McGlockton was in the wrong for battering Drejka. He had no lawful justification to use force on Drejka.
Drejka, in turn, utilized deadly force against a retreating assailant. The imminence of the threat was gone. Drejka exceeded the amount of force he was lawfully entitled to use at the time he fired the shot.
One dead, the other one probably in jail for the next 20 years or more.
Nonsense....you should have heard the expert witness in regards to what actually constitututes retreat. He was still in close proximity to his victim when he was shot...as in within sriking distance. He could have easily rushed his victim again if he had not been shot. Too many have no clue as to what actually constitutes retreat...to retreat means to be in a place where you are no longer a reasonable threat.
The black dude did not actually retreat until he was shot.
In addition you like many others do not have a adequate understanding of the law on self defense.
Anyhow here is something else I think that is extremely unfair to defendants in Florida....the 6 man jury. I was not even aware until relatively recently that this is going on...I think it is highly outrageous to anyone concerned about justice.
It is much easier.....much, much easier for the state to convict someone with a 6 man jury. This needs to be stopped.
In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of a 6-person jury in a Florida criminal case, ruling that neither the language nor the history of the U.S Constitution mandates a 12-person jury. Instead, the Supreme Court, referring to the 12-person jury as a “historical accident,” held that the purpose of a jury is to provide a cross-section of the community, and juries of less than 12 persons in serious felony cases do not violate that purpose or the constitution. Nevertheless, only two states in the U.S. (Florida and Connecticut) allow for 6-person juries for serious felony accusations.
I didn't hear any of the court proceedings so you may have better information than I do.
However, I did see the video. To me it looked like the thug had tried to retreat. I suspect that is what the jury saw and the reason Drejka was found guilty.
By the way, I served on a six man murder trial back in the 1980s. I was the jury foreman. It was Second Degree murder.
I think in Florida for murder the Defendant always has the right to request a 12 man jury. However, it could just be for 1st degree.
I am a strong supporter of the right to carry. I also teach responsible firearm use as a Firearms Instructor and Range Officer. I am a strong supporter of SYG. However, I don't think I would ever use a firearm for somebody pushing me down. I would need to perceive a greater threat to my life.
When I teach a concealed carry class I advise the students to be very careful about drawing a firearm. It will be a life changing experience. Drejka found that out the hard way.
To me Drejka was an asshole that didn't have the common sense to mind his own business. He met another asshole and now one asshole is dead and another asshole will be spending most, if not all, of the rest of his life in a state prison.
Assholes give responsible gun owners a bad name.
You betray your lack of knowledge of the law on self defense in Florida as most on here do. I have only noticed 3 or maybe 4 posters who seem to have a good understanding of the law on self defense in Florida.
First of all what you saw or what any of the jurors saw on the video is of little relevance....the law of self defense in Florida is based on the perception of the defendant....as in...'was he in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm?'
That is the essence of the law on self defense in Florida....now very intelligent people can and do have different perspectives on whether or not the black thug was retreating.
But that is neither here nor there....what the jurors should have concentrated on was whether or not Drejka had a reasonable fear of his life being in danger or of great bodily harm.
All this b.s. we see on here of folks going on and on about he had no business pointing out to someone they were illegally parked is irrelevant...has no legal bearing on this case at all.
I think where the jurors dropped the ball was that they were concentrating on their own opinions of whether or not the black guy was retreating.
What they should have been concentrating on was whether or not there was enough evidence to indicate Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm. That would have been following the law.
In the prosecutors summation he kept going on and on about how they should watch the video...of course watch the video but do not let your opinion of what happened divert you from your real duty............of determing whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm.
But the prosecution did not try to enlighten the jury on that they just harped on watch the video, watch the video...understanding the jurors would forget what they were really supposed to to do as in to concentrate on whether or not Drejka was in reasonable fear of life.
Here are the facts that need to be considered in regards to whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm
First of all he had been assaulted---slammed to the ground without reason. He was doing nothing illegal and had done nothing illegal. All he had done or was doing was within the parameter of the rights of any citizen.
Now what was Drejka likely to have thought about that? The jurors should have considered how that could have affected Drejka......violently slammed to the ground....very definitely it most likely put him in fear....how could it not...he did not even know who it was. When he is able to raise up he sees a black guy still hovering around him. It is only natural and reasonable to believe that put him in fear of life or at least of great bodily harm.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe he may have been in fear of his life or of great bodily harm....very possible and reasonable that he was in fear of his life.
Maybe not everyone would be...maybe none of you would be ...but we have to remember you and the jury have the benefit of hindsight and watching a slow motion video.
Drejka did not have the benefit of hindsight nor the ability to watch a slow motion video to figure out what was happening. All he knew was that he had been slammed to the ground for no justifiable reason and the perp was still very,very close the estimates range from 10 to l2 ft. how much time would it have taken the black guy to cover that distance...he could have been back on top of Drejka in a split second. That is the reality of the scenario on that parking lot.
