Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
:The perception of the shooter is critical. And Drejka's perception was horribly skewed. Poor perception is not a reasonable excuse for self defense.Putz, I didn't say he "lied." I said he was "wrong." He even admitted had McGlockton not been coming at him, there would have been no reason to shoot him.
He literally surrendered his own claim of self defense.
One has to remember drejka was interrogated a very short time after the incident....he waived his miranda rights because he was convinced he was innocent and thus had nothing to fear. A lot of innocent peeps have made that mistake ---not contacting a lawyer and have him present ...instead... talking on and on and then have their words spun and twisted to use against them later.
It is police dept policy not to interview aka interrogate a policeman who has been involved in a deadly shooting right after the event. They give him a few days to let him get over the trauma of the incident before the interview. But not drejka....they hauled him down to a interrogation room and grilled him for 6 hrs right after the event whilst he was still in state of shock.
Any sane, objective and intelligent person cannot reasonably conclude that drejka was not in fear of his life an in such a state --what he was focusing on was how to eliminate the threat to his life. He focused on getting his gun out and getting it ready to fire, focusing in on the thugs body mass and aiming his weapon and then pulling the trigger....he did not notice drejka had stumbled backward for a few steps...he was still close, still looking at him and thus undeniably a threat...within l2 ft is very close....the thug could have covered that distance in one quick leap been on top of drejka...snatched the weapon and then used it to kill drejka with his own gun...not like that it has not happened before and very well may have happened in this case if Drejka had not managed to get his weapon out and fire. A very reasonable thing to do under the circumstances.
All those who want to condemn drejka make the same mistake....with hindsight and after watching the video in slow motion it is their perception that the thug is in retreat...certainly not according to some experts....but it is their perception of the video not being versed in body language and its significance that contributes to their wrongful perception.
Also they lack a good understanding of the law of self defense in Florida....very few have ever read it...even though it is posted on here. People are to
lazy to do the legal research.
Under the law of self defense it is the 'perception of the defendant that is critical....aka was he in reasonable fear of his life....and the reasons he should have been in fear of his life have been listed on here....unfortunately the jury was so focused on their interpetation of the video they did not give serious consideration to the perception and state of mind of the defendant.
Thus they decided to send a innocent man to jail....quite tragic.
That is your view using hindsight and a slow motion video...neither of which was available to the man with his life hanging in the balance.
Anyhow it is not relevant that his perception may have been skewed.
According to the law on self defense which you obviously do not understand....the most important and the critical question being in order to follow the law being.... was drejka in reasonable fear of his life'?
Let us do a quick review....drejka in the process of legally checking out whether or not a vehicle was authorized to park in a handcap spot was verbally assaulted and threatened by the black woman.
Then 'her man' rushed out of the store with no clue as to what was going on and not even to mention in a state of impairment due to 2 illegal drugs in his system, violently assaulted drejka.
No rational reason why he would do that. Even the foreman of the jury admitted that was not needed. Aka no legal or rational reason for the black thug to assault drejka.
Thus the question...why? Why did he assault drejka?
Possible motive....he was high on drugs and had a pre-disposition and a history of violence and assault...thus his violent nature and the effects of the drugs triggered him to attack a white man who dared argue with his wife.
The race of drejka being a critical factor here no doubt--the thug would never have attacked a fellow black without trying to figure out what was going down.
Thus his attack very likely being of a racist nature--- if he had lived he could have been charged with a hate crime.
Immediately upon being assaulted drejka should have been and was in fear of his life or of grievious bodily harm. Just plain common sense. As pointed out over and over we have all seen some of the videos that circulate on the internet showing black thugs knocking down and then beating their victim to death and or kicking him to death.
Most likely drjeka had seen such videos which if he had would even add to his legitimate and reasonable perception that he was in fear of his life or of grievious bodily injury.....which justifies the use of lethal defense under the florida law on self defense.
Now of course the liberals believe that lethal force should never be used by whites against blacks....that is just their hypocritical nature. You do not see them getting upset over all the mayhem in Chicago. They only get concerned when a white guy kills one of their darlin lil darkies.
Anyhow after the violent assault drejka looks up and sees the black thug hovering over him...from that moment his concentration and motivation was to do what he could to insure his life....getting his weapon out, clicking the safety off, raising the weapon and due to his injured right arm he had to use his left hand to support the weapon--then he had to sight the weapon on the center of the thugs body mass...which is what drejka was looking at...not looking at the thugs feet, not even noticing the thug had taken a few halting backward steps...his concentration was on the center mass of the thug ...and as soon as he was able he pulled the trigger. Certainly a reasonable thing to do for anyone interested in preserving their life.
No, after watching the video, It wasnt justified. the shooter was knocked to the ground after having words with a mans girlfriend. McGlockton wasnt continuing any attack. Sometimes fights happen, sometimes you get your ass handed to you, but In my book, thats not a right to kill someone. The shooter was either a coward or full of hate for some reason.
Even if your stupid statement was correct. You would still be wrong.
Under the law someone can be a coward and full of hate and still be able to use lethal force to defend their life if they are in reasonable fear of their life.
There was more than enough evidence for a competent jury to have understood drejka was in fact...in reasonable fear of his life or great bodily injury.
:The perception of the shooter is critical. And Drejka's perception was horribly skewed. Poor perception is not a reasonable excuse for self defense.One has to remember drejka was interrogated a very short time after the incident....he waived his miranda rights because he was convinced he was innocent and thus had nothing to fear. A lot of innocent peeps have made that mistake ---not contacting a lawyer and have him present ...instead... talking on and on and then have their words spun and twisted to use against them later.
It is police dept policy not to interview aka interrogate a policeman who has been involved in a deadly shooting right after the event. They give him a few days to let him get over the trauma of the incident before the interview. But not drejka....they hauled him down to a interrogation room and grilled him for 6 hrs right after the event whilst he was still in state of shock.
Any sane, objective and intelligent person cannot reasonably conclude that drejka was not in fear of his life an in such a state --what he was focusing on was how to eliminate the threat to his life. He focused on getting his gun out and getting it ready to fire, focusing in on the thugs body mass and aiming his weapon and then pulling the trigger....he did not notice drejka had stumbled backward for a few steps...he was still close, still looking at him and thus undeniably a threat...within l2 ft is very close....the thug could have covered that distance in one quick leap been on top of drejka...snatched the weapon and then used it to kill drejka with his own gun...not like that it has not happened before and very well may have happened in this case if Drejka had not managed to get his weapon out and fire. A very reasonable thing to do under the circumstances.
