As a matter of law, you have no 'special duty' do protect the public from handicap parking infractions. If he would have started yelling stuff at my wife in the same circumstances he likely would have gotten his butt kicked by her.
Convicted of Manslaughter
- Thread starter flagman1776
- Start date
V0OBWxZS16
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2015
- Messages
- 504
- Reaction score
- 310
Good God. I said nothing of the sort and even if I did it would be irrelevant. What is relevant is whether Drejka's reactions fall within the bounds of reasonableness and under the circumstances that is a very wide target.
- Mr. Drejka saying something to the illegally parked driver places zero moral or legal guilt on his shoulders and does not reduce his right to self-defense in any way. (Since you obviously care what I would do: I rarely engage that sort of ***hole and on the occasions I do it, again, places zero guilt on my shoulders and does not impede my right to self-defense in any way.)
- The driver chooses to escalate the situation by exiting her vehicle to confront Drejka instead of de-escalating the situation by moving her vehicle to a legal parking spot (or even just rolling up her window and ignoring him.)
- Just after the driver closes her car door the victim is blindsided by a drugged-up, younger, and heavier violent criminal.
- The attacker follows the victim as the victim stumbles and falls and stands over the victim as the victim begins to recover and re-orient.
-- We can therefore reasonably assess that *at minimum* the drugged-up violent criminal's intent was for the victim to fear that he was about to get his teeth kicked in any moment now. (He succeeded.) This falsifies your claim that the attacker "never got close enough to Drejka to be a threat after the shove" and falsifies your claim of 3-4 seconds delay. I guesstimate under 2 seconds from the attacker noticing the victim's hand on the gun until the shot.
-- This also places the victim in the psychological position of looking up at his attacker.
- Due to initiative, age, size, multiple hostile adults, and positioning disparity of force obviously applies.
- Upon observing the victim beginning to draw his pistol neither the attacker nor the other hostile adult surrenders or flees. They separate with the attacker moving towards the driver's door of the vehicle and the other moving towards the rear storage area of the vehicle and the victim's flank.
- At the time the shot is fired the victim is still in a severely disadvantageous position of awkwardly sitting on the ground while both hostiles are still on their feet and in close proximity that would allow either or both to easily and rapidly close with the victim and continue the assault if/when the opportunity presents itself.
I have a dash camera in my pickup and have occasionally ridden with a camera attached to my motorcycle. Avoiding someone cutting me off by braking hard enough to activate the ABS and throw me against the seat belt doesn't look like much on video. A significant swerve due to someone about to intrude into my lane from the side looks like a late twitch. Railing around a hairpin looks slow and relatively upright on video.
My point is that I am positive that the victim's perception of time, space, etc. was far different than ours especially since we have an overhead view that we can rewind and slo-mo again and again and again.
In the end the actual victim deserves the benefit of the doubt, the drugged-up violent criminal does not, and nothing useful is achieved by prosecuting and jailing Mr. Drejka. (Well, I suppose it is useful to the pro-criminal/anti-self-defense faction.)
I definitely would not have shot the driver and do not believe I would have shot the attacker if I was sitting on the ground in Mr. Drejka's place, but I will not hang someone else for doing so.
Based on the self-defense training I have taken in empty hand and pistol the best response would have been to roll onto his back while spinning to place his legs between his torso and the attacker, lifting his legs to block/absorb the incoming kicks he expected at any moment, and drawing. If he fired it should have been immediately. This would have been faster and more protective. In addition firing sooner and closer while being on his back in a protective posture would have looked far better on video* and witness statements.) Of course poor tactics and techniques does not negate the right to self-defense.
* The thumbnail for the video I attempted to link above is of Drejka sitting on the ground with his pistol extended. It should be a thumbnail of Drejka being flung off his feet by the bad guy's attack or possibly Drejka pushing himself up while the attacker stands above him.
Your wife would escalate a situation she created to criminal violence instead of de-escalating it and correcting her behavior and you are apparently proud of that fact...
