Convenient store stand-your-ground shooter charged

[satrebil]

For the record, and despite all the "racist Nazi bigot" labels our resident leftists have thrown at me over my past year on this forum, I believe the jury made the right call.

Drejka was attacked by McGlockton, that is undeniable. Because of the attack, Drejka pulled his firearm - an acceptable "use of force" to prevent further attack. 9 times out of 10, that's all you need to do - brandish. But he fucked up. McGlockton was clearly retreating and Drejka shot him anyway. That doesn't make it murder, because he almost certainly didn't go to the gas station with the intent to kill someone - but it definitely makes it manslaughter. He won't get 30 years, but whatever he does get he deserves.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Here is another video of the event. Get your stop watch out and time how long it took for Drejka to pull the trigger after he managed to get his weapon out.

Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law

The point is not how long it took him to shoot, but how quickly he shot!

He never had to pull that trigger. I don't understand why you cannot see that. Perhaps a trip to the optometrist is in order.

If your life is in danger and when you have been subjected to a felonious assault you best believe your life may be in danger and if you are interested in defending your life or limb then you must act as quickly as possible..though you do have two options....hope or pray your attacker does not kill your or maim you or you can choose to fight back.

What would you have done if it had been you?

If this goes to trial, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a deadlocked Jury. Getting six people to agree if McGlockton was retreating or not may be the state’s biggest burden to overcome.

Well, obviously they succeeded. If one watches the video carefully you will see the black guy take one or two steps towards drjka after he had knocked him down. He only stops when he sees the firearm come out. Then he takes one or two steps back and turns sideways. All of this occurred very quickly....and yet the jury most likely watching the video in slow motion interpeted that the black guy was retreating....but to the shooter on the ground in fear of his life...his perception was quite different.

You are making a lot of assumptions there that are not in evidence. The jury decided. Suck it up and move on!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The point is not how long it took him to shoot, but how quickly he shot!

He never had to pull that trigger. I don't understand why you cannot see that. Perhaps a trip to the optometrist is in order.

If your life is in danger and when you have been subjected to a felonious assault you best believe your life may be in danger and if you are interested in defending your life or limb then you must act as quickly as possible..though you do have two options....hope or pray your attacker does not kill your or maim you or you can choose to fight back.

What would you have done if it had been you?

Minded my own business first and then I would not have pulled that trigger in any case unless he tried again.

Nonsense. He had a disabled family member so he was justifiably irritated by folks parking illegally in handicapped spaces. He had every right to talk to the black woman and point out the fact she was illegally parked...and her reaction was to go off on him.

In hindsight and with the benefit of slow motion video it is easy to say you would not have pulled the trigger. But if it had been you who had been violently and feloniously assaulted you might have a different view.

Drejka did not have the benefit of watching a slow motion video or hindsight to determine whether or not he should shoot. He was in justifiable fear of his life...but due to the political climate today he has been convicted and most likely will spend the rest of his life in prison....he has health issues.

He could be sentenced up to 30 yrs. since mansalughter with the use of a firearm is a first degree felony. I do not think he will get 30 yrs. but it will be a long term he will be sentenced to...at his age and with his state of health it will amount to a death sentence.

His lawyer says there will be an appeal but I see no chance of success there.

Was the shooter authorized to write a ticket for illegally parking in a handicapped parking space? No Therefore, he should have never even addressed the woman in the car. Everything he did was fucked up!

That's why he was guilty of manslaughter.

He had every right to tell the woman she should not have parked in the handicapped spot. He in no way threatened her but the state was able to convince the jury of that.

Yet, you are right because in todays political climate one must be very,very careful in dealing with a protected class of people.

However, at first he did not even realize there was anyone in the car due to the tinted windows...as he was checking the rear of the car and then the front of the car for handicapped placards the black lady rolled down her window and essentially went off on him. Instead of walking away he tried to persuade her that she was in the wrong but it resulted in a heated argument with her actually threatening him.

His biggest mistake though as previously pointed out was talking to the police without his lawyer.

No, his biggest mistake was sticking his nose where it did not belong. That started the entire incident.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Lot of conservatives here who would convict the guy ....the film is damning.......side angle especially.............

Florida man found guilty of manslaughter in parking lot shooting that led to 'Stand Your Ground' trial
Guy didnt take the stand in his own defense....

He made the classic mistake of talking to the police without a lawyer. He sat in a police interrogation room for over 6 hrs and talked and talked. He thought the police were his friends as in he identified with them so much. His father was a state patrolman for over 28 yrs.

He was so convinced he was in the right that he was apparantly not worried about his words being used against him.

The jury made a huge mistake and this case will have a lot of ramifications none of which are good for society in general.

The concept of self-defense was struck a huge blow by this fallacious verdict.

Everyone that carries a concealed weapon should be on notice that your right to use that weapon in self defense has been struck a huge blow.

