TexasCHLforum.com

LDP wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:58 pm

surprise_i'm_armed wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:48 pm I had to look this up. Many of the other forum members may not be familiar with this acronym.

EDP = Emotionally Disturbed Person. This has been used by NYPD, NY EMS, and apparently others, since the above poster used it.

SIA

Thank you.

EDPs. Rarely a deadly threat but possibly a threat of some violence or harassment.
That is exactly why I carry mace AND a gun. Some might disagree but I'd rather just mace some EDP and walk away than have only a deadly weapon to defend myself and answer to a grand jury full of libtards.
(flame suit on)

Right there with ya, bro!

And, yes, I'm an old EMT, Corrections Officer, and Secured-Unit Care Provider.

He told investigators he has a "pet peeve" about illegal parking in handicapped spots and often walks around such cars looking for handicapped stickers and placards, sometimes taking photographs. He said he often sees people illegally parked in the handicapped spot at that convenience store, but the owner doesn't do anything about it.

Drejka said he saw McGlockton's car in the handicapped spot that day, so he went to its back and front, looking for stickers, which store security video shows. He said the car's windows were tinted, so he didn't know anyone was inside.

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

Jacobs testified that Drejka had started pointing and yelling at her. She said she cracked the window to hear what he was saying and a screaming match ensued.

Drejka gave credible evidence of being an EDP and potential threat to the woman. Life hurts. It hurts more when you're stupid.

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 9:07 pm
If the shooter had a history of doing that sort of thing, and threatened them in the process, why did no one ever call the police on him? Or did they? If they did, what was the result of those calls?

To answer the question:

A black man who drives a septic truck told Moffett he parked in the same handicapped-accessible spot three months before McGlockton's shooting, the documents show. The man said Drejka began yelling at him and said he would shoot him. The driver said he left, but as he pulled away Drejka shouted racial slurs. The man's boss told Moffett that Drejka later called, telling him "that he was lucky he didn't blow his employee's head off."

In separate 2012 cases, drivers reported that Drejka waved a gun at them during road rage confrontations. In both cases, officers stopped Drejka and found a gun in his car, but he denied showing it to the other drivers.

The first bolded quote is a reasonable substantiation of the threatened employee's story. Even if we were to discount it, saying that they were now jumping on the bandwagon, or that they(supervisor and employee) were conspiring for the employee's benefit, the documentation of the 2012 incidents shows Drejka to be someone frequently stated to be involved in, "gun calls." In the absence of video, these are he-said-she-said calls, and both parties get a talking to, as nothing more can be done.

Drejka's mental state would seem to be heavily influenced by performance-bias: "I've done this before and never gotten in trouble. I'm too smart/too good/know better." He does not appear to have objectively reviewed his behaviors and actions, but obtained a sense of justification from his interactions with LE, and superiority from his interactions with those he felt were heinous obtruders of the law. Such a perspective generally precedes a pattern of escalation (i.e., Drejka sought out higher risk encounters and/or was willing to dramatically escalate encounters).

Even in his failure, Drejka was "protected" by the social awareness of the people he confronted. As he reaches back, they begin to retreat. I've seen something similar, where a Mouth-man started an altercation with a sizeable biker, got knocked on his keister, and began a draw. He suffered a compressed skull fracture and shattered jaw when the biker took 1 big step forward, and punted his head like a football. Biker was charged with assault, nothing more, as Mouth escalated at every opportunity. Drejka thought he was a big fish. Bigger ones are out there.

Per multiple reports, Mr. Drejka is 47. I'm 46. While it definitely isn't 26, it is hardly "older," in context. I'm also insulin-dependent, which factors into my escalation of force model, and perhaps Mr. Drejka is in a similar situation. We shall see.

Couple of other quick observations, from the vid. It essentially opens, at sec 1 with Drejka's head bobbed emphatically, followed at 3-5 with a mid-body, downward point in addition to head bob, followed by emphatic, single-nods at 10, 13 and 16 seconds. He is unaware of Mcglockton until 16 seconds, with the shove at 17. He draws at 22 seconds and fires at 22/23. Overall, the body language is focused (on Jacobs, in the car) and forceful. The posturing is authoritative and very closed, he is unwilling to backdown or reconcile.