All those who want to condemn drejka make the same mistake....with hindsight and after watching the video in slow motion it is their perception that the thug is in retreat...certainly not according to some experts....but it is their perception of the video not being versed in body language and its significance that contributes to their wrongful perception.
Also they lack a good understanding of the law of self defense in Florida....very few have ever read it...even though it is posted on here. People are to
lazy to do the legal research.
Under the law of self defense it is the 'perception of the defendant that is critical....aka was he in reasonable fear of his life....and the reasons he should have been in fear of his life have been listed on here....unfortunately the jury was so focused on their interpetation of the video they did not give serious consideration to the perception and state of mind of the defendant.
Thus they decided to send a innocent man to jail....quite tragic.
That is your view using hindsight and a slow motion video...neither of which was available to the man with his life hanging in the balance.
Anyhow it is not relevant that his perception may have been skewed.
According to the law on self defense which you obviously do not understand....the most important and the critical question being in order to follow the law being.... was drejka in reasonable fear of his life'?
Let us do a quick review....drejka in the process of legally checking out whether or not a vehicle was authorized to park in a handcap spot was verbally assaulted and threatened by the black woman.
Then 'her man' rushed out of the store with no clue as to what was going on and not even to mention in a state of impairment due to 2 illegal drugs in his system, violently assaulted drejka.
No rational reason why he would do that. Even the foreman of the jury admitted that was not needed. Aka no legal or rational reason for the black thug to assault drejka.
Thus the question...why? Why did he assault drejka?
Possible motive....he was high on drugs and had a pre-disposition and a history of violence and assault...thus his violent nature and the effects of the drugs triggered him to attack a white man who dared argue with his wife.
The race of drejka being a critical factor here no doubt--the thug would never have attacked a fellow black without trying to figure out what was going down.
Thus his attack very likely being of a racist nature--- if he had lived he could have been charged with a hate crime.
Immediately upon being assaulted drejka should have been and was in fear of his life or of grievious bodily harm. Just plain common sense. As pointed out over and over we have all seen some of the videos that circulate on the internet showing black thugs knocking down and then beating their victim to death and or kicking him to death.
Most likely drjeka had seen such videos which if he had would even add to his legitimate and reasonable perception that he was in fear of his life or of grievious bodily injury.....which justifies the use of lethal defense under the florida law on self defense.
Now of course the liberals believe that lethal force should never be used by whites against blacks....that is just their hypocritical nature. You do not see them getting upset over all the mayhem in Chicago. They only get concerned when a white guy kills one of their darlin lil darkies.
Anyhow after the violent assault drejka looks up and sees the black thug hovering over him...from that moment his concentration and motivation was to do what he could to insure his life....getting his weapon out, clicking the safety off, raising the weapon and due to his injured right arm he had to use his left hand to support the weapon--then he had to sight the weapon on the center of the thugs body mass...which is what drejka was looking at...not looking at the thugs feet, not even noticing the thug had taken a few halting backward steps...his concentration was on the center mass of the thug ...and as soon as he was able he pulled the trigger. Certainly a reasonable thing to do for anyone interested in preserving their life.
No, after watching the video, It wasnt justified. the shooter was knocked to the ground after having words with a mans girlfriend. McGlockton wasnt continuing any attack. Sometimes fights happen, sometimes you get your ass handed to you, but In my book, thats not a right to kill someone. The shooter was either a coward or full of hate for some reason.
Even if your stupid statement was correct. You would still be wrong.
Under the law someone can be a coward and full of hate and still be justified to use lethal force to defend their life if they are in reasonable fear of their life.
There was more than enough evidence for a competent jury to have understood drejka was in fact...in reasonable fear of his life or great bodily injury.
Well, you have a right to your opinion. Sorry If I don't agree. He got knocked down one time.I didn't see any kind of beating taking place... IMO, you cant make pulling the trigger that easy or people will be getting shot for looking at someone the wrong way.
You don't have a mind I can read so next time, try posting words. Here, I'll spot mynpost again..."What you do not get is that statement from drejka was elicited from Drejka in a 6 hr. interrogation right after the event and drjjka was very tired still somewhat dazed not to mention confused and probably still in some degree of shock""Under the law it does not matter whether or not the thug was actually coming at drejka when he shot ..what matters under the law of self-defense --he must be in reasonable fear of his life or serious bodily injury."Drejka's perception was delusional. McGlockton was not coming at him when he shot him. It's vengeance, not self defense .
Still don't get the law no matter how many times it has been explained ....got attention deficient syndrome or sumptin?
Under the law it does not matter whether or not the thug was actually coming at drejka when he shot ..what matters under the law of self-defense --he must be in reasonable fear of his life or serious bodily injury.
Now all you have or anyone else who wants to believe drejka is guilty---- is to claim he was not in reasonable fear of his life. In order to do that you must ignore or reject all the reasons he was in fear of his life as any reasonable person would be.
What you and the jury have done is to use your perception of the video to say in essence that drejka should have had the same percepton as you---.outrageous to the extreme to think that.
Neither you nor the jury experienced the trauma that was inflicted on the defendant. Neither you nor the jury were placed in a position where you could have been killed. Neither you nor the jury had been threatened and violently slammed to the ground. Neither you nor the jury had only approx. 4-6 seconds to determine whether or not your life was in danger.
The jury took hours to decide that there was no reasonable danger....yet they expected someone that is dazed, disoriented and in some degree of shock to determine in 4-6 seconds what they took hours to determine? Get real.
Nutjob... it matters because Drejka's reason for being in fear was because he believed McGlockton was coming at him. Drejka even said he wouldn't have shit him had he not been coming at him.
Turns out, Drejka was hallucinating -- McGlockton wasn't coming at him.
A self-induced hallucination is not a reasonable fear to justify lethal force in self defense. Everyone gets that but you.
What you do not get is that statement from drejka was elicited from Drejka in a 6 hr. interrogation right after the event and drjjka was very tired still somewhat dazed not to mention confused and probably still in some degree of shock.....and it certainly wasnt self induced as you claim...obviously his mental state was the result of the thug viciously attacking him.