The main thing most should learn from this case is how one should never talk to the police without the presence of your lawyer. As is plainly said in the miranda rights....what you say can and WILL be used against you.

You are correct. I am a slow learner on that. You may agree with things politically but it can bite you in the azz with self serving egotists with power. Some of them are even church goers.

What it all comes down to even intelligent people will perceive things differently based on their past history, experience etc.

It would be interesting to hear how the jury made their decision but I doubt any of them will talk about it.

Also this thing of a jury only composed of 6 people I think works in the states favor.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Minded my own business first and then I would not have pulled that trigger in any case unless he tried again.

Nonsense. He had a disabled family member so he was justifiably irritated by folks parking illegally in handicapped spaces. He had every right to talk to the black woman and point out the fact she was illegally parked...and her reaction was to go off on him.

In hindsight and with the benefit of slow motion video it is easy to say you would not have pulled the trigger. But if it had been you who had been violently and feloniously assaulted you might have a different view.

Drejka did not have the benefit of watching a slow motion video or hindsight to determine whether or not he should shoot. He was in justifiable fear of his life...but due to the political climate today he has been convicted and most likely will spend the rest of his life in prison....he has health issues.

He could be sentenced up to 30 yrs. since mansalughter with the use of a firearm is a first degree felony. I do not think he will get 30 yrs. but it will be a long term he will be sentenced to...at his age and with his state of health it will amount to a death sentence.

His lawyer says there will be an appeal but I see no chance of success there.

Was the shooter authorized to write a ticket for illegally parking in a handicapped parking space? No Therefore, he should have never even addressed the woman in the car. Everything he did was fucked up!

That's why he was guilty of manslaughter.

He had every right to tell the woman she should not have parked in the handicapped spot. He in no way threatened her but the state was able to convince the jury of that.

Yet, you are right because in todays political climate one must be very,very careful in dealing with a protected class of people.

However, at first he did not even realize there was anyone in the car due to the tinted windows...as he was checking the rear of the car and then the front of the car for handicapped placards the black lady rolled down her window and essentially went off on him. Instead of walking away he tried to persuade her that she was in the wrong but it resulted in a heated argument with her actually threatening him.

His biggest mistake though as previously pointed out was talking to the police without his lawyer.

When you don't take the stand in your own defense ...probably doesn't go over well with the jury. . Right to carry or stand your ground is unaffected. You can reargue all you want...your side was wrong before and still is. He had every opportunity to deescalate and leave when they were arguing .....but didn't.

Well, of course with the benefit of hindsight I am sure drjka would have done things differently. But he did not have the benefit of hindsight or a slow motion video.

Due to a family member being handicapped it was pet peeve of his that lots of folks illegally park in handicap spots. He had confronted people about this before and he had every right do do so.

What he did not adequately appreciate was todays political climate. That there is a double standard when it comes to blacks. Political correctness rules. If you do not understand that you do so at your own peril.

This unjust conviction will also cause more problems for the police. Already under attack matters will only get worse for them.

No, what you are really saying is that you are a racist.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

If your life is in danger and when you have been subjected to a felonious assault you best believe your life may be in danger and if you are interested in defending your life or limb then you must act as quickly as possible..though you do have two options....hope or pray your attacker does not kill your or maim you or you can choose to fight back.

What would you have done if it had been you?

Minded my own business first and then I would not have pulled that trigger in any case unless he tried again.

Nonsense. He had a disabled family member so he was justifiably irritated by folks parking illegally in handicapped spaces. He had every right to talk to the black woman and point out the fact she was illegally parked...and her reaction was to go off on him.

In hindsight and with the benefit of slow motion video it is easy to say you would not have pulled the trigger. But if it had been you who had been violently and feloniously assaulted you might have a different view.

Drejka did not have the benefit of watching a slow motion video or hindsight to determine whether or not he should shoot. He was in justifiable fear of his life...but due to the political climate today he has been convicted and most likely will spend the rest of his life in prison....he has health issues.

He could be sentenced up to 30 yrs. since mansalughter with the use of a firearm is a first degree felony. I do not think he will get 30 yrs. but it will be a long term he will be sentenced to...at his age and with his state of health it will amount to a death sentence.

His lawyer says there will be an appeal but I see no chance of success there.

Was the shooter authorized to write a ticket for illegally parking in a handicapped parking space? No Therefore, he should have never even addressed the woman in the car. Everything he did was fucked up!

That's why he was guilty of manslaughter.

He had every right to tell the woman she should not have parked in the handicapped spot. He in no way threatened her but the state was able to convince the jury of that.

Yet, you are right because in todays political climate one must be very,very careful in dealing with a protected class of people.

However, at first he did not even realize there was anyone in the car due to the tinted windows...as he was checking the rear of the car and then the front of the car for handicapped placards the black lady rolled down her window and essentially went off on him. Instead of walking away he tried to persuade her that she was in the wrong but it resulted in a heated argument with her actually threatening him.

