamted to use the handicapped spot.
Let's say that was you or your father.
Naw, naw. I side with the shooter here but with a bit of dissent. He could have just told store owner. confrontations can be unpredictable but when he got grounded then the younger male pushed it too far.
Had the altercation been purely verbal and older dude shot; by all meams Guilty. But naw. This verdict was solely to avoid looting and whining. I expect it to be overturned
47 isn't that old and he wasn't wanting to use the handicapped parking place.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/Records-show-road-rage-gun-threats-in-stand-your-ground-shooter-s-past_170719109
I dunno, a young healthy man's first action when he sees an old man with a cane arguing with his girlfriend is to assault him. Kinda has a reckless disregard for life. Probably would have continued his assault until the man was unconscious or dead. Don't put me on the jury, the old man would walk (well, hobble) free.
Also charge the girlfriend with murder. Her crime caused the death of her boyfreind.
Andy
If he requires a cane he left it in his vehicle for some reason and appears to be getting around fairly well.
https://youtu.be/N6eZCh4iP6U
47 isn't that old and he wasn't wanting to use the handicapped parking place.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/Records-show-road-rage-gun-threats-in-stand-your-ground-shooter-s-past_170719109
Okay. I was mistaken about the parking but 47 isn’t “old” until it is.
I thought I was made of Adamantium until I hit 30+ and bones started breaking. 20 years, some inches, and muscle weight is still enough of a disparity.
Because lessay the 47 years young guy came up swinging instead and not only got beat the shit out of then Sistah girl has to join in and he has two people beating his ass.
That is obviously a ghetto looking filling station.
All I see is a guy put on the ground and other guy bowing up at him.
Do I think it is an ideal and textbook case? No.
Is the shooter an Asshole? Yeah probably.
But at the same time he was on the ground by a larger man who was not backing down.
Maybe don’t body check people. Maybe you won’t get shot.
I’m just being objective. I wouldn’t be his best friend in the world but I don’t see anything done in cold blood or non-defensive.
Let’s say he tried to run and homeboy wasn’t satisfied and beat his ass more. At what point do you exhaust all your options.
You are just looking at CCTV. You aren’t seeing it from the ground, looking up at someone prepared to fight who just shoved you over off your feet.
If he requires a cane he left it in his vehicle for some reason and appears to be getting around fairly well.
https://youtu.be/N6eZCh4iP6U
Don’t go there. You aren’t a doctor, you don’t know his level of pain and infirmity, and just because someone uses a cane doesn’t mean they are married to it. Lotsa people need canes but can also go short term without it.
In fact rewatching just that video I still don’t see how he was convicted beyond the racial aspect. He presented the gun and ol buddy didn’t take off until he got shot. I will bet you even money he probably said something like “yo bitch ass wont shoot” and then he got shot.
Again that was quite a hard slam and even THEN you can see the guy hunched a bit while talking to the female so he doesn’t appear to be an Adonis in peak shape
Don’t go there. You aren’t a doctor, you don’t know his level of pain and infirmity, and just because someone uses a cane doesn’t mean they are married to it. Lotsa people need canes but can also go short term without it.
In fact rewatching just that video I still don’t see how he was convicted beyond the racial aspect. He presented the gun and ol buddy didn’t take off until he got shot. I will bet you even money he probably said something like “yo bitch ass wont shoot” and then he got shot.
Again that was quite a hard slam and even THEN you can see the guy hunched a bit while talking to the female so he doesn’t appear to be an Adonis in peak shape
I am going off never seeing pictures of him with a cane, nor mentions of him requiring one. From what I have read his mother was the handicapped one, but deceased several years before most of the incidents.
Drejka is 3 years older than me and was a few weeks away from 48 at the time of the shooting so apparently he was more spry than I currently am since he was in to initiating altercations.
Guy backed up prior to being shot also.
