Why Michael Drejka (The Clearwater Shooter) will Cop A Plea.

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by The Professor, Aug 19, 2018.

  1. The Professor
    Offline

    The Professor Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    15,341
    Thanks Received:
    22,433
    Trophy Points:
    2,405
    Ratings:
    +25,826
    When the sheriff refused to arrest Michael Drejka I wrote that I would be shocked if the State Attorney did not file charges against the man. That has happened and the only question is whether the defendant can present a credible claim of self-defense. I am convinced he cannot and he will accept a plea agreement.

    Self-defense is defined as the right of an innocent person to use a sufficient level of force to prevent unlawful injury to himself or other innocent parties. As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. Moreover, the use of force in self-defense generally loses justification once the threat has ended. For example, if an aggressor shoves a man to the ground but then ends the assault and performs an act that indicates there is no longer a threat, then the threat of danger has ended. Any use of force by the victim against the assailant at that point would be considered retaliatory and not self-defense. The following link gives a good analysis of the use of self-defense:

    Self-Defense Overview - FindLaw

    Willfully taking the life of another is a crime in any situation one could possibly imagine unless the law provides for a specific exception. When it comes to the use of deadly force the Florida Statutes are plain and unambiguous:

    776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—

    (1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

    (2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony . A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

    History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27; s. 3, ch. 2014-195.

    In interpreting law, a basis tenet is that each word is significant. In the quoted statute deadly force is allowed when one reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary. What is reasonable is a matter for the jury to decide. The jury is instructed to determine what a reasonably prudent man would have believed under the same circumstances . Here are the relevant portions of the exact jury instructions given in the George Zimmerman case relative to the issue of self defense:

    “A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.”

    Judge Debra Nelson – Jury Instructions for George Zimmerman Case | Genius

    The video clearly shows the victim merely shoved the defendant to the ground and then backed away. After the defendant drew his weapon the victim backed away even further. They appeared to be about 12 feet apart when the defendant shot the unarmed victim . I cannot comprehend how a reasonably prudent person could believe the victim posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the defendant.

    The bad news for the defendant is that most people who saw the video believe the defendant is guilty. I believe that around 80 percent of those who responded to a poll on USMB thought he should have been arrested. I am sure that figure would have been much higher if posters knew about other evidence against the defendant, and there is more:

    “Three other incidents involving Drejka are detailed in the affidavit that may also be used in trial under Florida's similar fact, or 'Williams Rule' evidence. While that evidence can not be solely relied on to convict Drejka, it can be used to show a pattern of conduct with a similar motive, lack of mistake or accident, or even proving identity. Witnesses involved in those incidents would have to testify themselves in court.

    “One incident reportedly occurred in the same parking lot of the Circle A store 3 months before McGlockton was shot. A septic truck driver parked in a handicapped spot, was confronted by Drejka. According to the affidavit, Drejka threatened to shoot the driver before he left in his truck, shouting racial slurs at the driver. Drejka then called the driver's boss to complain and ending the call by reportedly saying he was 'lucky he didn't blow his employee's head off.'

    “Two other road rage type incidents are also reported from 2012. One involves two teens stopping at a yellow light that was about to turn red on State Road 580. Drejka allegedly honks his horn and yells at the driver. At some point Drejka holds a handgun out the driver's side window. Neither of the teens decided to press charges.

    “Another incident occurred in December of 2012. A female driver told a Largo Police Officer that Drejka had pointed a gun at her and the people in her car. The affidavit goes on to say that the officer tracked down Drejka and spoke with him about what happened. Drejka reportedly complained that the woman was driving too slow in a school zone, but denied pulling out a gun. That driver then left the area.”

    Legal Battle Over Clearwater Shooting Case begins | 970 WFLA

    It was also obvious that at least some members who thought the defendant should not have been arrested relied on what the sheriff said:

    "Stand Your Ground allows for a subjective belief by the person that they are in harm's way....We don't get to substitute our judgment for Drejka's judgment …. The question is not what I would do, what you would do, what the public would do, what someone else would do …. What really matters, is the person's subjective determination of the circumstance they were in and the fear that they had.”

    ‘Stand Your Ground’ Did Not Kill Markeis McGlockton

    Well, the sheriff was wrong. The law does not allow the use of deadly force when one subjectively believes it is necessary; instead, it provides that deadly force is allowed only when one reasonably believes it is necessary and the jury gets to determine what is and what is not reasonable. The sheriff's interpretation of the law is both uninformed and illogical. I can only wonder how the sheriff can determine one's subjective state of mind. Apparently he relies solely upon what the person tells him! This has led some posters to believe that in Florida a person could kill someone and get away with it merely by claiming he believed it was necessary for self-defense. That's not the way we do things in my home state of Florida.