As explained earlier......it is the policy of police depts. not to interview a police officer involved in a deadly shooting directly after the event but to waiit a few days and let him get over the trauma and clear his head.
In his mental condition with his memory no doubt being jangled and not in the best form it is very possible that drejka in this confused state,--- may have mixed up how the event un-folded. Since he had been blindsided--- he probably did not have a firm grip on what even happened.
All he really knew was that he had been slammed to the ground and when he looked up he saw a black thug hovering over him and still advancing ---until he was able to get his pistol out--- and this scary memory is very likely what caused him to say he was coming after me.
Anyhow, those who have been in similar situations know the perp might stand back for a moment assess the situation and attack again.....if Mcglocken actually wanted to retreat he would have did like the guy behind him..........run to a place of safety. .
Yet, it is also possible the black guy did not believe drejka would actually pull the trigger...might have been looking for an opening to renew his attack.
In his drugged condition he was certainly not rational...and no one can predict what he might have done with any accuracy which has now been pointed out several times.
The drugs very possibly could have given him a sense of being invulnurable.
The best way to understand how the jury was in error is to realize that they were essentially spectators watching a video in slow motion in complete safety with the benefit of hindsight and hours to study the video and make up their minds.
Drejka on the other hand was not in a place of safety, had been violently assaulted, slammed to the ground and when he looked up he saw this black thug looming over him.
The jury simply could not place themselves in drejkas shoes....in fact did not even try to understand where he was coming from.
Again....they expected him to analyze the scenario the same way they did although he was operating in real life and real time....of which he had very little. He had to make the decision to shoot or not to shoot in a few short seconds whilst being traumatized and confused.
The jury made no leeway for his condition...which was inflicted on him by his attacker. They were in grave error.
After being indoctrinated by the prosecutor the jury obviously thought all they really had to do was to examine the video and make their determination....after all that is what the prosecutor told them to do over and over he--- hammered on that in a very loud voice--an exceedingly loud voice--watch the video, watch the video.....he kept repeating that like he was trying to hypnotize the jury....maybe he did.
At any rate the prosecutor controlled that timid jury and the faggot foreman's admission of just using the video to make the call proves he was in error of the law.
A terrible miscarriage of justice for sure.
None of that matters. He said what he believed before getting advice from a lawyer on what to say and what not to say. And what he said was that he shot McGlockton because McGlockton was still advancing on him and that he would not have shot McGlockton otherwise.
Turns out, McGlockton wasn't advancing on him when he was shot. In fact, he was backing away.
Guilty as charged. See ya, Drejka. Have fun in prison!
He's not an innocent man, even if he thought of himself as innocent. And despite his mental state at the time, he said he shot McGlockton because McGlockton was advancing on him."What you do not get is that statement from drejka was elicited from Drejka in a 6 hr. interrogation right after the event and drjjka was very tired still somewhat dazed not to mention confused and probably still in some degree of shock""Under the law it does not matter whether or not the thug was actually coming at drejka when he shot ..what matters under the law of self-defense --he must be in reasonable fear of his life or serious bodily injury."Drejka's perception was delusional. McGlockton was not coming at him when he shot him. It's vengeance, not self defense .
Still don't get the law no matter how many times it has been explained ....got attention deficient syndrome or sumptin?
Under the law it does not matter whether or not the thug was actually coming at drejka when he shot ..what matters under the law of self-defense --he must be in reasonable fear of his life or serious bodily injury.
Now all you have or anyone else who wants to believe drejka is guilty---- is to claim he was not in reasonable fear of his life. In order to do that you must ignore or reject all the reasons he was in fear of his life as any reasonable person would be.
What you and the jury have done is to use your perception of the video to say in essence that drejka should have had the same percepton as you---.outrageous to the extreme to think that.
Neither you nor the jury experienced the trauma that was inflicted on the defendant. Neither you nor the jury were placed in a position where you could have been killed. Neither you nor the jury had been threatened and violently slammed to the ground. Neither you nor the jury had only approx. 4-6 seconds to determine whether or not your life was in danger.
The jury took hours to decide that there was no reasonable danger....yet they expected someone that is dazed, disoriented and in some degree of shock to determine in 4-6 seconds what they took hours to determine? Get real.
Nutjob... it matters because Drejka's reason for being in fear was because he believed McGlockton was coming at him. Drejka even said he wouldn't have shit him had he not been coming at him.
Turns out, Drejka was hallucinating -- McGlockton wasn't coming at him.
A self-induced hallucination is not a reasonable fear to justify lethal force in self defense. Everyone gets that but you.
What you do not get is that statement from drejka was elicited from Drejka in a 6 hr. interrogation right after the event and drjjka was very tired still somewhat dazed not to mention confused and probably still in some degree of shock.....and it certainly wasnt self induced as you claim...obviously his mental state was the result of the thug viciously attacking him.
As explained earlier......it is the policy of police depts. not to interview a police officer involved in a deadly shooting directly after the event but to waiit a few days and let him get over the trauma and clear his head.
In his mental condition with his memory no doubt being jangled and not in the best form it is very possible that drejka in this confused state,--- may have mixed up how the event un-folded. Since he had been blindsided--- he probably did not have a firm grip on what even happened.
All he really knew was that he had been slammed to the ground and when he looked up he saw a black thug hovering over him and still advancing ---until he was able to get his pistol out--- and this scary memory is very likely what caused him to say he was coming after me.
Anyhow, those who have been in similar situations know the perp might stand back for a moment assess the situation and attack again.....if Mcglocken actually wanted to retreat he would have did like the guy behind him..........run to a place of safety. .
Yet, it is also possible the black guy did not believe drejka would actually pull the trigger...might have been looking for an opening to renew his attack.
In his drugged condition he was certainly not rational...and no one can predict what he might have done with any accuracy which has now been pointed out several times.
The drugs very possibly could have given him a sense of being invulnurable.
The best way to understand how the jury was in error is to realize that they were essentially spectators watching a video in slow motion in complete safety with the benefit of hindsight and hours to study the video and make up their minds.
Drejka on the other hand was not in a place of safety, had been violently assaulted, slammed to the ground and when he looked up he saw this black thug looming over him.
The jury simply could not place themselves in drejkas shoes....in fact did not even try to understand where he was coming from.