MountainRaven
08-26-19, 20:02
Yeah, old guy deserves to go down for manslaughter. Got pushed good once, went straight to his gun. Young guy wasn't standing over him. The push didn't leave him supine, didn't leave him prostrate on the ground. Thought his gun made him invincible and that he wouldn't have to broke no disrespect from no kids, until he got pushed and suddenly his veil of invincibility is shattered and all he has left is his gun.
Don't start nothing, won't be nothing.
Wouldn't be surprised, if this guy walks on appeal, if he gets in the news some more for being an asshole who thinks he's John Wayne in The Shootist.
I suspect Varg Freeborn will use this as a perfect example of why you don't start shit with strangers.
I see the guy retreat after the gun was drawn, looks like he quit aggressing to me.
On another note, situation would have been avoided if:
1: older guy didnt play cop
2: girlfriend moved
3: 2 above didnt argue incessantly.
4: other guy didnt go straight to physical contact.
They all ****ed up. Bad.
Coal Dragger
08-27-19, 01:10
Yeah total shit show.
Old guy shouldn’t have been starting shit, and probably shouldn’t have been so quick to go to a gun... but as Firefly points out the line between no gun and gun in that situation can be crossed real damn fast, and in a legally ambiguous manner. He was effectively trying to make decisions real fast with his adrenaline pumping after having gotten himself into a shitty situation he probably didn’t even realize would be legally a grey area that could go either way.
Young dead guy got removed from the gene pool because he was too stupid to live, and picked the wrong old guy to flex on and play tough guy with. I have no sympathy for him. Don’t want to get shot? Don’t beat up old guys, who just might have a gun and decide they have no other option to deal with you because they’re old or not physically capable.
So once again two assholes had an interaction in which both acted like assholes, and asshole things happened.
How is it not assault for the deceased to walk up and slam that guy?
titsonritz
08-27-19, 02:02
How is it not assault for the deceased to walk up and slam that guy?
That's racist, you shut the **** up.
Coal Dragger
08-27-19, 08:37
How is it not assault for the deceased to walk up and slam that guy?
Pretty sure it is at least simple assault to do that, but getting assaulted may not rise to the legal threshold for use of deadly force. Not sure where the line gets crossed on that one, unfortunately up to a prosecutor and a jury to decide if one party uses deadly force.
How is it not assault for the deceased to walk up and slam that guy?
It may have been.
Not sure what was being said during the brow beating though and Drejka is alleged to have made threats to others during similar incidents.
And there is the fact McGlockton was backing away after Drejka drew his pistol.
It may have been.
Not sure what was being said during the brow beating though and Drejka is alleged to have made threats to others during similar incidents.
And there is the fact McGlockton was backing away after Drejka drew his pistol.
How many fights have you been in?
Like for real? If you have taken that much of a spill are you really going to discern that the guy who just barreled you outta nowhere is just backing up?
This is getting overturned
Pretty sure it is at least simple assault to do that, but getting assaulted may not rise to the legal threshold for use of deadly force. Not sure where the line gets crossed on that one, unfortunately up to a prosecutor and a jury to decide if one party uses deadly force.
That's outright battery that could have led to aggravated battery(which is a forcible felony).
Take the gun out of the equation. How much further would it have gone? Looked to me like he was gon beat his ass
How many fights have you been in?
Like for real? If you have taken that much of a spill are you really going to discern that the guy who just barreled you outta nowhere is just backing up?
This is getting overturned
Not many, but I am positive I could increase my lifetime number of received hits by initiating altercations like Drejka. I don't think I would quite be able to pull off the after incident claim of being surprised at the response he got either.
How is it not assault for the deceased to walk up and slam that guy?
Depending on the state law it is battery, not assault. Assault would have been creating apprehension or threatening that did not rise to the level of terroristic threatening, once he went hands on it is battery. With the video in most jurisdiction he could have got a warrant for battery.