Also they should have considered but I really doubt they did that Drejka had been dazed and was disoriented and at least in a mild state of shock. Did this affect his ability to determine whether or not the black guy was retreating?...of course it would and most likely did....but also we must remember that what Drejka was concentrating on was---how to neutralize the threat...that was his number one responsibility in order to preserve his own life.
To do that he had to get his weapon out which was difficult for him because his right arm had been injured....but he did managed to get it out and as soon as the black guy saw the weapon he stopped his advance on drejka....that is correct ...even after he had already slammed drejka to the ground he was still going towards Drejka...that is on the video as well but most seem to have not seen that. Why would he be doing that...he had already seperated Drejka from his wife which some claim is all he wanted to do.....nonsense....he wanted to inflict more damage on drejka as in kick him in the head etc.
Drejka fter getting his weapon out he had to bring it up to sight it on the threat...since his right arm was injured he had to use his left arm to support the weapon as he sighted it on the target. After doing all that he only had a couple of seconds to make a life or death decision.....to fire.....or not to fire.
What any of you or any of the jurors would do is irrelevant....the only relevant thing is was Drejka in reasonable fear of his life?
I think you are a little confused.
First of all you seem to not understand how juries look at evidence. It is obvious to me that Drejka was found guilty because the jury perceived McG to be retreating. That is the only logical reason to find him guilty.
Juries do weird things all the time. Look at OJ walking free and the Casey Anthony case. I did listen to most of the Anthony trial and it was obvious to me that the ***** was a murderer but 12 other people decided differently.
Assault is a bad thing. We all can agree on that. However, there are different kinds of assault. If somebody assaults me with a baseball bat and I can get to my carry weapon the sonofabitch is going to die. If he pushes me down I will be pissed but probably not kill him.
Drejka may have been a stupid shithead that didn't understand what was going on. He may have been scared to death or he may have just thought he had the right to kill the thug and did it. I think he was simply beaucoup dinky dau.
Where you are obviously confused is thinking that it was Drejka's judgement that made him guilty or not guilty. It was not his judgement. It was the jury's judgement and they listened to all the evidence and found him guilty. If you or I were on the jury we may have voted differently but we weren't were we?
This case is a great examples of why you need to be very careful if you ever decide to use your carry weapon. If you chose badly you could be spending the rest of your life in jail. Drejka chose badly. He chose badly in initiating a confrontation over a stupid thing and he chose badly when he pulled the trigger.
Drejka was a piece of shit. He was a known hothead and probably crazy. If he was pissed about somebody parking in a handicap spot then he should have copied down the tag number and reported it to the police. Instead he got in a big argument and killed somebody and now he is facing 20+ years in jail. Dumbass!
Also that thug who attacked him was also a piece of shit. He had a rap sheet a mile long. He could have shoved twenty other people and went home that afternoon. But he shoved the one guy with a gun that was willing to use it and now he is dead.
Plenty of dumbassery to go around.
McGlockton was in the wrong for battering Drejka. He had no lawful justification to use force on Drejka.
Drejka, in turn, utilized deadly force against a retreating assailant. The imminence of the threat was gone. Drejka exceeded the amount of force he was lawfully entitled to use at the time he fired the shot.
One dead, the other one probably in jail for the next 20 years or more.
Nonsense....you should have heard the expert witness in regards to what actually constitututes retreat. He was still in close proximity to his victim when he was shot...as in within sriking distance. He could have easily rushed his victim again if he had not been shot. Too many have no clue as to what actually constitutes retreat...to retreat means to be in a place where you are no longer a reasonable threat.
The black dude did not actually retreat until he was shot.
In addition you like many others do not have a adequate understanding of the law on self defense.
Anyhow here is something else I think that is extremely unfair to defendants in Florida....the 6 man jury. I was not even aware until relatively recently that this is going on...I think it is highly outrageous to anyone concerned about justice.
It is much easier.....much, much easier for the state to convict someone with a 6 man jury. This needs to be stopped.
In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of a 6-person jury in a Florida criminal case, ruling that neither the language nor the history of the U.S Constitution mandates a 12-person jury. Instead, the Supreme Court, referring to the 12-person jury as a “historical accident,” held that the purpose of a jury is to provide a cross-section of the community, and juries of less than 12 persons in serious felony cases do not violate that purpose or the constitution. Nevertheless, only two states in the U.S. (Florida and Connecticut) allow for 6-person juries for serious felony accusations.
I didn't hear any of the court proceedings so you may have better information than I do.
However, I did see the video. To me it looked like the thug had tried to retreat. I suspect that is what the jury saw and the reason Drejka was found guilty.
By the way, I served on a six man murder trial back in the 1980s. I was the jury foreman. It was Second Degree murder.