Again....they expected him to analyze the scenario the same way they did although he was operating in real life and real time....of which he had very little. He had to make the decision to shoot or not to shoot in a few short seconds whilst being traumatized and confused.
The jury made no leeway for his condition...which was inflicted on him by his attacker. They were in grave error.
After being indoctrinated by the prosecutor the jury obviously thought all they really had to do was to examine the video and make their determination....after all that is what the prosecutor told them to do over and over he--- hammered on that in a very loud voice--an exceedingly loud voice--watch the video, watch the video.....he kept repeating that like he was trying to hypnotize the jury....maybe he did.
At any rate the prosecutor controlled that timid jury and the faggot foreman's admission of just using the video to make the call proves he was in error of the law.
A terrible miscarriage of justice for sure.
None of that matters. He said what he believed before getting advice from a lawyer on what to say and what not to say. And what he said was that he shot McGlockton because McGlockton was still advancing on him and that he would not have shot McGlockton otherwise.
Turns out, McGlockton wasn't advancing on him when he was shot. In fact, he was backing away.
Guilty as charged. See ya, Drejka. Have fun in prison!
Drejka waived his miranda rights making the same mistake a lot of innocent people make. They think that just because they are innocent they have nothing to fear.
Huge mistake and he did not consult any attorney before the interrogation.
If you do not understand how someone can get rattled, disoriented, truamatized and thus be in some degree of shock after such a violent attack then I suggest you try it sometime. Take a stroll down any street named MLK around midnight and report back to us if you are able.
It is highly unfair to expect someone who has been through all that drejka had been through ....... not even to mention that he had just killed someone..... to not be in a state of confusion and shock thus impaired in his ability to recollect every event in the whole mess in a completely accurate mannner.
That is why (also pointed out several times.)... the police dept. policy is to not interview any officer right after a deadly shooting....they wait a few days until his head is clear and the shock has subsided.
Have you ever killed anyone? Do you not have any idea how that can affect someone?
Thus when you combine all that drejka had been through it is highly outrageous to expect him to be hitting on all 8 cylinders.
Thus the jury by not considering what drejka had been through and the effect on him were in error. No doubt about that.
I knew there were a lot of stupid people on this board but I did not fully recognize the extent of it.
This thread has made it very clear to me....either there are lots of really stupid folks on here or they may just not have any analytical ability or much life experience.
And unfortunately the jury had the same problems....obviously.
Again....a huge miscarriage of justice. Undeniable
Also for the umpteenth time..............the jury took hours of watching a slow motion video and frame by frame to come to their conclusion that the black guy was retreating and thus no threat to drejka......yet the jury expected drejka to come to that same conclusion despite all he had suffered and when he in real life and time.....only had a couple of seconds to come to such a determination.
Not even to mention that he was already in fear of his life from the moment he was slammed down and looked up to see a black thug hovering over him.
Any person with just a tad of common sense would have been in reasonable fear of their life. This is irrefutable.
Even the lame ass feminized jury foreman with 0 understanding of the law said that Drejka was in the right to ;pull out his pistol....but that he should not have fired.....Oh Really? Of course his life was not on the line....thus easy for him to say that.
It is common knowledge that the police academies tell their cadets if you pull your weapon you better use it.
It is not uncommon for someone (usually a woman) to brandish a pistol to try and scare off an intruder or some kind of violent person but to only get it taken from them and used against them because they did not have what it takes to pull the trigger....lots of folks just do not have what it takes to kill someone...even to protect their own life. I think a lot of the posters on here attacking drejka may fit into that category.
In veitnam it was common practice for a combat unit to force a newby to fire into a dead viet cong body to acclimate them to firing at a fellow human being....too many newbys would freeze up when under attack and refuse to fire their weapons.
It's not a reasonable fear when you're hallucinating someone is coming at you when they're not.:The perception of the shooter is critical. And Drejka's perception was horribly skewed. Poor perception is not a reasonable excuse for self defense.
That is your view using hindsight and a slow motion video...neither of which was available to the man with his life hanging in the balance.
Anyhow it is not relevant that his perception may have been skewed.
According to the law on self defense which you obviously do not understand....the most important and the critical question being in order to follow the law being.... was drejka in reasonable fear of his life'?
Let us do a quick review....drejka in the process of legally checking out whether or not a vehicle was authorized to park in a handcap spot was verbally assaulted and threatened by the black woman.
Then 'her man' rushed out of the store with no clue as to what was going on and not even to mention in a state of impairment due to 2 illegal drugs in his system, violently assaulted drejka.
No rational reason why he would do that. Even the foreman of the jury admitted that was not needed. Aka no legal or rational reason for the black thug to assault drejka.
Thus the question...why? Why did he assault drejka?
Possible motive....he was high on drugs and had a pre-disposition and a history of violence and assault...thus his violent nature and the effects of the drugs triggered him to attack a white man who dared argue with his wife.
The race of drejka being a critical factor here no doubt--the thug would never have attacked a fellow black without trying to figure out what was going down.
Thus his attack very likely being of a racist nature--- if he had lived he could have been charged with a hate crime.
Immediately upon being assaulted drejka should have been and was in fear of his life or of grievious bodily harm. Just plain common sense. As pointed out over and over we have all seen some of the videos that circulate on the internet showing black thugs knocking down and then beating their victim to death and or kicking him to death.
Most likely drjeka had seen such videos which if he had would even add to his legitimate and reasonable perception that he was in fear of his life or of grievious bodily injury.....which justifies the use of lethal defense under the florida law on self defense.
Now of course the liberals believe that lethal force should never be used by whites against blacks....that is just their hypocritical nature. You do not see them getting upset over all the mayhem in Chicago. They only get concerned when a white guy kills one of their darlin lil darkies.
Anyhow after the violent assault drejka looks up and sees the black thug hovering over him...from that moment his concentration and motivation was to do what he could to insure his life....getting his weapon out, clicking the safety off, raising the weapon and due to his injured right arm he had to use his left hand to support the weapon--then he had to sight the weapon on the center of the thugs body mass...which is what drejka was looking at...not looking at the thugs feet, not even noticing the thug had taken a few halting backward steps...his concentration was on the center mass of the thug ...and as soon as he was able he pulled the trigger. Certainly a reasonable thing to do for anyone interested in preserving their life.