His biggest mistake though as previously pointed out was talking to the police without his lawyer.

No, his biggest mistake was sticking his nose where it did not belong. That started the entire incident.

He was perfectly within the law to confront the woman about her illegally parking in a handicapped spot. I do not think he should be condemned for that but obviously it was used by the state against him and to his harm.

A reasonable person sitting in a car illegally parked would not respond the way the black woman did. Most people would say I am sorry and I will move the car. That is not what the black woman did however. She went off on drjka and even threatened him. Which resulted in a heated argument.

When her b/f got wind of something going on in the parking lot--he rushed out--did not bother to ask any questions. He simply and immediately feloniously assaulted drjka without a clue as to what was really happening.

The state obviously was able to convince the jury he had a right to do this. That he was protecting his family.

Nonsense but they prevailed basically because of todays political climate.

Though the black woman was able to pull off her deceit and convince the jury she felt threatened by drejka thus contributing greatly to his conviction, she undoubtedly knows she is the one responsible for getting the whole thing going. If she had reacted normally her b/f and family provider would still be alive. I cannot believe she is happy now with her behavior.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Minded my own business first and then I would not have pulled that trigger in any case unless he tried again.

Nonsense. He had a disabled family member so he was justifiably irritated by folks parking illegally in handicapped spaces. He had every right to talk to the black woman and point out the fact she was illegally parked...and her reaction was to go off on him.

In hindsight and with the benefit of slow motion video it is easy to say you would not have pulled the trigger. But if it had been you who had been violently and feloniously assaulted you might have a different view.

Drejka did not have the benefit of watching a slow motion video or hindsight to determine whether or not he should shoot. He was in justifiable fear of his life...but due to the political climate today he has been convicted and most likely will spend the rest of his life in prison....he has health issues.

He could be sentenced up to 30 yrs. since mansalughter with the use of a firearm is a first degree felony. I do not think he will get 30 yrs. but it will be a long term he will be sentenced to...at his age and with his state of health it will amount to a death sentence.

His lawyer says there will be an appeal but I see no chance of success there.

Was the shooter authorized to write a ticket for illegally parking in a handicapped parking space? No Therefore, he should have never even addressed the woman in the car. Everything he did was fucked up!

That's why he was guilty of manslaughter.

He had every right to tell the woman she should not have parked in the handicapped spot. He in no way threatened her but the state was able to convince the jury of that.

Yet, you are right because in todays political climate one must be very,very careful in dealing with a protected class of people.

However, at first he did not even realize there was anyone in the car due to the tinted windows...as he was checking the rear of the car and then the front of the car for handicapped placards the black lady rolled down her window and essentially went off on him. Instead of walking away he tried to persuade her that she was in the wrong but it resulted in a heated argument with her actually threatening him.

His biggest mistake though as previously pointed out was talking to the police without his lawyer.

No, his biggest mistake was sticking his nose where it did not belong. That started the entire incident.

He was perfectly within the law to confront the woman about her illegally parking in a handicapped spot. I do not think he should be condemned for that but obviously it was used by the state against him and to his harm.

A reasonable person sitting in a car illegally parked would not respond the way the black woman did. Most people would say I am sorry and I will move the car. That is not what the black woman did however. She went off on drjka and even threatened him. Which resulted in a heated argument.

When her b/f got wind of something going on in the parking lot--he rushed out--did not bother to ask any questions. He simply and immediately feloniously assaulted drjka without a clue as to what was really happening.

The state obviously was able to convince the jury he had a right to do this. That he was protecting his family.

Nonsense but they prevailed basically because of todays political climate.

How was he within the law to confront her? Explain that please! He had no power to enforce the law. What he should have done is notified the store owner/manager whose property they were both on.

Let me ask you a simple question. Were you in the courtroom for the trial? If not, where are you getting all of this information? I can only assume that you are simply making it up as you go.

BTW, pushing someone is not felonious assault by any stretch of the imagination.

You are making shit up as you go.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Nonsense. He had a disabled family member so he was justifiably irritated by folks parking illegally in handicapped spaces. He had every right to talk to the black woman and point out the fact she was illegally parked...and her reaction was to go off on him.

In hindsight and with the benefit of slow motion video it is easy to say you would not have pulled the trigger. But if it had been you who had been violently and feloniously assaulted you might have a different view.

Drejka did not have the benefit of watching a slow motion video or hindsight to determine whether or not he should shoot. He was in justifiable fear of his life...but due to the political climate today he has been convicted and most likely will spend the rest of his life in prison....he has health issues.

He could be sentenced up to 30 yrs. since mansalughter with the use of a firearm is a first degree felony. I do not think he will get 30 yrs. but it will be a long term he will be sentenced to...at his age and with his state of health it will amount to a death sentence.

His lawyer says there will be an appeal but I see no chance of success there.