I think in Florida for murder the Defendant always has the right to request a 12 man jury. However, it could just be for 1st degree.
I am a strong supporter of the right to carry. I also teach responsible firearm use as a Firearms Instructor and Range Officer. I am a strong supporter of SYG. However, I don't think I would ever use a firearm for somebody pushing me down. I would need to perceive a greater threat to my life.
When I teach a concealed carry class I advise the students to be very careful about drawing a firearm. It will be a life changing experience. Drejka found that out the hard way.
To me Drejka was an asshole that didn't have the common sense to mind his own business. He met another asshole and now one asshole is dead and another asshole will be spending most, if not all, of the rest of his life in a state prison.
Assholes give responsible gun owners a bad name.
You betray your lack of knowledge of the law on self defense in Florida as most on here do. I have only noticed 3 or maybe 4 posters who seem to have a good understanding of the law on self defense in Florida.
First of all what you saw or what any of the jurors saw on the video is of little relevance....the law of self defense in Florida is based on the perception of the defendant....as in...'was he in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm?'
That is the essence of the law on self defense in Florida....now very intelligent people can and do have different perspectives on whether or not the black thug was retreating.
But that is neither here nor there....what the jurors should have concentrated on was whether or not Drejka had a reasonable fear of his life being in danger or of great bodily harm.
All this b.s. we see on here of folks going on and on about he had no business pointing out to someone they were illegally parked is irrelevant...has no legal bearing on this case at all.
I think where the jurors dropped the ball was that they were concentrating on their own opinions of whether or not the black guy was retreating.
What they should have been concentrating on was whether or not there was enough evidence to indicate Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm. That would have been following the law.
In the prosecutors summation he kept going on and on about how they should watch the video...of course watch the video but do not let your opinion of what happened divert you from your real duty............of determing whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm.
But the prosecution did not try to enlighten the jury on that they just harped on watch the video, watch the video...understanding the jurors would forget what they were really supposed to to do as in to concentrate on whether or not Drejka was in reasonable fear of life.
Here are the facts that need to be considered in regards to whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm
First of all he had been assaulted---slammed to the ground without reason. He was doing nothing illegal and had done nothing illegal. All he had done or was doing was within the parameter of the rights of any citizen.
Now what was Drejka likely to have thought about that? The jurors should have considered how that could have affected Drejka......violently slammed to the ground....very definitely it most likely put him in fear....how could it not...he did not even know who it was. When he is able to raise up he sees a black guy still hovering around him. It is only natural and reasonable to believe that put him in fear of life or at least of great bodily harm.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe he may have been in fear of his life or of great bodily harm....very possible and reasonable that he was in fear of his life.
Maybe not everyone would be...maybe none of you would be ...but we have to remember you and the jury have the benefit of hindsight and watching a slow motion video.
Drejka did not have the benefit of hindsight nor the ability to watch a slow motion video to figure out what was happening. All he knew was that he had been slammed to the ground for no justifiable reason and the perp was still very,very close the estimates range from 10 to l2 ft. how much time would it have taken the black guy to cover that distance...he could have been back on top of Drejka in a split second. That is the reality of the scenario on that parking lot.
Also they should have considered but I really doubt they did that Drejka had been dazed and was disoriented and at least in a mild state of shock. Did this affect his ability to determine whether or not the black guy was retreating?...of course it would and most likely did....but also we must remember that what Drejka was concentrating on was---how to neutralize the threat...that was his number one responsibility in order to preserve his own life.
To do that he had to get his weapon out which was difficult for him because his right arm had been injured....but he did managed to get it out and as soon as the black guy saw the weapon he stopped his advance on drejka....that is correct ...even after he had already slammed drejka to the ground he was still going towards Drejka...that is on the video as well but most seem to have not seen that. Why would he be doing that...he had already seperated Drejka from his wife which some claim is all he wanted to do.....nonsense....he wanted to inflict more damage on drejka as in kick him in the head etc.
Drejka fter getting his weapon out he had to bring it up to sight it on the threat...since his right arm was injured he had to use his left arm to support the weapon as he sighted it on the target. After doing all that he only had a couple of seconds to make a life or death decision.....to fire.....or not to fire.
What any of you or any of the jurors would do is irrelevant....the only relevant thing is was Drejka in reasonable fear of his life?
I think you are a little confused.
First of all you seem to not understand how juries look at evidence. It is obvious to me that Drejka was found guilty because the jury perceived McG to be retreating. That is the only logical reason to find him guilty.
Juries do weird things all the time. Look at OJ walking free and the Casey Anthony case. I did listen to most of the Anthony trial and it was obvious to me that the ***** was a murderer but 12 other people decided differently.
Assault is a bad thing. We all can agree on that. However, there are different kinds of assault. If somebody assaults me with a baseball bat and I can get to my carry weapon the sonofabitch is going to die. If he pushes me down I will be pissed but probably not kill him.