I have to have this talk with my wife from time to time. She has a bit of an overdeveloped sense of justice. If she feels someone is doing something wrong, she has a tendency to say things that could spark a confrontation. So I remind her of "Dead Right Syndrome". With DRS, someone other than yourself is in the wrong and you're in the right. Say you're approaching an intersection and the light is green. Obviously you have the right of way and it's the responsibility of cross-traffic to stop at their red light. Just because you have the right of way, doesn't mean you can't get killed by someone who fails to stop at their red light. Sure you're in the right, but you're still dead.
Unless you live alone on a desert island, you're probably going to suffer injustice and predations. You'll definitely suffer offenses to your sensibilities. Everyone has to decide where the line is for themselves. In Drejka's case, he decided that line was injustice to his sensibilities. Sure it pisses people off when able bodied scofflaws park in handicapped spaces. I'm sure having had a disabled mother who needed those spaces left Drejka with an overdeveloped sense of offense at these scofflaws. He's not wrong in his feelings, but a man is still dead and he's in prison. Was the juice worth the squeeze? Nope, not even remotely worth it.
If you're human at all you have those days where it doesn't take much to set you off and cause you to give someone a piece of your mind. It happens to me and it certainly happens to my wife. But when you're packing, it carries with it a responsibility to not create risk where none previously exists. Drejka was in the right and he didn't deserve to get slammed to the pavement for being in the right, but he's still in prison. That speaks to one of my favorite universal truths...
"They don't think it be like it is, but it do!"
I have to have this talk with my wife from time to time. She has a bit of an overdeveloped sense of justice. If she feels someone is doing something wrong, she has a tendency to say things that could spark a confrontation....(saving bandwidth).....That speaks to one of my favorite universal truths...
"They don't think it be like it is, but it do!"
Good points, great post.
Coal Dragger
08-27-19, 13:36
That's outright battery that could have led to aggravated battery(which is a forcible felony).
Take the gun out of the equation. How much further would it have gone? Looked to me like he was gon beat his ass
I agree with you, and thanks for the clarification of the offense committed by thug-life, but from a standpoint of what justifies using lethal force it’s still going to be up to a prosecutor and a jury. Prosecutors love to prosecute, and jurors buy their cases more often than not.
If the surviving asshole had a good attorney and could afford an expert witness or two he’d probably be walking around a free man. Maybe he gets his conviction overturned on appeal.
MountainRaven
08-28-19, 02:13
How many fights have you been in?
Like for real? If you have taken that much of a spill are you really going to discern that the guy who just barreled you outta nowhere is just backing up?
I've been in zero real fights.
But then I don't think I'm the morality police, entitled to bitch people out for parking where I don't think they should be.
That's outright battery that could have led to aggravated battery(which is a forcible felony).
Take the gun out of the equation. How much further would it have gone? Looked to me like he was gon beat his ass
Looked to me like the young idiot was done and the guy behind him was getting ready to pull him off the old idiot if the young idiot decided to beat the old idiot's ass.
The young idiot was not on top of the old idiot.
The young idiot was not raining blows on the old idiot.
The young idiot was not kicking the old idiot.
The young idiot pushed the old idiot to the ground. And then the old idiot shot the young idiot after the attack was over.
The old idiot should have put his hands up to protect his head once the young idiot pushed him down, cowered, apologized, backed away, and then been a good witness and gotten him arrested. If the young idiot had persisted in attacking the old idiot, then deadly force might have been justified. And the old idiot would have had a much better case to make for using deadly force and probably would have either beaten the charges or never been charged in the first place.
As it is, nothing I saw justified the use of deadly force on the part of the old idiot. The potential existed for it to occur, but it didn't.
So......I come up to you from behind and knock you on your shit. You are really going to apologize and back away and be a good witness for cops with a 20 mimute response time on a really good day?
You have never in your whole life told someone they were out of line verbally?
You have the gift and superpower of 20/20 hindsight where you can suss all of the correct answers after the fact.
Spend a little more time with diverse people. A lot like to "psych you out" like they are done and then keep going.
Being bowed up, arms swaying or swinging, and all of that.