If we look at LEOKA(Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted), since 2013, the 2 most significant factors contributing to death or injury are 1) failure to recognize the seriousness of the situation and 2) lack of aggression early in the conflict. I.e., "Officer Niceguy" does not realize that the person he is interviewing IS NOT going back to jail/prison, and is willing to kill to prevent that eventuality, and once the offender engages, Niceguy is still in the mindset of "arrest" not "kill".

Pretty much any fatal conflict will have some level of this disparity, unless both parties are well advised that death is a more than reasonable outcome.

What we see in this instance is that Drejka is displaying social-aggression without awareness of the potential consequences. I.e., he is truly playing tough-guy, and while that might work at the suburban Wholesale foods, the potential risk at the Circle A is probably much higher. If this is the Circle A where events transpired, I can see why Drejka may have felt bullet-proof, directly across the street.
https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en&pb ... CnoECAoQCQ

While this doesn't look like what I would call a rough neighborhood, Circle A is definitely a stop-n-rob.

I'm not saying bad stuff don't happen at Island Market, but there is a definite difference:
https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en&pb ... rdd6rQYD4w

In addition to this, and going back to the vid, at 14 seconds, BF is coming out of the store, hiking his pants up and focused directly on Drejka. This is so clearly an assault-cue there may as well be trumpets, drums and a spotlight. Drejka, with his attention fully on his educational interaction with Jacobs is oblivious. Also, at 14 seconds, Jacobs is exiting her vehicle, and Drejka does not move 1/2 a step. He is intent on dominating the interaction with Jacobs, and again, his posturing and behavior escalate the situation.

Now, defense could argue that Jacobs being out of the car, and the BFs shove made Drejka fear for his life. Not an unreasonable assertion. Notably, however, at 21 seconds, before his weapon is out, when Drejka is in process of drawing, both Mcglocken and Jacobs clearly know what he is doing, as Jacobs retreats towards the rear of the car and Mcglocken stops, hands away from his body. This is where Drejka's mindset causes the catastrophic failure- he does not recognize cessation of the immediate hostility. Perhaps he is in shock, experiencing time-compression and tunnel-vision, as he is in a position where his sense of self has been traumatically challenged. As a friend elsewhere once stated, "I may not be fluent in the language of violence, but I speak it well enough to get around town." Drejka is profoundly out of his depth, having decided that a parking space is worth a physical confrontation, and not recognizing that it may end in violence.

From the shove to Drejka rolling around to face Mcglocken full-on is 3 seconds (shove at 17, facing & reaching to draw at 20). Draw to fire is 2-3 seconds (20seconds -22/23). The big issue is that Drejka was indisputably involved in an argument. This is not an out-of-the blue assault, in the sense that Drejka has already escalated the level of force with another party, he is simply blissfully unaware of that fact.

Clearly, it will be up for a judge and/or jury to decide, but Drejka willfully and intentionally initiated a confrontation, over a parking spot, that ended with someone's death. Regardless of the "social worth" of Mcglocken and Jacobs, and while Mcglocken clearly assaulted Drejka, both Mcglocken and Jacobs de-escalated, while Drejka did not, at any point while on camera, despite every opportunity to do so.

FWIW.

BBYC wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 1:10 pm

Feel better now?

No feelings on it one way or another, just an assessment of the circumstances available for review in a use-of-force incident.

dlh wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:37 am

mojo84 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:28 am The video makes it pretty obvious what happened.

The video is certainly helpful but there is quite a bit we as "arm-chair jurors" do not know.

1) What was said between the shooter and the girlfriend?

2) What was said between the shooter and the boyfriend?

3) How did it feel to get thrown to the hot asphalt in a convenience store parking lot while you are wearing shorts?

4) The skinny shooter looked somewhat frail to me--certainly not a husky football type.

Maybe we will learn more in the coming days---maybe not.

1) Given the outcome of the situation, this is largely irrelevant, if the interaction was more than ~10 seconds.
If the shooter said, "Ma'am, this is a disabled parking spot, would you mind moving your car?", any further words or actions on his part, other than,
"Ok, thank you..." and walking away escalated the situation. If he started with something less cordial, he was seeking a confrontation.