Was the shooter authorized to write a ticket for illegally parking in a handicapped parking space? No Therefore, he should have never even addressed the woman in the car. Everything he did was fucked up!

That's why he was guilty of manslaughter.

He had every right to tell the woman she should not have parked in the handicapped spot. He in no way threatened her but the state was able to convince the jury of that.

Yet, you are right because in todays political climate one must be very,very careful in dealing with a protected class of people.

However, at first he did not even realize there was anyone in the car due to the tinted windows...as he was checking the rear of the car and then the front of the car for handicapped placards the black lady rolled down her window and essentially went off on him. Instead of walking away he tried to persuade her that she was in the wrong but it resulted in a heated argument with her actually threatening him.

His biggest mistake though as previously pointed out was talking to the police without his lawyer.

No, his biggest mistake was sticking his nose where it did not belong. That started the entire incident.

He was perfectly within the law to confront the woman about her illegally parking in a handicapped spot. I do not think he should be condemned for that but obviously it was used by the state against him and to his harm.

A reasonable person sitting in a car illegally parked would not respond the way the black woman did. Most people would say I am sorry and I will move the car. That is not what the black woman did however. She went off on drjka and even threatened him. Which resulted in a heated argument.

When her b/f got wind of something going on in the parking lot--he rushed out--did not bother to ask any questions. He simply and immediately feloniously assaulted drjka without a clue as to what was really happening.

The state obviously was able to convince the jury he had a right to do this. That he was protecting his family.

Nonsense but they prevailed basically because of todays political climate.

How was he within the law to confront her? Explain that please! He had no power to enforce the law. What he should have done is notified the store owner/manager whose property they were both on.

Let me ask you a simple question. Were you in the courtroom for the trial? If not, where are you getting all of this information? I can only assume that you are simply making it up as you go.

BTW, pushing someone is not felonious assault by any stretch of the imagination.

You are making shit up as you go.

I did watch the trial. It was brought out in the trial that violently shoving someone to the ground and injuring them is a felonious assault--unfortunately the jury must have ignored that.

BTW citizens to have the right to make a citizen arrest, though he did not attempt to do that. All he was doing was pointing out to her she should not park in a handicap spot. The black woman took great offense to that.

As Americans we can approach anyone and talk to them. He in no way threatened her. Watch the video and you will note he was several feet away from her. He talked to her and pointed his finger at her. The prosecution claimed that was threatening behavior. Ridiculous.

Now, I do agree with the benefit of hindsight that as soon as he realized he was dealing with a black person he should have walked away. Some people are just politically clueless--do not understand the double standard when it comes to blacks.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Was the shooter authorized to write a ticket for illegally parking in a handicapped parking space? No Therefore, he should have never even addressed the woman in the car. Everything he did was fucked up!

That's why he was guilty of manslaughter.

He had every right to tell the woman she should not have parked in the handicapped spot. He in no way threatened her but the state was able to convince the jury of that.

Yet, you are right because in todays political climate one must be very,very careful in dealing with a protected class of people.

However, at first he did not even realize there was anyone in the car due to the tinted windows...as he was checking the rear of the car and then the front of the car for handicapped placards the black lady rolled down her window and essentially went off on him. Instead of walking away he tried to persuade her that she was in the wrong but it resulted in a heated argument with her actually threatening him.

His biggest mistake though as previously pointed out was talking to the police without his lawyer.

No, his biggest mistake was sticking his nose where it did not belong. That started the entire incident.

He was perfectly within the law to confront the woman about her illegally parking in a handicapped spot. I do not think he should be condemned for that but obviously it was used by the state against him and to his harm.

A reasonable person sitting in a car illegally parked would not respond the way the black woman did. Most people would say I am sorry and I will move the car. That is not what the black woman did however. She went off on drjka and even threatened him. Which resulted in a heated argument.

When her b/f got wind of something going on in the parking lot--he rushed out--did not bother to ask any questions. He simply and immediately feloniously assaulted drjka without a clue as to what was really happening.

The state obviously was able to convince the jury he had a right to do this. That he was protecting his family.

Nonsense but they prevailed basically because of todays political climate.

How was he within the law to confront her? Explain that please! He had no power to enforce the law. What he should have done is notified the store owner/manager whose property they were both on.

Let me ask you a simple question. Were you in the courtroom for the trial? If not, where are you getting all of this information? I can only assume that you are simply making it up as you go.

BTW, pushing someone is not felonious assault by any stretch of the imagination.

You are making shit up as you go.

I did watch the trial. It was brought out in the trial that violently shoving someone to the ground is a felonious assault--unfortunately the jury must have ignored that.

BTW citizens to have the right to make a citizen arrest, though he did not attempt to do that. All he was doing was pointing out to her she should not park in a handicap spot. The black woman took great offense to that.

As Americans we can approach anyone and talk to them. He in no way threatened her. Watch the video and you will note he was several feet away from her. He talked to her and pointed his finger at her. The prosecution claimed that was threatening behavior. Ridiculous.