Anybody can be sanctimonious but condemning this man is a slippery slope. If this becomes a new standard and stand your ground develops more chinks in its armor then it may as well not be around. Because we are just keeping it real, there are people working overtime to lessen your ability and agency of self defense. "HE WAS UNARMED HE WAS BACKING AWAY HE WAS JUST A YOUNG PERSON" will kerp getting tossed around. Armed citizens are not cops and shouldnt aspire to be one. Let the police worry about taking people in alive, dealing with rolling bows, and positive conflict resolution.
Because lets say another Bernie Goetz happens...4 unruly, underprivileged youths who are unarmed accost a dweeby white dude with s .38 and they get shot. 'WELL THEY WERE UNARMED. SEE STATE VS DREJKA. BAD SHOOT" because they hadnt really 'done anything' aside from being younger, stronger, in a group, and closing in.
You don't have to tote an ass whipping to defend yourself. Law is sadly more art than science because everything is multidimensional.
The way YOU worded it makes it seem like two guys from the 50s having a gentleman's disagreement gone too far.
You see this as just desserts for some mouth breathing Florida Man. I see this as yet another tool for case law to limit legal self defense.
My personal belief is that if you are going to do something that makes me feel truly threatened like take me off my feet and ground me.....then you'd better have armed yourself.
Like.....shit....lets pretend its 1979 and USSR is talking mad shit to West Germany. Like realling a good what for. So US sends a buncha M60 tanks in to Czechoslovakia show em whose boss and whos wrong here. Then the missiles fly.
Who really started that? Really?
I doubt Sistah Girl had such virgin ears...
But hey, lets just laugh at Florida Man the dumb goober. I'll grant you it wasnt ideal at all but I'd rather this be a protected shoot than not for reasons you will see later down the road in future CCW cases
So......I come up to you from behind and knock you on your shit. You are really going to apologize and back away and be a good witness for cops with a 20 mimute response time on a really good day?
You have never in your whole life told someone they were out of line verbally?
You have the gift and superpower of 20/20 hindsight where you can suss all of the correct answers after the fact.
Spend a little more time with diverse people. A lot like to "psych you out" like they are done and then keep going.
Being bowed up, arms swaying or swinging, and all of that.
Anybody can be sanctimonious but condemning this man is a slippery slope. If this becomes a new standard and stand your ground develops more chinks in its armor then it may as well not be around. Because we are just keeping it real, there are people working overtime to lessen your ability and agency of self defense. "HE WAS UNARMED HE WAS BACKING AWAY HE WAS JUST A YOUNG PERSON" will kerp getting tossed around. Armed citizens are not cops and shouldnt aspire to be one. Let the police worry about taking people in alive, dealing with rolling bows, and positive conflict resolution.
Because lets say another Bernie Goetz happens...4 unruly, underprivileged youths who are unarmed accost a dweeby white dude with s .38 and they get shot. 'WELL THEY WERE UNARMED. SEE STATE VS DREJKA. BAD SHOOT" because they hadnt really 'done anything' aside from being younger, stronger, in a group, and closing in.
You don't have to tote an ass whipping to defend yourself. Law is sadly more art than science because everything is multidimensional.
The way YOU worded it makes it seem like two guys from the 50s having a gentleman's disagreement gone too far.
You see this as just desserts for some mouth breathing Florida Man. I see this as yet another tool for case law to limit legal self defense.
My personal belief is that if you are going to do something that makes me feel truly threatened like take me off my feet and ground me.....then you'd better have armed yourself.
Like.....shit....lets pretend its 1979 and USSR is talking mad shit to West Germany. Like realling a good what for. So US sends a buncha M60 tanks in to Czechoslovakia show em whose boss and whos wrong here. Then the missiles fly.
Who really started that? Really?
I doubt Sistah Girl had such virgin ears...
But hey, lets just laugh at Florida Man the dumb goober. I'll grant you it wasnt ideal at all but I'd rather this be a protected shoot than not for reasons you will see later down the road in future CCW cases
I missed where Bernard Goetz initiated the altercation with a social etiquette rant directed at any of the 4 of them, but look forward to hearing it.