Drejka may have been a stupid shithead that didn't understand what was going on. He may have been scared to death or he may have just thought he had the right to kill the thug and did it. I think he was simply beaucoup dinky dau.
Where you are obviously confused is thinking that it was Drejka's judgement that made him guilty or not guilty. It was not his judgement. It was the jury's judgement and they listened to all the evidence and found him guilty. If you or I were on the jury we may have voted differently but we weren't were we?
This case is a great examples of why you need to be very careful if you ever decide to use your carry weapon. If you chose badly you could be spending the rest of your life in jail. Drejka chose badly. He chose badly in initiating a confrontation over a stupid thing and he chose badly when he pulled the trigger.
Drejka was a piece of shit. He was a known hothead and probably crazy. If he was pissed about somebody parking in a handicap spot then he should have copied down the tag number and reported it to the police. Instead he got in a big argument and killed somebody and now he is facing 20+ years in jail. Dumbass!
Also that thug who attacked him was also a piece of shit. He had a rap sheet a mile long. He could have shoved twenty other people and went home that afternoon. But he shoved the one guy with a gun that was willing to use it and now he is dead.
Plenty of dumbassery to go around.
McGlockton was in the wrong for battering Drejka. He had no lawful justification to use force on Drejka.
Drejka, in turn, utilized deadly force against a retreating assailant. The imminence of the threat was gone. Drejka exceeded the amount of force he was lawfully entitled to use at the time he fired the shot.
One dead, the other one probably in jail for the next 20 years or more.
Nonsense....you should have heard the expert witness in regards to what actually constitututes retreat. He was still in close proximity to his victim when he was shot...as in within sriking distance. He could have easily rushed his victim again if he had not been shot. Too many have no clue as to what actually constitutes retreat...to retreat means to be in a place where you are no longer a reasonable threat.
The black dude did not actually retreat until he was shot.
In addition you like many others do not have a adequate understanding of the law on self defense.
Anyhow here is something else I think that is extremely unfair to defendants in Florida....the 6 man jury. I was not even aware until relatively recently that this is going on...I think it is highly outrageous to anyone concerned about justice.
It is much easier.....much, much easier for the state to convict someone with a 6 man jury. This needs to be stopped.
In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of a 6-person jury in a Florida criminal case, ruling that neither the language nor the history of the U.S Constitution mandates a 12-person jury. Instead, the Supreme Court, referring to the 12-person jury as a “historical accident,” held that the purpose of a jury is to provide a cross-section of the community, and juries of less than 12 persons in serious felony cases do not violate that purpose or the constitution. Nevertheless, only two states in the U.S. (Florida and Connecticut) allow for 6-person juries for serious felony accusations.
I didn't hear any of the court proceedings so you may have better information than I do.
However, I did see the video. To me it looked like the thug had tried to retreat. I suspect that is what the jury saw and the reason Drejka was found guilty.
By the way, I served on a six man murder trial back in the 1980s. I was the jury foreman. It was Second Degree murder.
I think in Florida for murder the Defendant always has the right to request a 12 man jury. However, it could just be for 1st degree.
I am a strong supporter of the right to carry. I also teach responsible firearm use as a Firearms Instructor and Range Officer. I am a strong supporter of SYG. However, I don't think I would ever use a firearm for somebody pushing me down. I would need to perceive a greater threat to my life.
When I teach a concealed carry class I advise the students to be very careful about drawing a firearm. It will be a life changing experience. Drejka found that out the hard way.
To me Drejka was an asshole that didn't have the common sense to mind his own business. He met another asshole and now one asshole is dead and another asshole will be spending most, if not all, of the rest of his life in a state prison.
Assholes give responsible gun owners a bad name.
You betray your lack of knowledge of the law on self defense in Florida as most on here do. I have only noticed 3 or maybe 4 posters who seem to have a good understanding of the law on self defense in Florida.
First of all what you saw or what any of the jurors saw on the video is of little relevance....the law of self defense in Florida is based on the perception of the defendant....as in...'was he in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm?'
That is the essence of the law on self defense in Florida....now very intelligent people can and do have different perspectives on whether or not the black thug was retreating.
But that is neither here nor there....what the jurors should have concentrated on was whether or not Drejka had a reasonable fear of his life being in danger or of great bodily harm.
All this b.s. we see on here of folks going on and on about he had no business pointing out to someone they were illegally parked is irrelevant...has no legal bearing on this case at all.
I think where the jurors dropped the ball was that they were concentrating on their own opinions of whether or not the black guy was retreating.
What they should have been concentrating on was whether or not there was enough evidence to indicate Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm. That would have been following the law.
In the prosecutors summation he kept going on and on about how they should watch the video...of course watch the video but do not let your opinion of what happened divert you from your real duty............of determing whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm.