Now, I do agree with the benefit of hindsight that as soon as he realized he was dealing with a black person he should have walked away. Some people are just politically clueless--do not understand the double standard when it comes to blacks.

So you sat in the courtroom for the trial? The entire trial?

Here is law on felonious assault. It does not apply:

(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

You cannot arrest someone for parking in a handicapped parking space.

I have repeatedly shown that you are simply wrong on many of the excuse you have offered.

I still maintain that you are a racist. Your attitude oozes it all over your posts.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

He had every right to tell the woman she should not have parked in the handicapped spot. He in no way threatened her but the state was able to convince the jury of that.

Yet, you are right because in todays political climate one must be very,very careful in dealing with a protected class of people.

However, at first he did not even realize there was anyone in the car due to the tinted windows...as he was checking the rear of the car and then the front of the car for handicapped placards the black lady rolled down her window and essentially went off on him. Instead of walking away he tried to persuade her that she was in the wrong but it resulted in a heated argument with her actually threatening him.

His biggest mistake though as previously pointed out was talking to the police without his lawyer.

No, his biggest mistake was sticking his nose where it did not belong. That started the entire incident.

He was perfectly within the law to confront the woman about her illegally parking in a handicapped spot. I do not think he should be condemned for that but obviously it was used by the state against him and to his harm.

A reasonable person sitting in a car illegally parked would not respond the way the black woman did. Most people would say I am sorry and I will move the car. That is not what the black woman did however. She went off on drjka and even threatened him. Which resulted in a heated argument.

When her b/f got wind of something going on in the parking lot--he rushed out--did not bother to ask any questions. He simply and immediately feloniously assaulted drjka without a clue as to what was really happening.

The state obviously was able to convince the jury he had a right to do this. That he was protecting his family.

Nonsense but they prevailed basically because of todays political climate.

How was he within the law to confront her? Explain that please! He had no power to enforce the law. What he should have done is notified the store owner/manager whose property they were both on.

Let me ask you a simple question. Were you in the courtroom for the trial? If not, where are you getting all of this information? I can only assume that you are simply making it up as you go.

BTW, pushing someone is not felonious assault by any stretch of the imagination.

You are making shit up as you go.

I did watch the trial. It was brought out in the trial that violently shoving someone to the ground is a felonious assault--unfortunately the jury must have ignored that.

BTW citizens to have the right to make a citizen arrest, though he did not attempt to do that. All he was doing was pointing out to her she should not park in a handicap spot. The black woman took great offense to that.

As Americans we can approach anyone and talk to them. He in no way threatened her. Watch the video and you will note he was several feet away from her. He talked to her and pointed his finger at her. The prosecution claimed that was threatening behavior. Ridiculous.

Now, I do agree with the benefit of hindsight that as soon as he realized he was dealing with a black person he should have walked away. Some people are just politically clueless--do not understand the double standard when it comes to blacks.

So you sat in the courtroom for the trial? The entire trial?

Here is law on felonious assault. It does not apply:

(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

You cannot arrest someone for parking in a handicapped parking space.

I have repeatedly shown that you are simply wrong on many of the excuse you have offered.

I still maintain that you are a racist. Your attitude oozes it all over your posts.

I watched the entire trial on livestream video.

FL v. Michael Drejka: Guilty of Manslaughter - Court TV

In the defense lawyers summation he stated it was a felonious assault. Each state is different regarding the laws on assault. Perhaps the lawyer was from a different state. But he definitely said it was a felonious assault.

I think he is a very good lawyer, but it is possible he made a mistake. Even good lawyers make mistakes.

I am not sure what the correlation is between a felonious assault and a aggravated assault.

drjka did not attempt to arrest the woman. He merely talked to her. Absolutely and for sure there is no law against that.

It was also brought out in the trial that the black guy had a very high level of the drug called ectasy in his system. The defense's expert witness showed how that can contribute to aggressiveness.

He according to the state was trying to defend his family but he was driving around whilst high on drugs. What was wrong with this jury?

 

[The Professor]

The verdict was a good one. This is what I posted on USMB a long time ago, before Drejka was even arrested:

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 | NewsRadio 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.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No, his biggest mistake was sticking his nose where it did not belong. That started the entire incident.

He was perfectly within the law to confront the woman about her illegally parking in a handicapped spot. I do not think he should be condemned for that but obviously it was used by the state against him and to his harm.

A reasonable person sitting in a car illegally parked would not respond the way the black woman did. Most people would say I am sorry and I will move the car. That is not what the black woman did however. She went off on drjka and even threatened him. Which resulted in a heated argument.

When her b/f got wind of something going on in the parking lot--he rushed out--did not bother to ask any questions. He simply and immediately feloniously assaulted drjka without a clue as to what was really happening.

The state obviously was able to convince the jury he had a right to do this. That he was protecting his family.

Nonsense but they prevailed basically because of todays political climate.