I missed where Bernard Goetz initiated the altercation with a social etiquette rant directed at any of the 4 of them, but look forward to hearing it.
Let's not get boring here.
All Drejka knew was some bigger person slammed him on the ground
Do you think if McGlockton had approached him with decorum that he would have gotten shot.
yayaying back and forth means diddly squat. She never said he threatened her. She DID say in a televised interview that the subject had to "show out for his girl, knowumsayin?"
Yayaying was not what started it. It was predicative to swing the events but not the initiating action. The battery was the initiating action. If someone yayas at me I can roll up windows, drive off, call police or just sit and grin. Sticks and stones.
Likewise I see a guy talking at my female sex partner. I will simply say "May I help you?" then the yayaying comes my way. No weapon was produced until the battery occurred.
ANYTHING can be taken as "disrespeck" these days. Talking to a person, not talking to a person. Crossing to the othercside of the street, NOT crossing to the other side of the street. "Looking at someone funny".
I mean if YOU want to take the bait and accept this because you are unimpressed with Drejka as a person. That is on you. But be advised...
This, if allowed to stand, WILL limit Florida residents' rights to self defense.
I refuse to overanalyze every last detail of woulda coulda shoulda.
All I see is a person making himself an unknown variable, slamming another person, and wasn't thinking that white boy had a gun.
Him clutching his chest and losing life and grimacing may be disturbing to gentle society but to me it was hilarious. It was comedy gold. He THOUGHT he was gonna be this big man showing out for his girl and he ENDED UP dying whereupon there is most likely no positive afterlife in agonizing pain in a shithole service station. Bleeding out, praying and pleading and bargaining to an uncaring God for time to reverse, to give him a chance, to let him live. 28 was all he got. Life well lived. Sorry. No continues.
A simple "Excuse me, why are you arguing with my ladyfriend and how may we resolve this?" would have gone a lomg way.
Some of that is a bit of snark, and a bit of morbid humor....but my thesis stands. This case will be used to move the goalposts on self defense cases where the other party was "unarmed"
I could very easily lift an average height grown man off his feet and snap his neck like a chicken bone. So I would not take it personally if someone shot me for putting them on their ass. But saying "He wasn't armed, he wasn't armed, he was backing away"
Yeah..maybe to get his own gun. I'm repeating myself and I've madey point. I care not for Drejka, do not approve of his mindset, and wouldnt have argued with sistah girl.
But if this stands, you WILL lose more weight in court per self defense
Let's not get boring here.
All Drejka knew was some bigger person slammed him on the ground
Do you think if McGlockton had approached him with decorum that he would have gotten shot.
yayaying back and forth means diddly squat. She never said he threatened her. She DID say in a televised interview that the subject had to "show out for his girl, knowumsayin?"
Yayaying was not what started it. It was predicative to swing the events but not the initiating action. The battery was the initiating action. If someone yayas at me I can roll up windows, drive off, call police or just sit and grin. Sticks and stones.
Likewise I see a guy talking at my female sex partner. I will simply say "May I help you?" then the yayaying comes my way. No weapon was produced until the battery occurred.
ANYTHING can be taken as "disrespeck" these days. Talking to a person, not talking to a person. Crossing to the othercside of the street, NOT crossing to the other side of the street. "Looking at someone funny".
I mean if YOU want to take the bait and accept this because you are unimpressed with Drejka as a person. That is on you. But be advised...
This, if allowed to stand, WILL limit Florida residents' rights to self defense.
I refuse to overanalyze every last detail of woulda coulda shoulda.
All I see is a person making himself an unknown variable, slamming another person, and wasn't thinking that white boy had a gun.
