Florida 'stand your ground' shooter had history of gun threats: Complaint
Source: ABC News
By BILL HUTCHINSON
Aug 14, 2018, 10:51 PM ET
A Florida man charged with manslaughter in a fatal shooting he claimed was an act of self-defense under the state's "stand your ground" law made his first court appearance Tuesday as prosecutors released investigative reports alleging he had a history of threatening people with guns.
. . .
Three months before McGlockton's shooting, Drejka, who is white, threatened to shoot a black man for parking in a handicapped space at the same store where McGlockton was shot confronting Drejka, according to the complaint.
The man's boss told detectives Drejka later called him to complain about his worker, telling him "he was lucky that he didn't blow his employee's head off," the complaint alleges.
In another incident, an 18-year-old man told Pinellas County Sheriff's deputies in 2012 that Drejka flashed a black handgun at him during a road-rage incident. The teenager told deputies the altercation started when he stopped at a light that turned had yellow, and Drejka, who was behind him, allegedly honked and yelled at him, and pointed the handgun at him from his driver's-side window, according to the complaint.
Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-stand-ground-shooter-history-gun-threats-complaint/story?id=57167847
dalton99a
(81,515 posts)axm
(91 posts)and he finally got his wish.
I hope he spends the rest of his life in prison.
I think that is it and in his twisted little brain, any old person of color will do, someone that he believes no one will care about.
iscooterliberally
(2,860 posts)The paper posted an article about this story back when it happened asked what readers thought. The cops knew this guy had a history of provoking people back when the incident happened. I stated that he should have been arrested and SYG did not apply in this case. A few people shot me down for my comments, no pun intended. I think the SYG law is a huge mistake, but even with that law Drejka should have been arrested at the scene. I'm glad the prosecutors are going after him. I hope we get rid of SYG too.
iluvtennis
(19,862 posts)So said for the McGlockton family. The wife has not yet been able to tell her kids their dad is dead.
orleans
(34,056 posts)summing this up a bit and essentially saying because mcglockton stepped backwards and was moving away from the asshole the prosecution says stand your ground law isn't a defense.
joshdawg
(2,648 posts)drecka is nothing but a cold-blooded murderer, just like zimmerman.
And he will probably get away with it.
Midnight Writer
(21,768 posts)marble falls
(57,099 posts)One is too many. We have at least four and maybe more.
Older Than I Look
(95 posts)And that's the whole point of "stand your ground" anyway. Isn't it?
Sancho
(9,070 posts)This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that werent secured are out of control in our society. As such, heres what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. Im not debating the legal language, I just think its the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because its clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learners license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a drivers license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I get that some people are irrationally paranoid and can't leave home without precious, but CCW and shoot first laws were passed without one iota of evidence they would be a benefit to society. So now we have laws that allow the unhinged to legally stalk and shoot people and these laws protect gun nuts and make it virtually impossible to stop them before they kill someone and harder to prosecute them when they do. All because the gun nuts were paranoid about being prosecuted for self defense which wasn't happening to begin with.
Meanwhile the trend is for loser restrictions, not tighter ones. Many states now have open carry laws and some states want to do away with licensing requirements completely.
All the suggestions you offer do nothing to address basic human psychology which is all of us are capable of irrationally. Introduce a gun and someone dies. If you don't think you are capable of losing your shit you are fooling yourself. It happens to cops all the time who most certainly have far stronger licensing requirements. Insurance isn't much consolation when you are dead.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)I disagree with you on this:
The license I propose would, in fact, prevent some irrational people from possessing guns - and make it much harder the more likely that irrational people acted. The VAST majority of irrational people who kill themselves and others with guns are known to have emotional and behavioral issues if you simply ask family and friends and teachers and co-workers.
There's nothing wrong with stricter gun regulations that remove guns and certain types of guns.
Insurance companies don't like to lose money, so they are very good at doing research that predicts or correlates with whatever causes claims. The reason for insurance is primarily so that they will collect statistics on preventing gun violence - not to pay off any particular person. Also, insurance companies might go to court, lobby for laws, or oppose the NRA/gun industry.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)There should never be carry laws for any gun nut who wants to carry. If you are a security guard or have some other professional reason, then you may do so only when you are performing that function. Shoot first laws also are out the window.
You completely misunderstand what you are disagreeing with. I am not talking about "irrational people". I'm saying everyone has the potential to become irrational. The only differences are some have different thresholds. The more guns are placed into more situations, the greater the chance someone gets killed for no good reason. Guns do not make us safer. Guns make us less safe.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)If by special circumstances you mean afraid to leave the home without precious, then no. If you mean the only types of special circumstances are for validated particularized needs in line with security guard duties, then yes. I would also specify any gun license is a privilege, not a right. Things like driving under the influence, domestic violence, or other offenses which demonstrate a loss of control would mean an automatic license revoke.
CanonRay
(14,104 posts)csziggy
(34,136 posts)From newspaper reports, the Florida Department of Agriculture did not do legally required background checks for concealed carry permits for a year because they lost their password to get into the system. I wonder if this killer was among those granted a CC permit during this period?
A state investigation found that the lapse covered a period that included the biggest spike in permit applications in Florida history.
By Steve Contorno Jun. 8
For more than a year, the state of Florida failed to review national background checks on tens of thousands of applications for concealed weapons permits, potentially allowing drug addicts or people with a mental illness to carry firearms in public.
A previously unreported Office of Inspector General investigation found that in February 2016 the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services stopped using the results from an FBI crime database called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System that ensures applicants who want to carry a gun do not have a disqualifying history in other states.
The employee in charge of the background checks could not log into the system, the investigator learned. The problem went unresolved until discovered by another worker in March 2017 meaning that for more than a year applications got approved without the required background check.
During that time, which coincided with the June 12, 2016 shooting at Pulse nightclub that left 50 dead, the state saw an unprecedented spike in applications for concealed weapons permits. There were 134,000 requests for permits in the fiscal year ending in June 2015. The next 12 months broke a record, 245,000 applications, which was topped again in 2017 when the department received 275,000 applications.
Department employees interviewed for the report called the NICS checks "extremely important." Concealed weapons licenses "may have been issued to potentially ineligible individuals." If it came out they weren't conducted, "this could cause an embarrassment to the agency," the report said.
More: https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/06/08/adam-putnams-office-stopped-concealed-weapons-background-checks-for-a-year-because-it-couldnt-log-in/
Eve if he did not get his CC permit due to the negligence of Adam Putnam's office, his permit should have been revoked when complaints about his brandishing of his gun were received.