No, after watching the video, It wasnt justified. the shooter was knocked to the ground after having words with a mans girlfriend. McGlockton wasnt continuing any attack. Sometimes fights happen, sometimes you get your ass handed to you, but In my book, thats not a right to kill someone. The shooter was either a coward or full of hate for some reason.
Even if your stupid statement was correct. You would still be wrong.
Under the law someone can be a coward and full of hate and still be justified to use lethal force to defend their life if they are in reasonable fear of their life.
There was more than enough evidence for a competent jury to have understood drejka was in fact...in reasonable fear of his life or great bodily injury.
Well, you have a right to your opinion. Sorry If I don't agree. He got knocked down one time.I didn't see any kind of beating taking place... IMO, you cant make pulling the trigger that easy or people will be getting shot for looking at someone the wrong way.
Well of course you are entitled to your opinion but the law is the law and it says anyone in reasonable fear of their life or of great bodily harm is entitled to use lethal force.
To make it even more clear....one can be in reasonable fear of his life without getting knocked down even one time and without getting beat at all.
Nevertheless, you are a good example of how the Law of Self defense is eroding as we speak.
In order to successfully employ a claim of self defense you must be able or your lawyer must be able to convince a jury you were actually in reasonable fear of your life......that is much more difficult these days due to several factors...one of the most important now being how the media has been very successful in convincing so many that if you shoot a black man and most especially a unarmed black man you are obviously a racist and thus automatically wrong....and may very possibly be found guilty.-- even though you were in reasonable fear of your life.
. Not even to mention a lot of people that serve on juries do not really understand the laws on self defense even though the judge will explain it to them.....they are very easily confused by a tough skilled prosecutor who wants to convict and will use any tool he can come up with to convict even if it means confusing the jury --if he perceives that will help him to get a conviction. Which is precisely what happened in the drejka case. The highly skilled prosecutor was able to persuade the jury all they had to do was watch the video....thus they neglected to examine all the evidence showing drejka was in reasonable fear of his life.
Your location will play a big role also.....in areas where political correctness is very strong you will have more difficulty claiming self defense.
This drejka case being a good example. Clearwater being a tourist town and heavily dependent on tourism for their economy ....the political leadership is very sensitive to anything that might give them a national black eye....such as black political activists claiming their police are racist or that some racist white guy got away with killing an unarmed black man in Clearwater....thus they are vulnurable to a threat of being boycotted.
As we saw in the drejka case the police investigated and said he was within his legal rights to use lethal force to defend his life.
Unfortunately for him, outside black political operatives descended on Clearwater,
fl. and organized protests, the media got heavily involved and very sympathetic towards the family of the black guy that was killed.
So under all this political pressure the politicians caved in and decided to arrest and charge drejka with manslaughter. Very similar to the Zimmerman case except the charge was manslaughter.....a result of the state failing to convict Z on a charger of murder...they learned to come up with a lesser charge in order to help them get a conviction and it worked.
Unfortunately for drejka his defense team was not nearly as good as the one Z had and the team of prosecutors were highly skilled unlike in the Z case.
Another big factor these days is if you are carrying a concealed weapon.....though legal in a lot of places....many people and especially many potential jurors....do not accept that as being really legit...They find it offensive....in other words they view such people as a danger and thus their decisions regarding legitimate self defense are going to be affected negatively by their hatred of guns and most especially by their mistrust of someone who carries and conceals a weapon.
. Such juries can be easily convinced that those who do that are just looking to shoot someone, or that they are a wanna b cop which has become objectionable in many places in our society today.
I have advised those who legally carry concealed weapons that they are putting themselves in danger because many juries irregardless of the legality of it find it objectionable.
i used to carry a concealed weapon but recognizing the inherent danger of it...I switched to carrying a knife. Very effective a close ranges.
In a nutshell due to racial politics, the power of the media and politicially correct juries....it is much more difficult to get a fair trial now if you find yourself in a situation where you feel you must use lethal force....and it is going to get even harder and this conviction of drejka will add to that difficulty.
He's not an innocent man, even if he thought of himself as innocent. And despite his mental state at the time, he said he shot McGlockton because McGlockton was advancing on him."What you do not get is that statement from drejka was elicited from Drejka in a 6 hr. interrogation right after the event and drjjka was very tired still somewhat dazed not to mention confused and probably still in some degree of shock""Under the law it does not matter whether or not the thug was actually coming at drejka when he shot ..what matters under the law of self-defense --he must be in reasonable fear of his life or serious bodily injury."Still don't get the law no matter how many times it has been explained ....got attention deficient syndrome or sumptin?
Under the law it does not matter whether or not the thug was actually coming at drejka when he shot ..what matters under the law of self-defense --he must be in reasonable fear of his life or serious bodily injury.
Now all you have or anyone else who wants to believe drejka is guilty---- is to claim he was not in reasonable fear of his life. In order to do that you must ignore or reject all the reasons he was in fear of his life as any reasonable person would be.
What you and the jury have done is to use your perception of the video to say in essence that drejka should have had the same percepton as you---.outrageous to the extreme to think that.
Neither you nor the jury experienced the trauma that was inflicted on the defendant. Neither you nor the jury were placed in a position where you could have been killed. Neither you nor the jury had been threatened and violently slammed to the ground. Neither you nor the jury had only approx. 4-6 seconds to determine whether or not your life was in danger.
The jury took hours to decide that there was no reasonable danger....yet they expected someone that is dazed, disoriented and in some degree of shock to determine in 4-6 seconds what they took hours to determine? Get real.
Nutjob... it matters because Drejka's reason for being in fear was because he believed McGlockton was coming at him. Drejka even said he wouldn't have shit him had he not been coming at him.
Turns out, Drejka was hallucinating -- McGlockton wasn't coming at him.
A self-induced hallucination is not a reasonable fear to justify lethal force in self defense. Everyone gets that but you.
What you do not get is that statement from drejka was elicited from Drejka in a 6 hr. interrogation right after the event and drjjka was very tired still somewhat dazed not to mention confused and probably still in some degree of shock.....and it certainly wasnt self induced as you claim...obviously his mental state was the result of the thug viciously attacking him.
As explained earlier......it is the policy of police depts. not to interview a police officer involved in a deadly shooting directly after the event but to waiit a few days and let him get over the trauma and clear his head.
In his mental condition with his memory no doubt being jangled and not in the best form it is very possible that drejka in this confused state,--- may have mixed up how the event un-folded. Since he had been blindsided--- he probably did not have a firm grip on what even happened.
