Convicted of Manslaughter

[V0OBWxZS16]

hdtwice, I believe it is realistic to assume that if a person relentlessly follows a teenager around in the dark they may be subjected to whatever action that undeveloped teenage brain tells it's owner to do; fight or flight.

Zimmerman did not "relentlessly follow a teenager around." He quit following Travon at the instruction of the 911 call taker and was ambushed while returning to his car.

Only two people were there, and now the one who was guilty only of minding his own business is dead.

Zimmerman was a member of the Neighborhood Watch in a neighborhood that was the victim of a number of burglaries. Calling 911 and providing information on an unknown teen cutting through other people's yards was his business.

Circling back and ambushing someone is not "minding your own business."

So the two of you can discuss this matter on level ground, FL law allows use of deadly force against a forcible felony, which includes aggravated assault and aggravated battery.

There must be intent to commit a felony or use of a deadly weapon to reach aggravated assault level. Similarly, aggravated batter requires intentionally or knowingly causing grave bodily harm or the use of a deadly weapon. It is, in the case of the parking spot incident, difficult to prove such intent by the "pusher," nor did he use a deadly weapon.

Do you happen to know the Florida statues regarding disparity of force?

 

[biku324]

The only opinions on this that matter are those of the jury - they saw ALL of the evidence and were instructed precisely on the law by the judge. Internet opinion is always less well-informed.

 

[fredj338]

"My statement of Hands on is a fact."

While the penalty for battery can be rather severe it is not a death sentence.
Neither of the deceased should be.

The problem is when you bring a gun to a fist fight & start to lose, you now are fighting to protect the gun. So dont engage in stupid poop. The guy should have gotten 2nd deg murder imo, but his fate is at least some justice. Zimmerman, yes very sim in he didnt have to follow, should have anticipated a potential assault & disengaged. He was lucky but his life was ruined anyway. Both are a lesson, carrying a gun is a huge responsibility.

 

[dockmurgw]

Michael Drejka, the new poster boy for Florida's gun control advocates. .

 

[CB3]

The nuances of self defense law are both very technical and potentially subjective. The amount and type of evidence, the understanding of the law by both the prosecution and the defense, and the abilities of the attorneys to affect individual jurors' decision add up to a very complex dance.

Not being a Florida attorney or being at the scene or in the courtroom, I don't feel commenting on the specifics of this case or Zimmerman are helpful. One of the problems with judging a hands-on altercation that escalates to deadly force is of timing and perception of the parties at the time. Even video cannot record one's thoughts or fears or predict the timing of one's reactions.

Facts and circumstances rarely fit into a neat internet analysis box. And real personal experience is usually lacking from most commenters.

However, these cases and many, many others teach us that avoiding conflict and certainly not escalating conflict are choices we can make consciously ahead of time and even sometimes at the moment. It is better to lose face than freedom, or a life.

When it's go time, go and hard and fast. Otherwise, walk or run away. Never start it.

 

[gman51]

That hits the nail squarely head on. "Never start it" First question often is who threw the first punch.

 

[Mule Packer]

No matter how you look at it, it's tragic all the way around. Stupid mistakes by both parties. It's probably safe to say that the girlfriend will probably think twice before she ever parks in a handicapped zone. Sad situation.

 

[fredj338]

The nuances of self defense law are both very technical and potentially subjective. The amount and type of evidence, the understanding of the law by both the prosecution and the defense, and the abilities of the attorneys to affect individual jurors' decision add up to a very complex dance.

Not being a Florida attorney or being at the scene or in the courtroom, I don't feel commenting on the specifics of this case or Zimmerman are helpful. One of the problems with judging a hands-on altercation that escalates to deadly force is of timing and perception of the parties at the time. Even video cannot record one's thoughts or fears or predict the timing of one's reactions.

Facts and circumstances rarely fit into a neat internet analysis box. And real personal is usually lacking from most commenters.

However, these cases and many, many others teach us that avoiding conflict and certainly not escalating conflict are choices we can make consciously ahead of time and even sometimes at the moment. It is better to lose face than freedom, or a life.

When it's go time, go and hard and fast. Otherwise, walk or run away. Never start it.