How was he within the law to confront her? Explain that please! He had no power to enforce the law. What he should have done is notified the store owner/manager whose property they were both on.

Let me ask you a simple question. Were you in the courtroom for the trial? If not, where are you getting all of this information? I can only assume that you are simply making it up as you go.

BTW, pushing someone is not felonious assault by any stretch of the imagination.

You are making shit up as you go.

I did watch the trial. It was brought out in the trial that violently shoving someone to the ground is a felonious assault--unfortunately the jury must have ignored that.

BTW citizens to have the right to make a citizen arrest, though he did not attempt to do that. All he was doing was pointing out to her she should not park in a handicap spot. The black woman took great offense to that.

As Americans we can approach anyone and talk to them. He in no way threatened her. Watch the video and you will note he was several feet away from her. He talked to her and pointed his finger at her. The prosecution claimed that was threatening behavior. Ridiculous.

Now, I do agree with the benefit of hindsight that as soon as he realized he was dealing with a black person he should have walked away. Some people are just politically clueless--do not understand the double standard when it comes to blacks.

So you sat in the courtroom for the trial? The entire trial?

Here is law on felonious assault. It does not apply:

(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

You cannot arrest someone for parking in a handicapped parking space.

I have repeatedly shown that you are simply wrong on many of the excuse you have offered.

I still maintain that you are a racist. Your attitude oozes it all over your posts.

I watched the entire trial on livestream video.

FL v. Michael Drejka: Guilty of Manslaughter - Court TV

In the defense lawyers summation he stated it was a felonious assault. Each state is different regarding the laws on assault. Perhaps the lawyer was from a different state. But he definitely said it was a felonious assault.

I think he is a very good lawyer, but it is possible he made a mistake. Even good lawyers make mistakes.

I am not sure what the correlation is between a felonious assault and a aggravated assault.

drjka did not attempt to arrest the woman. He merely talked to her. Absolutely and for sure there is no law against that.

It was also brought out in the trial that the black guy had a very high level of the drug called ectasy in his system. The defense's expert witness showed how that can contribute to aggressiveness.

He according to the state was trying to defend his family but he was driving around whilst high on drugs. What was wrong with this jury?

Nothing. The defense lawyer was wrong. You know lawyers from other states cannot try a case in Florida unless they are familiar with Florida law. Right?

 

[Muhammed]

If your life is in danger and when you have been subjected to a felonious assault you best believe your life may be in danger and if you are interested in defending your life or limb then you must act as quickly as possible..though you do have two options....hope or pray your attacker does not kill your or maim you or you can choose to fight back.

What would you have done if it had been you?

Minded my own business first and then I would not have pulled that trigger in any case unless he tried again.

Nonsense. He had a disabled family member so he was justifiably irritated by folks parking illegally in handicapped spaces. He had every right to talk to the black woman and point out the fact she was illegally parked...and her reaction was to go off on him.

In hindsight and with the benefit of slow motion video it is easy to say you would not have pulled the trigger. But if it had been you who had been violently and feloniously assaulted you might have a different view.

Drejka did not have the benefit of watching a slow motion video or hindsight to determine whether or not he should shoot. He was in justifiable fear of his life...but due to the political climate today he has been convicted and most likely will spend the rest of his life in prison....he has health issues.

He could be sentenced up to 30 yrs. since mansalughter with the use of a firearm is a first degree felony. I do not think he will get 30 yrs. but it will be a long term he will be sentenced to...at his age and with his state of health it will amount to a death sentence.

His lawyer says there will be an appeal but I see no chance of success there.

Was the shooter authorized to write a ticket for illegally parking in a handicapped parking space? No Therefore, he should have never even addressed the woman in the car. Everything he did was fucked up!

That's why he was guilty of manslaughter.

He had every right to tell the woman she should not have parked in the handicapped spot. He in no way threatened her but the state was able to convince the jury of that.

Yet, you are right because in todays political climate one must be very,very careful in dealing with a protected class of people.

However, at first he did not even realize there was anyone in the car due to the tinted windows...as he was checking the rear of the car and then the front of the car for handicapped placards the black lady rolled down her window and essentially went off on him. Instead of walking away he tried to persuade her that she was in the wrong but it resulted in a heated argument with her actually threatening him.

His biggest mistake though as previously pointed out was talking to the police without his lawyer.

When you don't take the stand in your own defense ...probably doesn't go over well with the jury. . Right to carry or stand your ground is unaffected. You can reargue all you want...your side was wrong before and still is. He had every opportunity to deescalate and leave when they were arguing .....but didn't.

Nobody has any obligation to deescalate a conversation. See the 1st amendment.

And he was not arguing with the violent criminal who physically assaulted him in the first place. He obviously didn't even know the guy was there because as soon as he came out of the store, she charged at him from a different direction. He was blindsided.

And judging from obvious coordination of the unprovoked attack, this isn't the first time they have done this.