    CONCLUSION: All the evidence points to the fact that at the very moment the defendant pulled the trigger, he was not in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death; therefore the use of deadly force was unlawful. I believe the man will accept a plea agreement . I cannot believe that a jury would acquit him. I watched the video and if I were sitting on a jury I would find him guilty.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. protectionist
    Offline

    protectionist Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    26,149
    Thanks Received:
    2,272
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +10,816
    There would have to be some sympathy for Drjeka due to the fact that McGlockton's girlfriend started the ruckus by parking illegally in a handicapped spot, and McGlockton attacking Drejka. Just before the shooting both the girlfriend (who was getting out of her car) and McGlockton were advancing toward Djreka. Without these, there would have been no shooting.

    There could also be a heat of passion defense, since there was only a second or two before McGockton started backing off, and Djreka was already in the process of shooting. When threatened, it's not so easy to pull back from firing.

    Also, could Dreka be entirely sure that McGlockton might not go back to him, and him and the girlfriend would not go for his gun ?

    Just some thoughts - maybe they'll come up in the trial.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2018
  3. JoeB131
    Offline

    JoeB131 Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    102,309
    Thanks Received:
    8,637
    Trophy Points:
    2,055
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +24,222
    Nope. This guy is going down. Probably best to cop a plea.

    The days of you guys shooting innocent black folks is coming to an end.
     
  4. Flash
    Offline

    Flash Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2014
    Messages:
    14,474
    Thanks Received:
    4,050
    Trophy Points:
    390
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +33,701
    His arrest was stupid filthy political correctness to appease the Blacks. Just like when Zimmerman was arrested in an obvious self defense case.

    His arrest is the government having the lack of courage to do the right thing. He was viciously attacked and he defended himself. Because the Blacks used their typical "ma baby didndunutin" rantings the filthy government is making the guy go through a trail. Despicable.isn't it?
     
  5. OODA_Loop
    Offline

    OODA_Loop Account Terminated

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2011
    Messages:
    8,328
    Thanks Received:
    644
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Lubyanka
    Ratings:
    +1,645
    Law Enforcement investigated and made statements on the record it was lawful self-defense.

    Good luck convicting with no evidence
     
  6. Meathead
    Offline

    Meathead Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    25,391
    Thanks Received:
    3,444
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Prague, Czech Republic
    Ratings:
    +18,903
    "You guys innocent shooting black folks"?

    You are one very deranged puppy.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  7. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    166,426
    Thanks Received:
    14,930
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +51,084
    drejka's lawyer is already talking a plea deal with the DA.
     
  8. miketx
    Offline

    miketx Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2015
    Messages:
    53,279
    Thanks Received:
    6,026
    Trophy Points:
    1,870
    Ratings:
    +60,822
    I didn't see any innocent black folk in that video, liar. I saw a violent black thug violently shove an older man to the ground.
     
  9. The Professor
    Offline

    The Professor Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    15,341
    Thanks Received:
    22,433
    Trophy Points:
    2,405
    Ratings:
    +25,826
    I don't see it that way. The victim was not advancing toward the defendant just before he got shot. The video shows that immediately after he pushed the defendant to the ground he backed away. He backed away even further when the defendant showed his gun.

    This whole “it all happened so quickly” defenses won't work. The jury will watch the entire event unfold in real time and will make a judgment based upon what they see. Most of those who saw the video thought the man was guilty based on that evidence alone . So did I and I consider myself to be a reasonably prudent man. Plus, there is additional evidence as I have pointed out, including the following:

    “One incident reportedly occurred in the same parking lot of the Circle A store 3 months before McGlockton was shot. A septic truck driver parked in a handicapped spot, was confronted by Drejka. According to the affidavit, Drejka threatened to shoot the driver before he left in his truck, shouting racial slurs at the driver. Drejka then called the driver's boss to complain and ending the call by reportedly saying he was 'lucky he didn't blow his employee's head off.'”

    Finally, you ask, “Also, could Dreka be entirely sure that McGlockton might not go back to him, and him and the girlfriend would not go for his gun?” My answer is that the defendant's irrational fear of something which might possibly happen is as irrelevant as the price of tea in China. As I was careful to point out in my post, deadly force is allowed only when a threat is imminent. In this case neither the victim nor his girlfriend were advancing toward the defendant or going for the defendant's gun when the shot was fired, hence no imminent threat of this unfounded possibility.
     
  10. JoeB131
    Offline

    JoeB131 Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    102,309
    Thanks Received:
    8,637
    Trophy Points:
    2,055
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +24,222
    After that older man attacked his wife and kids. Once he was backing off, he was no longer a threat. This guy is going to jail with the brothers... and payback time, bitches.

    You mean other than the tape where he shoots the guy when he is backing off. This guy is pretty clearly guilty.

    Naw, what's despicable is that this guy has threatened a lot of people with his gun, and they never took it away from him.

    But unlike Zimmerman, we have clear taped evidence of what happened.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

mixhael drejka innocent