Abject fear has never been reason for deadly force though. In both instances, there was provocation by the person carrying the gun. In both cases there was a physical assault on the gun owner. Zimmermans shooting was justifiable for sure, to protect the gun, but he did unnecessarily put himself in harms way by pursuing.
Drejka was looking for a fight IMO. Beyond the shove, there was no further attack or aggression. He shot the guy because he could. Don't put yourself into a situation where you must use your gun, then you never have to make that so called split decision. Though in Drejka's case, it was what, several seconds to ponder then deploy & shoot the so called attacker. Certainly had time to consider his next move since there was n further aggression.

 

[fredj338]

No matter how you look at it, it's tragic all the way around. Stupid mistakes by both parties. It's probably safe to say that the girlfriend will probably think twice before she ever parks in a handicapped zone. Sad situation.

Yet no one should be assaulted for parking in a HC spot, much less killed for it. Sure ridicule them, report them but carrying a gun, everything changes. So skip the ridicule & just phone it in to the popo. They wont show up but better than doing something really stupid.

 

[V0OBWxZS16]

...Beyond the shove, there was no further attack or aggression. He shot the guy because he could. Don't put yourself into a situation where you must use your gun, then you never have to make that so called split decision. Though in Drejka's case, it was what, several seconds to ponder then deploy & shoot the so called attacker. Certainly had time to consider his next move since there was n further aggression.

How can you claim "no further aggression" when the surveillance video clearly shows the attacker taking multiple steps towards the knocked-to-the-ground victim and hitching his shorts up?

Drejka did not spend "several seconds" "pondering" before drawing his pistol. Drejka recovered to a sitting position and drew with little delay.


The female also exited the vehicle just before the assault resulting with the victim in a severely compromised position while facing two hostile adults still on their feet.


https://player.**********/video/284786087

 

[Tyree1867]

Neither of the deceased created the conflict with their killers.

It seems to me that, in fact, each of the deceased assaulted the man who wound up killing them. That is my definition of " creating the conflict."
Prior to the assaults there was no violence.

 

[joeintexas]

In a life or death situation I do believe in trying to save a life, no way in a parking space confrontation, that's where two fools met, make that three. Yeah, it ticks me off to see a perfectly healthy person take a handicapped space from someone that needs it, but there's no way I'm going to start a confrontation over it and sure not going to shoot someone. Where do all these self appointed parking space enforcers come from? Seems like several villages are missing their idiots these days. Shooting over a parking space, good grief.

 

[Borderboss]

This is the kind of thing that can happen when a civilian with a concealed carry permit thinks it miraculously transforms them into a LEO or First Responder in some way. It always amazes me in forum threads where these types want to head into the fight instead of taking the opportunities that exist to get away without pulling their gun.

This may be an extreme example, but this guy should be a warning for everyone with a concealed carry permit that thinks that they're now responsible to be the hero of the day. That permit is only there to protect you and yours from imminent danger. If you're not in imminent danger, get the heck out of there.

 

[fredj338]

How can you claim "no further aggression" when the surveillance video clearly shows the attacker taking multiple steps towards the knocked-to-the-ground victim and hitching his shorts up?

Drejka did not spend "several seconds" "pondering" before drawing his pistol. Drejka recovered to a sitting position and drew with little delay.


The female also exited the vehicle just before the assault resulting with the victim in a severely compromised position while facing two hostile adults still on their feet.


https://player.**********/video/284786087

No the video shows the man backing off, never got close enough to Drejka to be a threat after the shove. Drejka took 3-4sec to come to a sitting position, draw his weapon & fire. In 3-4 sec if that were a determined attack by the victim, Drejka would have been beaten to death. He had time to not fire but wanted to shoot the guy out of anger. Drejka got what he deserved, dumbazz with a carry permit. Unfortunately, there are many out there.

 

[V0OBWxZS16]

Shooting over a parking space, good grief.

***??? Drejka did not shoot someone over a parking space. If he had ended up shooting the driver you *might* have a point, but that's not what happened. Instead he was assaulted by a third party who walked up while he was speaking to the driver.