But the prosecution did not try to enlighten the jury on that they just harped on watch the video, watch the video...understanding the jurors would forget what they were really supposed to to do as in to concentrate on whether or not Drejka was in reasonable fear of life.
Here are the facts that need to be considered in regards to whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm
First of all he had been assaulted---slammed to the ground without reason. He was doing nothing illegal and had done nothing illegal. All he had done or was doing was within the parameter of the rights of any citizen.
Now what was Drejka likely to have thought about that? The jurors should have considered how that could have affected Drejka......violently slammed to the ground....very definitely it most likely put him in fear....how could it not...he did not even know who it was. When he is able to raise up he sees a black guy still hovering around him. It is only natural and reasonable to believe that put him in fear of life or at least of great bodily harm.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe he may have been in fear of his life or of great bodily harm....very possible and reasonable that he was in fear of his life.
Maybe not everyone would be...maybe none of you would be ...but we have to remember you and the jury have the benefit of hindsight and watching a slow motion video.
Drejka did not have the benefit of hindsight nor the ability to watch a slow motion video to figure out what was happening. All he knew was that he had been slammed to the ground for no justifiable reason and the perp was still very,very close the estimates range from 10 to l2 ft. how much time would it have taken the black guy to cover that distance...he could have been back on top of Drejka in a split second. That is the reality of the scenario on that parking lot.
Also they should have considered but I really doubt they did that Drejka had been dazed and was disoriented and at least in a mild state of shock. Did this affect his ability to determine whether or not the black guy was retreating?...of course it would and most likely did....but also we must remember that what Drejka was concentrating on was---how to neutralize the threat...that was his number one responsibility in order to preserve his own life.
To do that he had to get his weapon out which was difficult for him because his right arm had been injured....but he did managed to get it out and as soon as the black guy saw the weapon he stopped his advance on drejka....that is correct ...even after he had already slammed drejka to the ground he was still going towards Drejka...that is on the video as well but most seem to have not seen that. Why would he be doing that...he had already seperated Drejka from his wife which some claim is all he wanted to do.....nonsense....he wanted to inflict more damage on drejka as in kick him in the head etc.
Drejka fter getting his weapon out he had to bring it up to sight it on the threat...since his right arm was injured he had to use his left arm to support the weapon as he sighted it on the target. After doing all that he only had a couple of seconds to make a life or death decision.....to fire.....or not to fire.
What any of you or any of the jurors would do is irrelevant....the only relevant thing is was Drejka in reasonable fear of his life?
I think you are a little confused.
First of all you seem to not understand how juries look at evidence. It is obvious to me that Drejka was found guilty because the jury perceived McG to be retreating. That is the only logical reason to find him guilty.
Juries do weird things all the time. Look at OJ walking free and the Casey Anthony case. I did listen to most of the Anthony trial and it was obvious to me that the ***** was a murderer but 12 other people decided differently.
Assault is a bad thing. We all can agree on that. However, there are different kinds of assault. If somebody assaults me with a baseball bat and I can get to my carry weapon the sonofabitch is going to die. If he pushes me down I will be pissed but probably not kill him.
Drejka may have been a stupid shithead that didn't understand what was going on. He may have been scared to death or he may have just thought he had the right to kill the thug and did it. I think he was simply beaucoup dinky dau.
Where you are obviously confused is thinking that it was Drejka's judgement that made him guilty or not guilty. It was not his judgement. It was the jury's judgement and they listened to all the evidence and found him guilty. If you or I were on the jury we may have voted differently but we weren't were we?
This case is a great examples of why you need to be very careful if you ever decide to use your carry weapon. If you chose badly you could be spending the rest of your life in jail. Drejka chose badly. He chose badly in initiating a confrontation over a stupid thing and he chose badly when he pulled the trigger.
Drejka was a piece of shit. He was a known hothead and probably crazy. If he was pissed about somebody parking in a handicap spot then he should have copied down the tag number and reported it to the police. Instead he got in a big argument and killed somebody and now he is facing 20+ years in jail. Dumbass!
Also that thug who attacked him was also a piece of shit. He had a rap sheet a mile long. He could have shoved twenty other people and went home that afternoon. But he shoved the one guy with a gun that was willing to use it and now he is dead.
Plenty of dumbassery to go around.
Yes, I pointed that out....he was found guilty because of how the jury members perceived the video.
That is not following the law.
I do not think you are comprehending what I have been saying nor do I think you understand the law on self-defense in the state of Florida. Why that is I have no friggin idea...have you ever actually read the Florida Statutes on Self-Defense?
Again and I am getting tired as hell of having to back over a plowed field.
But one more time and I think this is the last time I am going to explain this.........The florida law on self defense says anyone is justified to use lethal force if they have a REASONABLE fear their life is in danger or that they may suffer grievious bodily harm....do you get that?