2) Legally, if the shooter intentionally places himself in a situation of conflict, this is (within very limited confines) irrelevant. It is generally
legally insufficient to act solely on the words of another person, in the absence of imminent danger. I.e., even if BF threatened to kill the
shooter, BF is backing up and not obviously trying to get into the car for a weapon, reaching to his waistband, etc.. Had BF continued advancing,
that would be a different situation as well. Bottom line, as LTCs we are responsible for assessing the situation, in the context of being a,
"reasonable person".

3) Probably hurt. If I pee on a light-socket, that will probably hurt too. This is a consequential progression, not a thoroughly unforseen event.
Shooter thought he could utilize verbal command-presence to dominate a woman in a car. He was so focused on the conflict he felt confident and
justified of winning that he neglected to assess for other factors in play. Ask any LE, when you amp-up with commands, you should have
reasonable expectation of physical conflict. Again, if the shooter is/was so completely unaware of violence dynamics that this is not part of his
consciousness, he should not be carrying. Yes, these are Big Boy Rules. The State has authorized him to apply lethal force. Some
actions/behaviors make applying that level of force more a certainty than a possibility brought about by multi-tiered failure to assess risk.

4) Agreed. Which falls under the, "don't let your mouth write checks your butt can't cash," paradigm. Again, this was not an unprovoked assault.
Regardless of her floral, or thorny, personality, the woman is at a distinct disadvantage, seated in the car, not to mention the level of "disrespect"
imparted by the lecture. Street-norms indicate you'll get a butt-whuppin' if you try that too many times. If you're skinny dude, and you start
altercations with Big Dude, and you do so knowing you have lethal force at hand, you are not functioning within the intent of SDA. Again, you
might skate by, but sooner or later...

One of the big messages not to miss in this is the proper and adequate utilization of verbal skills. Out and about, if we feel the need to try and direct others in what we consider appropriate behavior, we need to be able to do so very affably, and in a highly self-effacing fashion. If we are not aware of how others perceive us we may end up in very hot water, through the best of intentions. One might even suggest that helping someone who was disabled with their groceries/other tasks, perhaps even looking for such people and situations, would be a better use of time and energy than "preaching righteousness to the unwashed." But that is an attitude of service, not Authority, and perhaps that is the difference in this situation.

Lastly,

1Peter 3:15-16
But in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you the reason for the hope you possess. But respond with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who slander you will be put to shame by your good behavior in Christ.

Whether one is Christian or not, that is excellent advice, and will keep one out of enormous quantities of trouble.

flechero wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 8:02 am We really suck as a community of 2A and CHL/LTC brethren. We are a house divided, in the saddest sense.

I didn't particularly "like" the shoot, but we still don't have the relevant facts to judge him. I see a huge gap in what's legal vs what we think is good or right...

For every one of you high horsers, there are always those that ride higher... and if you ever face an attack that you defend yourself from, well baby, you better strap in for the keyboard commando lynch mob!! Guilty until proven innocent... nice job, guys.






(Sorry Charles)

We do. As a LTC/CHL holder you have the duty(legal, as well as moral) to not engage in behaviors which directly exacerbate an interpersonal interaction. Period. Now, the Legal standard may allow you to squeek by on some things. The rest is between you & God. If this man is "cleared", and he's good with that, I have to question his mental and ethical suitability for LTC. It was profoundly bad judgement (which he apparently has a history of), no different that doing an evening of tequila shots while carrying.

There is NO scenario where an armed individual should persist in confronting someone else over a parking space. If one must, suggest that they should move. If they don't, walk away, and if the absolute compulsion to right this egregious wrong is present, call PD. Because we never know what another person's behavior/reaction may be, our initiatives must be very conservative and unemotional when dealing with someone/something that is in no way an immediate threat.

Unless I misread, Drejka is 47, not 60-some. He does sit there for a moment, after the shooting, but gets up without apparently using his arms to leverage himself up-knees, hips & back are in good shape.

He has a firearm, but is totally unaware of dude walking up to him. He's having an "animated" conversation with the woman, not with the man and woman, immediately after they park, or after the man comes back to the car. Does not speak well to his decision-making process, in any respect.

May be "legal," it is not, "good."