 

[Lewdog]

The verdict was a good one. This is what I posted on USMB a long time ago, before Drejka was even arrested:

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 | NewsRadio 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.

Yes there was actually only a few of us that argued that the defendant was misusing the law to try and get away with what was clearly a crime.

 

[Lewdog]

Minded my own business first and then I would not have pulled that trigger in any case unless he tried again.

Nonsense. He had a disabled family member so he was justifiably irritated by folks parking illegally in handicapped spaces. He had every right to talk to the black woman and point out the fact she was illegally parked...and her reaction was to go off on him.

In hindsight and with the benefit of slow motion video it is easy to say you would not have pulled the trigger. But if it had been you who had been violently and feloniously assaulted you might have a different view.

Drejka did not have the benefit of watching a slow motion video or hindsight to determine whether or not he should shoot. He was in justifiable fear of his life...but due to the political climate today he has been convicted and most likely will spend the rest of his life in prison....he has health issues.

He could be sentenced up to 30 yrs. since mansalughter with the use of a firearm is a first degree felony. I do not think he will get 30 yrs. but it will be a long term he will be sentenced to...at his age and with his state of health it will amount to a death sentence.

His lawyer says there will be an appeal but I see no chance of success there.

Was the shooter authorized to write a ticket for illegally parking in a handicapped parking space? No Therefore, he should have never even addressed the woman in the car. Everything he did was fucked up!

That's why he was guilty of manslaughter.

He had every right to tell the woman she should not have parked in the handicapped spot. He in no way threatened her but the state was able to convince the jury of that.

Yet, you are right because in todays political climate one must be very,very careful in dealing with a protected class of people.

However, at first he did not even realize there was anyone in the car due to the tinted windows...as he was checking the rear of the car and then the front of the car for handicapped placards the black lady rolled down her window and essentially went off on him. Instead of walking away he tried to persuade her that she was in the wrong but it resulted in a heated argument with her actually threatening him.

His biggest mistake though as previously pointed out was talking to the police without his lawyer.

When you don't take the stand in your own defense ...probably doesn't go over well with the jury. . Right to carry or stand your ground is unaffected. You can reargue all you want...your side was wrong before and still is. He had every opportunity to deescalate and leave when they were arguing .....but didn't.

Nobody has any obligation to deescalate a conversation. See the 1st amendment.

Actually... there is a law called "terroristic threats" that often goes along with serious arguments and is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

[Muhammed]

Nonsense. He had a disabled family member so he was justifiably irritated by folks parking illegally in handicapped spaces. He had every right to talk to the black woman and point out the fact she was illegally parked...and her reaction was to go off on him.

In hindsight and with the benefit of slow motion video it is easy to say you would not have pulled the trigger. But if it had been you who had been violently and feloniously assaulted you might have a different view.

Drejka did not have the benefit of watching a slow motion video or hindsight to determine whether or not he should shoot. He was in justifiable fear of his life...but due to the political climate today he has been convicted and most likely will spend the rest of his life in prison....he has health issues.

He could be sentenced up to 30 yrs. since mansalughter with the use of a firearm is a first degree felony. I do not think he will get 30 yrs. but it will be a long term he will be sentenced to...at his age and with his state of health it will amount to a death sentence.

His lawyer says there will be an appeal but I see no chance of success there.

Was the shooter authorized to write a ticket for illegally parking in a handicapped parking space? No Therefore, he should have never even addressed the woman in the car. Everything he did was fucked up!

That's why he was guilty of manslaughter.

He had every right to tell the woman she should not have parked in the handicapped spot. He in no way threatened her but the state was able to convince the jury of that.

Yet, you are right because in todays political climate one must be very,very careful in dealing with a protected class of people.

However, at first he did not even realize there was anyone in the car due to the tinted windows...as he was checking the rear of the car and then the front of the car for handicapped placards the black lady rolled down her window and essentially went off on him. Instead of walking away he tried to persuade her that she was in the wrong but it resulted in a heated argument with her actually threatening him.

His biggest mistake though as previously pointed out was talking to the police without his lawyer.

When you don't take the stand in your own defense ...probably doesn't go over well with the jury. . Right to carry or stand your ground is unaffected. You can reargue all you want...your side was wrong before and still is. He had every opportunity to deescalate and leave when they were arguing .....but didn't.

Nobody has any obligation to deescalate a conversation. See the 1st amendment.

Actually... there is a law called "terroristic threats" that often goes along with serious arguments and is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

There was no "terroristic threat" you ******* moron.

 

[KissMy]

For the record, and despite all the "racist Nazi bigot" labels our resident leftists have thrown at me over my past year on this forum, I believe the jury made the right call.