It says nothing about the defendants judgement....it deals strictly with the defendants state of mind, his perception..........aka..............did the defendant have a REASONABLE fear that his life was in danger or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm.
Of course the jury had the responsibilty of finding him guilty or not guilty...there is no doubt about that. Yet....that does not mean just because they voted to find him guilty....that does not make him guilty.
As you point out....juries are wrong too many times as the cases you mention demonstrates. No doubt there are many innocent people in jail. No doubt innocent people have been executed.
Now I think we agree on that at least.
But then you get off track by bringing up different kinds of assault.....yes Drejka was assaulted but that in and of itself is irrelevant.....again....the critical point to understand is whether or not he was in REASONABLE fear of his life or of great bodily harm as the Florida Law says he must be in order to be justified to use lethal force.
Now, I do not know if you read the part where I laid out all the reasons why Drejka should have been considered to be in REASONABLE fear of his life...did you read any of them? If you read all the reasons I posted ...do you disagree with any of them? I think what we have here is a failure to communicate...who said dat?
Then to further compound your errors you bring up your evaluation of his mental health. Not knowing the man I do not know his mental state....but if he had any record of mental illness I think his lawyers would have brought that up.
I do know he had a degree in math and physics...so he definitely was not mentally retarded....though even people at the genius level can be mentally unstable....but since the possibility of that was not brought up in the trial I think we have to preclude considering that.
Then you go even further adrift when you bring up your belief that Drejka made some very bad choices or decisions...which I would not deny but that has nothing absolutely noting to do with whether or not he was in REASONABLE fear of his life or of grievious bodily injury.
I would not and most pepole I am sure would not bother to tell anyone that they were illegally parked in a handicap spot. I would agree that was not a smart thing to do...as in there are crazies out there lots of them...some of them would you shoot you for cutting them off on the freeway...we hear about stuff like that all the time.
Drejka went into that store all the time and the owner told him after a previous episode on the parking lot that he should not be doing that...it was not worth it. aka....informing folks that they should not be parfking in a handicapped spot unless they were actually handicapped.....what was Drejka's answer....he agreed but said he could not help it...that it was a pet peeve of his because he had a family member that was handicapped.
Now that sounds like he had some sort of obsession that he called his pet peeve. Now I would not deny that is not a mental problem at some level but it is again....irrelevant to whether or not he was in REASONABLE fear of his life.
Then you bring up the judgement thing again and say that his judgement in essence did not make him innocent or guilty.
Again......you may think of it as judgement.....but I think the more correct term is perception....whether or not he had a reasonable belief....again whether or not he had a REASONABLE belief as in perceived that his life was in danger or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm.
That is what the law says.....he must have a Reasonable belief....not that he must have good judgement ....but he must have a REASONABLE belief that his life is in danger or that he may suffer grievious bodily harm.
Now obviously the key woid being REASONABLE.....who decides whether or not he had a reasonable belief?....not him, not you, not me....no one except the jury has that obligation or that duty......and what I am saying is that they--the jury-- failed in their duty to ascertain whether or not he had a REASONABLE belief that his life was in danger or that he might suffer
grievious bodily harm.
The next question being why did they fail? I have spelled it out before....now this of course is my opinion as I was not privy to their deliberations.....I watched the trial as you know.....and in the prosecutors summation.....he kept telling the jury...watch the video, watch the video....now why was he so emphatic that they watch the video...he well knew they would watch the video....he did not have to tell them to watch the video....I am convinced the reason he kept telling them that was to get them to focus so intently on the video that they would forget their primary duty under the law....to ascertain whether or not Drejka had a REASONABLE belief that his life was in danger or that he might suffer grievious bodily injury.
Also it was brought out in the trial that intelligent people after watching the video disagree on whether or not the black guy was retreating....now this concept of retreating has coinfused most of the posters on here. They are absolutely convinced that just because upon seeing the weapon come out that the black guy stopped advancing on Drejka(yes even after he had violently slammed drejka to the ground...he kept advancing obviously intent on doing further damage to Drejka. We have all seen the videos that circulate on the internet of black thugs kicking people to death...and most likely drejka had seen those videos also.
but to get back to the black dude....after he saw the weapon come out....he stopped advancing and took a couple of steps backward and turned to the side....was he trying to retreat?
I do not think so and the defense's expert witness did not think so citing such things as the position of his feet, his stance etc. the guy was very knowledgable about self defense, body language etc. He made a couple of halting backward steps out of reaction to seeing the weapon like one jerks their hand back when they touch a hot stove. He turned slightly to the side to present a smaller target according to the expert and that is just common sense.
Now another thing most posters do not get is that he was still within striking distance...still very close to where his victim was...so close he could have quickly been on top of drejka if he so chose. Thus he was still a threat.
