Editorial: Don’t excuse gun violence |

Editorial: Don’t excuse gun violence


So-called “stand-your-ground” laws originally were meant to ensure that someone could not be prosecuted for using deadly force in self-defense when that was the only option. State laws generally included a “duty to retreat” to avoid violent confrontations whenever possible.

But beginning about a decade ago, a wave of states including Pennsylvania vastly altered those laws to protect overtly offensive rather than purely defensive behavior by people using deadly force, most often with guns.

Last Thursday in Clearwater, Fla., an argument over a handicapped-parking space resulted in the death of a 28-year-old man, Markeis McGlockton, who was shot to death at a convenience store in front of his 5-year-old son.

Michael Drejka, 47, confronted McGlockton for parking in a handicapped space. After McGlockton exited the store, the argument resumed and McGlockton pushed Drejka to the ground. Drejka shot McGlockton, who staggered back into the store and collapsed. He later died at a hospital.

Store surveillance video shows McGlockton backing away as Drejka fired, but local police said they weren’t sure about charging the shooter because McGlockton had pushed him.

Laws should be crafted to prevent gun violence rather than excuse it. Drejka could have called police to complain about illicit use of a handicapped spot — which is not a capital offense — but he chose confrontation.

The law should be clear that violence is the wrong choice in all but the most dire situations. Pennsylvania lawmakers should roll back the stand-your-ground law to its original purpose to ensure that violence is the last option.

— The Citizens’ Voice, Wilkes-Barre

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.