That tells me a lot about your moral character.
joeintexas
US Veteran
Just taking a quick look at the one's that think the 12 jurors made the right decision here on this forum I think I found about 30 that agree, maybe 3 that don't and 20 or so that didn't form an opinion just a comment on the thread. If the majority of the gun owning posters here agree with the decision is it any wonder how the jury reached the decision they did.
Please note that I have in no way ever addressed you directly before this post.
Last edited:
OP
flagman1776
Member
I watched the full security video at least a dozen times before I started this thread. I believe that the action happened so fast... from the Dreika's draw to firing... he had already made the decision to fire before the draw began. Mr McGlockton did indeed step back as the gun came out but there literally wasn't enough time for Dreika to react, to hold fire.
The news media reports of the judge's reading of the Florida statute follows. I believe the second part is why Mr Dreika was convicted.
"The lengthy statute generally says Drejka could shoot McGlockton if a reasonable person under those circumstances would believe they are in danger of death or great bodily harm. But it also says the shooter could not have instigated the altercation."
source: Florida "Stand your ground" case: Jury finds Michael Drejka guilty of manslaughter in shooting death of unarmed black man - CBS News
"Lab results show McGlockton had the drug ecstasy in his bloodstream when he was shot and killed by Drejka July 19.
"Well, it's definitely going to play a role in the case," said Drejka defense attorney John Trevena. "We believe a toxicology expert will testify that his use of illegal drugs, particularly surrounding the time of this incident, could very well have contributed to his aggressive behavior.
source: Michael Drejka's lawyers may try to use McGlockton's drug use in defense | wtsp.com
The news media reports of the judge's reading of the Florida statute follows. I believe the second part is why Mr Dreika was convicted.
"The lengthy statute generally says Drejka could shoot McGlockton if a reasonable person under those circumstances would believe they are in danger of death or great bodily harm. But it also says the shooter could not have instigated the altercation."
source: Florida "Stand your ground" case: Jury finds Michael Drejka guilty of manslaughter in shooting death of unarmed black man - CBS News
"Lab results show McGlockton had the drug ecstasy in his bloodstream when he was shot and killed by Drejka July 19.
"Well, it's definitely going to play a role in the case," said Drejka defense attorney John Trevena. "We believe a toxicology expert will testify that his use of illegal drugs, particularly surrounding the time of this incident, could very well have contributed to his aggressive behavior.
source: Michael Drejka's lawyers may try to use McGlockton's drug use in defense | wtsp.com
Walkingwolf
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2017
- Messages
- 1,624
- Reaction score
- 1,655
I did not follow the trial, but the big question for me is was McGlockton justified in his use of force. If yes then clearly Drejka is guilty, which I assume is how the jury saw it. If he was not justified then all Drejka was guilty of was creating a disturbance.
Rastoff
US Veteran
At no point was Drejka in danger of life or great bodily harm.
This is just my opinion, but everything about Drejka says that he was looking for a fight. From his previous encounters to his attitude at trial. However, none of that is a factor in the sentence he received; the facts were.
It's a simple fact that McGlockton was moving away when he was shot. In any court of law that means the threat, deadly or not, had ended. Because of that, the shooting was not justified.
This is just my opinion, but everything about Drejka says that he was looking for a fight. From his previous encounters to his attitude at trial. However, none of that is a factor in the sentence he received; the facts were.
It's a simple fact that McGlockton was moving away when he was shot. In any court of law that means the threat, deadly or not, had ended. Because of that, the shooting was not justified.
V0OBWxZS16
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2015
- Messages
- 504
- Reaction score
- 310
This does illustrate something I think is important. I am incapable of placing myself in the drug-abusing criminal's shoes or the driver's shoes, but I can easily place myself in the shoes of someone who's just been blindsided without provocation. Apparently some are the opposite and it colors their thinking.
So?
Unless Florida law is REALLY messed up Drejka did not start the "altercation."
The absurdity of attempting to malign "stand your ground" when the victim was *sitting* on the ground when he fired is insane.
No, McGlockton was not justified. Also, Drejka did not start a disturbance; the driver did that.