Now as I have also pointed out....drejka being in not the best state of mind....slightly dazed, disoriented, and at least in a mild state of shock was thus not in a state of mind where he would notice or pay any attention to some small movement backwards by the black guy...drejka had one major motivation....one goal....to remove the threat to his life...the black guy.
Thus with difficulty he raised his weapon...had to use his left hand to support the weapon because of his injured right arm and sighted on the center mass of his target...now all of this happened very, very quickly...it was not in slow motion like the video the jury saw. drejka had to make an extremely fast life or death decision...to shoot or not to shoot...at the most he probably had about 2 seconds to make this decision.
Now back to the black guy...the toxicoogy reports clearly showed he had a huge amount of 2 drugs in his body...that is beyond dispute. The states expert witness on the possible effects of these drugs showed that they are capable of making a person very aggressive. So in this state of being under the influence...one cannot predict with any certainty or accuracy what the black guy would have done had he not been shot...he might have run off or he might have decided to rush his victim and he could have done that very,very quickly as the distance between him and his victim has been cited as being approx. 10 to l2 ft. One could cover that distance in a split second.
Also...the black guy had a history of commiting assault...so you take a guy that obviously has a pre-disposition of violence and fill him up with 2 drugs(he had a very high level of the drugs in his system) and you want to predict what he will or will or will not do? Get real.
Thus obviously if drejka had chose not to shoot he would have been gambling with his life. Not something I or any reasonable person would want to do.
Sure it is easy for all these posters (monday morning quarterbacks)to say what they would have done....of course...with hindsight and a slow motion video to enlighten them.
drejka did not have hindsight to guide him nor a slow motion video...he was living and reacting to a threat in real time....and time was of the essence. He had to act quickly if he wanted to do his best to make sure he survived.
Would you gamble with your life? I do not think any reasonable person should or would.
Thus I am convinced drejka had a REASONABLE belief that his life was in danger or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm.
McGlockton was in the wrong for battering Drejka. He had no lawful justification to use force on Drejka.
Drejka, in turn, utilized deadly force against a retreating assailant. The imminence of the threat was gone. Drejka exceeded the amount of force he was lawfully entitled to use at the time he fired the shot.
One dead, the other one probably in jail for the next 20 years or more.
Nonsense....you should have heard the expert witness in regards to what actually constitututes retreat. He was still in close proximity to his victim when he was shot...as in within sriking distance. He could have easily rushed his victim again if he had not been shot. Too many have no clue as to what actually constitutes retreat...to retreat means to be in a place where you are no longer a reasonable threat.
The black dude did not actually retreat until he was shot.
In addition you like many others do not have a adequate understanding of the law on self defense.
Anyhow here is something else I think that is extremely unfair to defendants in Florida....the 6 man jury. I was not even aware until relatively recently that this is going on...I think it is highly outrageous to anyone concerned about justice.
It is much easier.....much, much easier for the state to convict someone with a 6 man jury. This needs to be stopped.
In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of a 6-person jury in a Florida criminal case, ruling that neither the language nor the history of the U.S Constitution mandates a 12-person jury. Instead, the Supreme Court, referring to the 12-person jury as a “historical accident,” held that the purpose of a jury is to provide a cross-section of the community, and juries of less than 12 persons in serious felony cases do not violate that purpose or the constitution. Nevertheless, only two states in the U.S. (Florida and Connecticut) allow for 6-person juries for serious felony accusations.
I didn't hear any of the court proceedings so you may have better information than I do.
However, I did see the video. To me it looked like the thug had tried to retreat. I suspect that is what the jury saw and the reason Drejka was found guilty.
By the way, I served on a six man murder trial back in the 1980s. I was the jury foreman. It was Second Degree murder.
I think in Florida for murder the Defendant always has the right to request a 12 man jury. However, it could just be for 1st degree.
I am a strong supporter of the right to carry. I also teach responsible firearm use as a Firearms Instructor and Range Officer. I am a strong supporter of SYG. However, I don't think I would ever use a firearm for somebody pushing me down. I would need to perceive a greater threat to my life.
When I teach a concealed carry class I advise the students to be very careful about drawing a firearm. It will be a life changing experience. Drejka found that out the hard way.
To me Drejka was an asshole that didn't have the common sense to mind his own business. He met another asshole and now one asshole is dead and another asshole will be spending most, if not all, of the rest of his life in a state prison.
Assholes give responsible gun owners a bad name.
You betray your lack of knowledge of the law on self defense in Florida as most on here do. I have only noticed 3 or maybe 4 posters who seem to have a good understanding of the law on self defense in Florida.
First of all what you saw or what any of the jurors saw on the video is of little relevance....the law of self defense in Florida is based on the perception of the defendant....as in...'was he in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm?'
That is the essence of the law on self defense in Florida....now very intelligent people can and do have different perspectives on whether or not the black thug was retreating.