All he really knew was that he had been slammed to the ground and when he looked up he saw a black thug hovering over him and still advancing ---until he was able to get his pistol out--- and this scary memory is very likely what caused him to say he was coming after me.
Anyhow, those who have been in similar situations know the perp might stand back for a moment assess the situation and attack again.....if Mcglocken actually wanted to retreat he would have did like the guy behind him..........run to a place of safety. .
Yet, it is also possible the black guy did not believe drejka would actually pull the trigger...might have been looking for an opening to renew his attack.
In his drugged condition he was certainly not rational...and no one can predict what he might have done with any accuracy which has now been pointed out several times.
The drugs very possibly could have given him a sense of being invulnurable.
The best way to understand how the jury was in error is to realize that they were essentially spectators watching a video in slow motion in complete safety with the benefit of hindsight and hours to study the video and make up their minds.
Drejka on the other hand was not in a place of safety, had been violently assaulted, slammed to the ground and when he looked up he saw this black thug looming over him.
The jury simply could not place themselves in drejkas shoes....in fact did not even try to understand where he was coming from.
Again....they expected him to analyze the scenario the same way they did although he was operating in real life and real time....of which he had very little. He had to make the decision to shoot or not to shoot in a few short seconds whilst being traumatized and confused.
The jury made no leeway for his condition...which was inflicted on him by his attacker. They were in grave error.
After being indoctrinated by the prosecutor the jury obviously thought all they really had to do was to examine the video and make their determination....after all that is what the prosecutor told them to do over and over he--- hammered on that in a very loud voice--an exceedingly loud voice--watch the video, watch the video.....he kept repeating that like he was trying to hypnotize the jury....maybe he did.
At any rate the prosecutor controlled that timid jury and the faggot foreman's admission of just using the video to make the call proves he was in error of the law.
A terrible miscarriage of justice for sure.
None of that matters. He said what he believed before getting advice from a lawyer on what to say and what not to say. And what he said was that he shot McGlockton because McGlockton was still advancing on him and that he would not have shot McGlockton otherwise.
Turns out, McGlockton wasn't advancing on him when he was shot. In fact, he was backing away.
Guilty as charged. See ya, Drejka. Have fun in prison!
Drejka waived his miranda rights making the same mistake a lot of innocent people make. They think that just because they are innocent they have nothing to fear.
Huge mistake and he did not consult any attorney before the interrogation.
If you do not understand how someone can get rattled, disoriented, truamatized and thus be in some degree of shock after such a violent attack then I suggest you try it sometime. Take a stroll down any street named MLK around midnight and report back to us if you are able.
It is highly unfair to expect someone who has been through all that drejka had been through ....... not even to mention that he had just killed someone..... to not be in a state of confusion and shock thus impaired in his ability to recollect every event in the whole mess in a completely accurate mannner.
That is why (also pointed out several times.)... the police dept. policy is to not interview any officer right after a deadly shooting....they wait a few days until his head is clear and the shock has subsided.
Have you ever killed anyone? Do you not have any idea how that can affect someone?
Thus when you combine all that drejka had been through it is highly outrageous to expect him to be hitting on all 8 cylinders.
Thus the jury by not considering what drejka had been through and the effect on him were in error. No doubt about that.
I knew there were a lot of stupid people on this board but I did not fully recognize the extent of it.
This thread has made it very clear to me....either there are lots of really stupid folks on here or they may just not have any analytical ability or much life experience.
And unfortunately the jury had the same problems....obviously.
Again....a huge miscarriage of justice. Undeniable
Also for the umpteenth time..............the jury took hours of watching a slow motion video and frame by frame to come to their conclusion that the black guy was retreating and thus no threat to drejka......yet the jury expected drejka to come to that same conclusion despite all he had suffered and when he in real life and time.....only had a couple of seconds to come to such a determination.
Not even to mention that he was already in fear of his life from the moment he was slammed down and looked up to see a black thug hovering over him.
Any person with just a tad of common sense would have been in reasonable fear of their life. This is irrefutable.
Even the lame ass feminized jury foreman with 0 understanding of the law said that Drejka was in the right to ;pull out his pistol....but that he should not have fired.....Oh Really? Of course his life was not on the line....thus easy for him to say that.
It is common knowledge that the police academies tell their cadets if you pull your weapon you better use it.
It is not uncommon for someone (usually a woman) to brandish a pistol to try and scare off an intruder or some kind of violent person but to only get it taken from them and used against them because they did not have what it takes to pull the trigger....lots of folks just do not have what it takes to kill someone...even to protect their own life. I think a lot of the posters on here attacking drejka may fit into that category.
In veitnam it was common practice for a combat unit to force a newby to fire into a dead viet cong body to acclimate them to firing at a fellow human being....too many newbys would freeze up when under attack and refuse to fire their weapons.
Are you claiming he didn't believe McGlockton was coming towards him when he shot him?
It's not a reasonable fear when you're hallucinating someone is coming at you when they're not.:
That is your view using hindsight and a slow motion video...neither of which was available to the man with his life hanging in the balance.
Anyhow it is not relevant that his perception may have been skewed.
According to the law on self defense which you obviously do not understand....the most important and the critical question being in order to follow the law being.... was drejka in reasonable fear of his life'?
Let us do a quick review....drejka in the process of legally checking out whether or not a vehicle was authorized to park in a handcap spot was verbally assaulted and threatened by the black woman.
Then 'her man' rushed out of the store with no clue as to what was going on and not even to mention in a state of impairment due to 2 illegal drugs in his system, violently assaulted drejka.
No rational reason why he would do that. Even the foreman of the jury admitted that was not needed. Aka no legal or rational reason for the black thug to assault drejka.
Thus the question...why? Why did he assault drejka?
Possible motive....he was high on drugs and had a pre-disposition and a history of violence and assault...thus his violent nature and the effects of the drugs triggered him to attack a white man who dared argue with his wife.
The race of drejka being a critical factor here no doubt--the thug would never have attacked a fellow black without trying to figure out what was going down.
Thus his attack very likely being of a racist nature--- if he had lived he could have been charged with a hate crime.
Immediately upon being assaulted drejka should have been and was in fear of his life or of grievious bodily harm. Just plain common sense. As pointed out over and over we have all seen some of the videos that circulate on the internet showing black thugs knocking down and then beating their victim to death and or kicking him to death.