Drejka was attacked by McGlockton, that is undeniable. Because of the attack, Drejka pulled his firearm - an acceptable "use of force" to prevent further attack. 9 times out of 10, that's all you need to do - brandish. But he fucked up. McGlockton was clearly retreating and Drejka shot him anyway. That doesn't make it murder, because he almost certainly didn't go to the gas station with the intent to kill someone - but it definitely makes it manslaughter. He won't get 30 years, but whatever he does get he deserves.

Drejka did go to the gas station with the intent to act as an armed vigilante as he did on prior occasions. He was also the initial aggressor causing unarmed McGlockton to justifiably fear for his families life. McGlockton was also unarmed & retreating when Drejka shot to kill. Drejka did murder, should be charged, convicted & sued for more than enough to care for McGlockton's surviving family.

 

[Lewdog]

Was the shooter authorized to write a ticket for illegally parking in a handicapped parking space? No Therefore, he should have never even addressed the woman in the car. Everything he did was fucked up!

That's why he was guilty of manslaughter.

He had every right to tell the woman she should not have parked in the handicapped spot. He in no way threatened her but the state was able to convince the jury of that.

Yet, you are right because in todays political climate one must be very,very careful in dealing with a protected class of people.

However, at first he did not even realize there was anyone in the car due to the tinted windows...as he was checking the rear of the car and then the front of the car for handicapped placards the black lady rolled down her window and essentially went off on him. Instead of walking away he tried to persuade her that she was in the wrong but it resulted in a heated argument with her actually threatening him.

His biggest mistake though as previously pointed out was talking to the police without his lawyer.

When you don't take the stand in your own defense ...probably doesn't go over well with the jury. . Right to carry or stand your ground is unaffected. You can reargue all you want...your side was wrong before and still is. He had every opportunity to deescalate and leave when they were arguing .....but didn't.

Nobody has any obligation to deescalate a conversation. See the 1st amendment.

Actually... there is a law called "terroristic threats" that often goes along with serious arguments and is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

There was no "terroristic threat" you ******* moron.

I was responding to your stupid response that "Nobody has any obligation to deescalate a conversation. See the 1st amendment."

That's obviously wrong. You should be more careful about trying to demean other's intelligence when you are the one wrong.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

The bottom line is simply this.

The defendant was perfectly within his legal rights to tell the woman she was illegally parked and she should move her car. to a legal parking space and there was no shortage of them.

A reasonable person would have apologized and moved the car. However this black woman was not a reasonable person. She threw a fit, as in the vernacular 'she went off' on the defendant' telling him just to wait till her man got back and he would **** him up.

She was outraged no doubt because a white man dared to tell her that she was wrong to park in a handicap spot. She also knew that since the defendant was a frail older man that he would be no match for her and her and her younger and muscular man and thus she told him they would **** him up.

This was reported by a witness.

Again what was wrong with this jury??? Political correctness is the best explanation. So many due to the media b.s. always want to think black folk are always innocent and most especially if they are unarmed not recognizing or knowing that black men---usually young black men have beaten countless people to death.

The state spun all that around to claim that the defendant was threatening the black woman. Ridiculous, but they got away with it because the jury failed in their duty no doubt being devotees of political correctness as so many are. As in--the black person is always the victim.

If the black woman had acted reasonably there would have been no argument and nothing would have happened. Instead she instigated a chain of events that led to the death of her boyfriend.

She will not admit it for sure --yet I am sure she feels a lot of guilt. By her arrogance, anger, stupidity and resentment of a white man pointing out her violation of handicap parking she is the one most responsible for the death of her b/f other than her b/f himself who high on drugs was impaired no doubt to such an extent that he did not even bother to try and find out what was going on before he assaulted the defendant.

When the black guy exited the store all he saw was the defendant pointing his finger and arguing with his g/f. Was that reason enough to assault someone? Of course not.

A terrible miscarriage of justice and it will have far reaching ramifications.

Just another example of the current cultural war, which has been going on for a long while now. It has not reached the point of a civil war and may not but there is a terrible division in America. We are more divided now than at any time since The War Between The States and it is getting steadily worse and it is going to get much,much worse.

 

[satrebil]

For the record, and despite all the "racist Nazi bigot" labels our resident leftists have thrown at me over my past year on this forum, I believe the jury made the right call.

Drejka was attacked by McGlockton, that is undeniable. Because of the attack, Drejka pulled his firearm - an acceptable "use of force" to prevent further attack. 9 times out of 10, that's all you need to do - brandish. But he fucked up. McGlockton was clearly retreating and Drejka shot him anyway. That doesn't make it murder, because he almost certainly didn't go to the gas station with the intent to kill someone - but it definitely makes it manslaughter. He won't get 30 years, but whatever he does get he deserves.

Drejka did go to the gas station with the intent to act as an armed vigilante as he did on prior occasions. He was also the initial aggressor causing unarmed McGlockton to justifiably fear for his families life. McGlockton was also unarmed & retreating when Drejka shot to kill. Drejka did murder, should be charged, convicted & sued for more than enough to care for McGlockton's surviving family.

Nope.