No the video shows the man backing off, never got close enough to Drejka to be a threat after the shove. Drejka took 3-4sec to come to a sitting position, draw his weapon & fire. In 3-4 sec if that were a determined attack by the victim, Drejka would have been beaten to death. He had time to not fire but wanted to shoot the guy out of anger. Drejka got what he deserved, dumbazz with a carry permit. Unfortunately, there are many out there.

What video are you watching? (The link above is v i m e o, btw.)

At 0:13 in the video I linked the assailant blindsides Drejka with a shove. At 0:16 the assailant is multiple steps beyond his position where he attacked the victim and is two steps or less from the victim's new position on the ground and is hitching up his shorts while standing over the victim while the victim begins his draw.

Unless you over-emphasize the couple of steps backward the attacker took you cannot ignore that the bad guy neither surrendered nor fled, but instead stayed in close proximity to the victim and could easily and rapidly continue the attack when the opportunity presented itself such as the victim attempting to stand up or is forced to split his attention to the other hostile adult who is moving towards the rear of the vehicle.

 

[biku324]

Prison is the right sentence. When you look for trouble, you find it. Maybe the shooter should have tried to claim the decedent was 'resisting citizen's arrest'?

 

[fredj338]

***??? Drejka did not shoot someone over a parking space. If he had ended up shooting the driver you *might* have a point, but that's not what happened. Instead he was assaulted by a third party who walked up while he was speaking to the driver.

What video are you watching? (The link above is v i m e o, btw.)

At 0:13 in the video I linked the assailant blindsides Drejka with a shove. At 0:16 the assailant is multiple steps beyond his position where he attacked the victim and is two steps or less from the victim's new position on the ground and is hitching up his shorts while standing over the victim while the victim begins his draw.

Unless you over-emphasize the couple of steps backward the attacker took you cannot ignore that the bad guy neither surrendered nor fled, but instead stayed in close proximity to the victim and could easily and rapidly continue the attack when the opportunity presented itself such as the victim attempting to stand up or is forced to split his attention to the other hostile adult who is moving towards the rear of the vehicle.

So you would have shot the victim & his girlfriend on a shove that with no further assault? Good luck with that. Open hands, no further aggression, 3sec+ to shoot no shoot? Yeah we see it totally diff.

 

[Protected One]

Was the charge only Manslaughter or was that the "lesser included, crime" that the jury upon which the jury settled?

I couldn't figure it out from the news coverage.

Drejka made two mistakes. One, he went to the police station without an attorney. Two, he talked to the media.

Essentially he handed the case to the state before it even went to trial.

Actually, he made another mistake which led to the others:
He chose the wrong way of dealing with someone abusing handicapped parking spaces.

 

[GaryS]

He could have just walked away.

Interestingly, there's a story in Shooting Illustrated's "Armed Citizen" column about the reverse situation.

A "handicapped zone" vigilante went after a women he thought was using a handicapped space. As it happened, she was in a regular space. The women yelled at the man.

He left and came back with a "crook lock" and started swinging at the woman. She fought him off until she could get to her concealed weapon and shot him in the leg.

He was charged with criminal damage to property with a dangerous weapon. She wasn't charged because the police determined she was acting in self defense.

Stupidity works both ways.

Actually, he made another mistake which led to the others:
He chose the wrong way of dealing with someone abusing handicapped parking spaces.

 

[Rastoff]

I sill feel a citizen has a duty to act to save others, if absolutely necessary, and after immediate family is made safe, if that an issue.

This is a dangerous stance. It is ambiguous. In this case, the shooter thought it was necessary to shoot. Was it? I don't think so.

Obviously every situation is different and there's no way to state it that covers all of them. The important part is that the potential defender must know the situation from the beginning or they could be saving the bad guy from the good guy.

It's probably safe to say that the girlfriend will probably think twice before she ever parks in a handicapped zone. Sad situation.

Yes, it's a sad situation, but I think you're wrong on the girlfriend's likelihood of parking illegally. In fact, I'll bet she parks in a handicap spot, regularly, to this day. Parking like she did shows a high degree of selfishness and tremendous lack of respect. No, in this day and age, I'll bet she becomes more self-entitled because of this.

What really concerns me is how this affects the children involved.