But that is neither here nor there....what the jurors should have concentrated on was whether or not Drejka had a reasonable fear of his life being in danger or of great bodily harm.
All this b.s. we see on here of folks going on and on about he had no business pointing out to someone they were illegally parked is irrelevant...has no legal bearing on this case at all.
I think where the jurors dropped the ball was that they were concentrating on their own opinions of whether or not the black guy was retreating.
What they should have been concentrating on was whether or not there was enough evidence to indicate Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm. That would have been following the law.
In the prosecutors summation he kept going on and on about how they should watch the video...of course watch the video but do not let your opinion of what happened divert you from your real duty............of determing whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm.
But the prosecution did not try to enlighten the jury on that they just harped on watch the video, watch the video...understanding the jurors would forget what they were really supposed to to do as in to concentrate on whether or not Drejka was in reasonable fear of life.
Here are the facts that need to be considered in regards to whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm
First of all he had been assaulted---slammed to the ground without reason. He was doing nothing illegal and had done nothing illegal. All he had done or was doing was within the parameter of the rights of any citizen.
Now what was Drejka likely to have thought about that? The jurors should have considered how that could have affected Drejka......violently slammed to the ground....very definitely it most likely put him in fear....how could it not...he did not even know who it was. When he is able to raise up he sees a black guy still hovering around him. It is only natural and reasonable to believe that put him in fear of life or at least of great bodily harm.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe he may have been in fear of his life or of great bodily harm....very possible and reasonable that he was in fear of his life.
Maybe not everyone would be...maybe none of you would be ...but we have to remember you and the jury have the benefit of hindsight and watching a slow motion video.
Drejka did not have the benefit of hindsight nor the ability to watch a slow motion video to figure out what was happening. All he knew was that he had been slammed to the ground for no justifiable reason and the perp was still very,very close the estimates range from 10 to l2 ft. how much time would it have taken the black guy to cover that distance...he could have been back on top of Drejka in a split second. That is the reality of the scenario on that parking lot.
Also they should have considered but I really doubt they did that Drejka had been dazed and was disoriented and at least in a mild state of shock. Did this affect his ability to determine whether or not the black guy was retreating?...of course it would and most likely did....but also we must remember that what Drejka was concentrating on was---how to neutralize the threat...that was his number one responsibility in order to preserve his own life.
To do that he had to get his weapon out which was difficult for him because his right arm had been injured....but he did managed to get it out and as soon as the black guy saw the weapon he stopped his advance on drejka....that is correct ...even after he had already slammed drejka to the ground he was still going towards Drejka...that is on the video as well but most seem to have not seen that. Why would he be doing that...he had already seperated Drejka from his wife which some claim is all he wanted to do.....nonsense....he wanted to inflict more damage on drejka as in kick him in the head etc.
Drejka fter getting his weapon out he had to bring it up to sight it on the threat...since his right arm was injured he had to use his left arm to support the weapon as he sighted it on the target. After doing all that he only had a couple of seconds to make a life or death decision.....to fire.....or not to fire.
What any of you or any of the jurors would do is irrelevant....the only relevant thing is was Drejka in reasonable fear of his life?
I think you are a little confused.
First of all you seem to not understand how juries look at evidence. It is obvious to me that Drejka was found guilty because the jury perceived McG to be retreating. That is the only logical reason to find him guilty.
Juries do weird things all the time. Look at OJ walking free and the Casey Anthony case. I did listen to most of the Anthony trial and it was obvious to me that the ***** was a murderer but 12 other people decided differently.
Assault is a bad thing. We all can agree on that. However, there are different kinds of assault. If somebody assaults me with a baseball bat and I can get to my carry weapon the sonofabitch is going to die. If he pushes me down I will be pissed but probably not kill him.
Drejka may have been a stupid shithead that didn't understand what was going on. He may have been scared to death or he may have just thought he had the right to kill the thug and did it. I think he was simply beaucoup dinky dau.
Where you are obviously confused is thinking that it was Drejka's judgement that made him guilty or not guilty. It was not his judgement. It was the jury's judgement and they listened to all the evidence and found him guilty. If you or I were on the jury we may have voted differently but we weren't were we?
This case is a great examples of why you need to be very careful if you ever decide to use your carry weapon. If you chose badly you could be spending the rest of your life in jail. Drejka chose badly. He chose badly in initiating a confrontation over a stupid thing and he chose badly when he pulled the trigger.
Drejka was a piece of shit. He was a known hothead and probably crazy. If he was pissed about somebody parking in a handicap spot then he should have copied down the tag number and reported it to the police. Instead he got in a big argument and killed somebody and now he is facing 20+ years in jail. Dumbass!
Also that thug who attacked him was also a piece of shit. He had a rap sheet a mile long. He could have shoved twenty other people and went home that afternoon. But he shoved the one guy with a gun that was willing to use it and now he is dead.
Plenty of dumbassery to go around.