Rastoff
US Veteran
It was Drejka that started this situation. He may have started it with the woman, but he definitely started this altercation.
You're correct to say that McGlockton wasn't justified. You're wrong to say that the driver started anything. It was Drejka that confronted her, not the other way around.
Walkingwolf
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2017
- Messages
- 1,624
- Reaction score
- 1,655
I am on the fence as to whether McGlockton was, or was not justified. He was told there was a man harassing his GF/spouse only to see just that as he left the store. Probably my first response would have been to yell at Drejka which the deceased did not do. But had Drejka ignored my calls to back away from my wife I would have shoved him also. So I am up in the air on whether he was justified. Drejka even if not guilty of manslaughter should have been charged for creating the disturbance. He had absolutely no authority to act as parking enforcement.
I parked in a regular spot when some loud mouth handicap parking spot social justice warrior started yelling at me. She thought it was a handicapped spot. She was fairly certain of herself even though she was not in a position to see I was in a regular spot, but she was certainly worked up about it. Having experience that, I'll bet Djejka was just as loud if not more. I'm not surprised McGlockton stepped in to protect his woman and kids. Djejka was spoiling for a fight and he got it. He can rot in prison.
Rastoff
US Veteran
It's clear as crystal that McGlockton was NOT justified in his actions. Unless his significant other was being threatened with some kind of physical violence, she wasn't, pushing/shoving Drejka was unjustified. Absolutely no cause to shove anyone in that situation.
If Drejka had half a brain, after being shoved, he should have called the police and pressed assault charges on McGlockton. It would have been a slam dunk case and McGlockton would have spent time in jail instead of Drejka. Alas, Drejka wasn't satisfied with the speed of the justice system and took things into his own hands. Now he's in jail awaiting a prison term.
fredj338
Member
without provocation? You go yelling & screaming at anyones significant other you are likely getting knocked on your azzz. Drejka was a nut looking to shoot someone, period.
Last edited:
In any event, this is now resolved by the court. If the convicted defendant feels it's a wrong decision, he can appeal. If he can't afford a lawyer, the good citizens of his state will pay for one.
I wonder how much money his opinion about illegal parking has cost taxpayers as of today? Wonder if his criminal actions will negatively impact my rights and yours as voters tire of this?
I wonder how much money his opinion about illegal parking has cost taxpayers as of today? Wonder if his criminal actions will negatively impact my rights and yours as voters tire of this?
Last edited:
nbedford
Member
Whatever you say can and will be used against you. Blame it on your lawyer; say "I would like to tell you what happened but my lawyer told me not to talk".
Lightfoot4
Member
In this, and other posts, you have absolutely nailed what happened. People are putting themselves in the "shoes" of the video camera instead of Drejka, who was violently knocked to the ground and looking up at two aggressors.
Rastoff
US Veteran
I'm sure that Drejka saw exactly this however, that's not the reality.
The woman was never an aggressor. From what I can see, she never touched Drejka or moved toward him. She did get out of the car, but nothing that can be seen in the video shows her to be any kind of threat to Drejka.
McGlockton did indeed shove Drejka violently. There isn't a court in the land that wouldn't convict McGlockton of assault. Even so, when Drejka shot him, he was backing up. Any time an assailant, who doesn't have a firearm, is moving away, the threat is over. Once the threat ends, you no longer have the right to shoot them.
I'm very glad you said this in this exact way jeffpo. You are indeed seeing through Drejka's eyes. Alas, just because Drejka saw two assailants doesn't mean he has the right to shoot them. This was Drejka's downfall; he didn't have a clear understanding of what was actually happening vs what he thought was happening.
Anyone who carries a gun needs to up their game a little. They need to be more aware, more attentive to what's going on. They can't just pull out their gun and start blasting away because they think something is dangerous. They need to KNOW that there's a deadly threat or not. His lack of awareness is what put Drejka in prison.
Again, if Drejka had just crawled away or stopped as soon as there was space between him and McGlockton, he would be free and McGlockton would be in prison for assault.
Similar threads