Most likely drjeka had seen such videos which if he had would even add to his legitimate and reasonable perception that he was in fear of his life or of grievious bodily injury.....which justifies the use of lethal defense under the florida law on self defense.
Now of course the liberals believe that lethal force should never be used by whites against blacks....that is just their hypocritical nature. You do not see them getting upset over all the mayhem in Chicago. They only get concerned when a white guy kills one of their darlin lil darkies.
Anyhow after the violent assault drejka looks up and sees the black thug hovering over him...from that moment his concentration and motivation was to do what he could to insure his life....getting his weapon out, clicking the safety off, raising the weapon and due to his injured right arm he had to use his left hand to support the weapon--then he had to sight the weapon on the center of the thugs body mass...which is what drejka was looking at...not looking at the thugs feet, not even noticing the thug had taken a few halting backward steps...his concentration was on the center mass of the thug ...and as soon as he was able he pulled the trigger. Certainly a reasonable thing to do for anyone interested in preserving their life.
No, after watching the video, It wasnt justified. the shooter was knocked to the ground after having words with a mans girlfriend. McGlockton wasnt continuing any attack. Sometimes fights happen, sometimes you get your ass handed to you, but In my book, thats not a right to kill someone. The shooter was either a coward or full of hate for some reason.
Even if your stupid statement was correct. You would still be wrong.
Under the law someone can be a coward and full of hate and still be justified to use lethal force to defend their life if they are in reasonable fear of their life.
There was more than enough evidence for a competent jury to have understood drejka was in fact...in reasonable fear of his life or great bodily injury.
Well, you have a right to your opinion. Sorry If I don't agree. He got knocked down one time.I didn't see any kind of beating taking place... IMO, you cant make pulling the trigger that easy or people will be getting shot for looking at someone the wrong way.
Well of course you are entitled to your opinion but the law is the law and it says anyone in reasonable fear of their life or of great bodily harm is entitled to use lethal force.
To make it even more clear....one can be in reasonable fear of his life without getting knocked down even one time and without getting beat at all.
Nevertheless, you are a good example of how the Law of Self defense is eroding as we speak.
In order to successfully employ a claim of self defense you must be able or your lawyer must be able to convince a jury you were actually in reasonable fear of your life......that is much more difficult these days due to several factors...one of the most important now being how the media has been very successful in convincing so many that if you shoot a black man and most especially a unarmed black man you are obviously a racist and thus automatically wrong....and may very possibly be found guilty.-- even though you were in reasonable fear of your life.
. Not even to mention a lot of people that serve on juries do not really understand the laws on self defense even though the judge will explain it to them.....they are very easily confused by a tough skilled prosecutor who wants to convict and will use any tool he can come up with to convict even if it means confusing the jury --if he perceives that will help him to get a conviction. Which is precisely what happened in the drejka case. The highly skilled prosecutor was able to persuade the jury all they had to do was watch the video....thus they neglected to examine all the evidence showing drejka was in reasonable fear of his life.
Your location will play a big role also.....in areas where political correctness is very strong you will have more difficulty claiming self defense.
This drejka case being a good example. Clearwater being a tourist town and heavily dependent on tourism for their economy ....the political leadership is very sensitive to anything that might give them a national black eye....such as black political activists claiming their police are racist or that some racist white guy got away with killing an unarmed black man in Clearwater....thus they are vulnurable to a threat of being boycotted.
As we saw in the drejka case the police investigated and said he was within his legal rights to use lethal force to defend his life.
Unfortunately for him, outside black political operatives descended on Clearwater,
fl. and organized protests, the media got heavily involved and very sympathetic towards the family of the black guy that was killed.
So under all this political pressure the politicians caved in and decided to arrest and charge drejka with manslaughter. Very similar to the Zimmerman case except the charge was manslaughter.....a result of the state failing to convict Z on a charger of murder...they learned to come up with a lesser charge in order to help them get a conviction and it worked.
Unfortunately for drejka his defense team was not nearly as good as the one Z had and the team of prosecutors were highly skilled unlike in the Z case.
Another big factor these days is if you are carrying a concealed weapon.....though legal in a lot of places....many people and especially many potential jurors....do not accept that as being really legit...They find it offensive....in other words they view such people as a danger and thus their decisions regarding legitimate self defense are going to be affected negatively by their hatred of guns and most especially by their mistrust of someone who carries and conceals a weapon.
. Such juries can be easily convinced that those who do that are just looking to shoot someone, or that they are a wanna b cop which has become objectionable in many places in our society today.
I have advised those who legally carry concealed weapons that they are putting themselves in danger because many juries irregardless of the legality of it find it objectionable.
i used to carry a concealed weapon but recognizing the inherent danger of it...I switched to carrying a knife. Very effective a close ranges.
In a nutshell due to racial politics, the power of the media and politicially correct juries....it is much more difficult to get a fair trial now if you find yourself in a situation where you feel you must use lethal force....and it is going to get even harder and this conviction of drejka will add to that difficulty.
Guilty as charged.
Lock him up!
"I hit my head on the ground and thus I am dazed and not all completely cognizant of what is going on....after knocking me to the ground you back up a couple of steps pausing to assess the situation. I in my impaired mental condidtion do not see you back up.....I just look up see you there and pull out my pistol and shoot you because I perceive you as a threat either to my life or of further grievious bodily harm."It's not a reasonable fear when you're hallucinating someone is coming at you when they're not.No, after watching the video, It wasnt justified. the shooter was knocked to the ground after having words with a mans girlfriend. McGlockton wasnt continuing any attack. Sometimes fights happen, sometimes you get your ass handed to you, but In my book, thats not a right to kill someone. The shooter was either a coward or full of hate for some reason.
Even if your stupid statement was correct. You would still be wrong.
Under the law someone can be a coward and full of hate and still be justified to use lethal force to defend their life if they are in reasonable fear of their life.
There was more than enough evidence for a competent jury to have understood drejka was in fact...in reasonable fear of his life or great bodily injury.
Well, you have a right to your opinion. Sorry If I don't agree. He got knocked down one time.I didn't see any kind of beating taking place... IMO, you cant make pulling the trigger that easy or people will be getting shot for looking at someone the wrong way.