Him clutching his chest and losing life and grimacing may be disturbing to gentle society but to me it was hilarious. It was comedy gold. He THOUGHT he was gonna be this big man showing out for his girl and he ENDED UP dying whereupon there is most likely no positive afterlife in agonizing pain in a shithole service station. Bleeding out, praying and pleading and bargaining to an uncaring God for time to reverse, to give him a chance, to let him live. 28 was all he got. Life well lived. Sorry. No continues.
A simple "Excuse me, why are you arguing with my ladyfriend and how may we resolve this?" would have gone a lomg way.
Some of that is a bit of snark, and a bit of morbid humor....but my thesis stands. This case will be used to move the goalposts on self defense cases where the other party was "unarmed"
I could very easily lift an average height grown man off his feet and snap his neck like a chicken bone. So I would not take it personally if someone shot me for putting them on their ass. But saying "He wasn't armed, he wasn't armed, he was backing away"
Yeah..maybe to get his own gun. I'm repeating myself and I've madey point. I care not for Drejka, do not approve of his mindset, and wouldnt have argued with sistah girl.
But if this stands, you WILL lose more weight in court per self defense
Hearing about how Goetz initiated the altercation by berating the 4 wouldn't be boring at all. For several decades I have been under the impression the 4 initiated the incident.
I haven't said squat about MacGlockton being younger or not producing a weapon.
You are right about this possibly harming people who do have to shoot someone.
And maybe you are right that Drejka will win on appeal and he can get back to starting other incidents with his back up plan when his targets don't like his behavior either.
Hearing about how Goetz initiated the altercation by berating the 4 wouldn't be boring at all. For several decades I have been under the impression the 4 initiated the incident.
I haven't said squat about MacGlockton being younger or not producing a weapon.
You are right about this possibly harming people who do have to shoot someone.
And maybe you are right that Drejka will win on appeal and he can get back to starting other incidents with his back up plan when his targets don't like his behavior either.
I dont want to thread drift, so take this as an aside. My point was that Goetz shot four ostensibly unarmed teenagers. Alone, without context, that reads poorly
Goetz shoots four unarmed teenagers. Alone, by itself, I'm thinking of some raincoat wearing monster shooting frightened 13 year olds. But then we see the youths, then we see Goetz. A nebbishy, milquetoast guy. Then we see the teenagers. Adult sized with records.
Then we see more dimensions. What initiated that was an unantiquated term known as "white on turf". They come up and accost him for money. Then....we know the rest.
But that line alone. Man shoots unarned man/men. Plays to the emotions. It conjures up backshooting, innocent people cowering in fear, "we can't let our towns become like Dodge City", etc without bothering to look deeper.
That's why a lot of shootings where someone plays thug and dies the media deliberately runs pictures of them graduating high school, or 5 years younger, or with no tattoos showing.
There is a plan here. Gun rights had come a long way. Lots of May Issue are now Shall Issue. And with that comes the narrative that there ARE no good uses of self defense. "Just run away. Just give them money. Just leave your own house. Just let them have the care. Just ride out the rape and go on PEP and Plan B. Buy an expensive security system. Let the wookiee win..."
Its social conditioning. And its working. Even people with firearms and a vested imterest in possessing them are starting to doubt, be open to concession, etc.
Because you work and have a lot to lose. People at the very top and the very bottom...don't. This is why the middle class is the easiest to scare and control.
That's just how I see it.
The 4 initiated the altercation when they indicated intentions to rob Goetz who was minding his own business and not inconveniencing them in the least.
Hadn't seen anything mentioning this till now, but had wondered based on experience with handicap parking places and people who engage in similar behavior to what they want punished when committed by others.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/pinellas/2019/08/21/trial-in-the-clearwater-parking-lot-shooting-day-3-opening-statements/
"Forcade put him in handcuffs. Deputies then searched Drejka.
Rosewasser asks Forcade about the handicap-reserved sign where McGlockton’s car was parked. The sign does not have the wheelchair symbol or the specific language required by state law, Forcade says.
Drejka’s car was not in a marked parking spot, Forcade says. He was parked in the middle of the lot."
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.