Well of course you are entitled to your opinion but the law is the law and it says anyone in reasonable fear of their life or of great bodily harm is entitled to use lethal force.
To make it even more clear....one can be in reasonable fear of his life without getting knocked down even one time and without getting beat at all.
Nevertheless, you are a good example of how the Law of Self defense is eroding as we speak.
In order to successfully employ a claim of self defense you must be able or your lawyer must be able to convince a jury you were actually in reasonable fear of your life......that is much more difficult these days due to several factors...one of the most important now being how the media has been very successful in convincing so many that if you shoot a black man and most especially a unarmed black man you are obviously a racist and thus automatically wrong....and may very possibly be found guilty.-- even though you were in reasonable fear of your life.
. Not even to mention a lot of people that serve on juries do not really understand the laws on self defense even though the judge will explain it to them.....they are very easily confused by a tough skilled prosecutor who wants to convict and will use any tool he can come up with to convict even if it means confusing the jury --if he perceives that will help him to get a conviction. Which is precisely what happened in the drejka case. The highly skilled prosecutor was able to persuade the jury all they had to do was watch the video....thus they neglected to examine all the evidence showing drejka was in reasonable fear of his life.
Your location will play a big role also.....in areas where political correctness is very strong you will have more difficulty claiming self defense.
This drejka case being a good example. Clearwater being a tourist town and heavily dependent on tourism for their economy ....the political leadership is very sensitive to anything that might give them a national black eye....such as black political activists claiming their police are racist or that some racist white guy got away with killing an unarmed black man in Clearwater....thus they are vulnurable to a threat of being boycotted.
As we saw in the drejka case the police investigated and said he was within his legal rights to use lethal force to defend his life.
Unfortunately for him, outside black political operatives descended on Clearwater,
fl. and organized protests, the media got heavily involved and very sympathetic towards the family of the black guy that was killed.
So under all this political pressure the politicians caved in and decided to arrest and charge drejka with manslaughter. Very similar to the Zimmerman case except the charge was manslaughter.....a result of the state failing to convict Z on a charger of murder...they learned to come up with a lesser charge in order to help them get a conviction and it worked.
Unfortunately for drejka his defense team was not nearly as good as the one Z had and the team of prosecutors were highly skilled unlike in the Z case.
Another big factor these days is if you are carrying a concealed weapon.....though legal in a lot of places....many people and especially many potential jurors....do not accept that as being really legit...They find it offensive....in other words they view such people as a danger and thus their decisions regarding legitimate self defense are going to be affected negatively by their hatred of guns and most especially by their mistrust of someone who carries and conceals a weapon.
. Such juries can be easily convinced that those who do that are just looking to shoot someone, or that they are a wanna b cop which has become objectionable in many places in our society today.
I have advised those who legally carry concealed weapons that they are putting themselves in danger because many juries irregardless of the legality of it find it objectionable.
i used to carry a concealed weapon but recognizing the inherent danger of it...I switched to carrying a knife. Very effective a close ranges.
In a nutshell due to racial politics, the power of the media and politicially correct juries....it is much more difficult to get a fair trial now if you find yourself in a situation where you feel you must use lethal force....and it is going to get even harder and this conviction of drejka will add to that difficulty.
Guilty as charged.
Lock him up!
El Wrongo his mental state was not self induced...it was inflicted on him by the aggressor and thus the aggressor is responsible which makes drejka innocent.
For example: Say I am standing on the corner in Winslow, Arizona and you come down the sidewalk and violently knock me to the ground. I hit my head on the ground and thus I am dazed and not all completely cognizant of what is going on....after knocking me to the ground you back up a couple of steps pausing to assess the situation. I in my impaired mental condidtion do not see you back up.....I just look up see you there and pull out my pistol and shoot you because I perceive you as a threat either to my life or of further grievious bodily harm.
No reasonable jury would fail to consider my mental state as in totally overlook it.
That is what happened in the drejka case.....the jury considered only the video itself and their perception of it as the main if not the only factor....which simply was not the case.
Thus they were in error and drejka deserves a new trial without a doubt.
"I hit my head on the ground and thus I am dazed and not all completely cognizant of what is going on....after knocking me to the ground you back up a couple of steps pausing to assess the situation. I in my impaired mental condidtion do not see you back up.....I just look up see you there and pull out my pistol and shoot you because I perceive you as a threat either to my life or of further grievious bodily harm."It's not a reasonable fear when you're hallucinating someone is coming at you when they're not.Even if your stupid statement was correct. You would still be wrong.
Under the law someone can be a coward and full of hate and still be justified to use lethal force to defend their life if they are in reasonable fear of their life.
There was more than enough evidence for a competent jury to have understood drejka was in fact...in reasonable fear of his life or great bodily injury.
Well, you have a right to your opinion. Sorry If I don't agree. He got knocked down one time.I didn't see any kind of beating taking place... IMO, you cant make pulling the trigger that easy or people will be getting shot for looking at someone the wrong way.
Well of course you are entitled to your opinion but the law is the law and it says anyone in reasonable fear of their life or of great bodily harm is entitled to use lethal force.
To make it even more clear....one can be in reasonable fear of his life without getting knocked down even one time and without getting beat at all.
Nevertheless, you are a good example of how the Law of Self defense is eroding as we speak.
In order to successfully employ a claim of self defense you must be able or your lawyer must be able to convince a jury you were actually in reasonable fear of your life......that is much more difficult these days due to several factors...one of the most important now being how the media has been very successful in convincing so many that if you shoot a black man and most especially a unarmed black man you are obviously a racist and thus automatically wrong....and may very possibly be found guilty.-- even though you were in reasonable fear of your life.
. Not even to mention a lot of people that serve on juries do not really understand the laws on self defense even though the judge will explain it to them.....they are very easily confused by a tough skilled prosecutor who wants to convict and will use any tool he can come up with to convict even if it means confusing the jury --if he perceives that will help him to get a conviction. Which is precisely what happened in the drejka case. The highly skilled prosecutor was able to persuade the jury all they had to do was watch the video....thus they neglected to examine all the evidence showing drejka was in reasonable fear of his life.
Your location will play a big role also.....in areas where political correctness is very strong you will have more difficulty claiming self defense.
This drejka case being a good example. Clearwater being a tourist town and heavily dependent on tourism for their economy ....the political leadership is very sensitive to anything that might give them a national black eye....such as black political activists claiming their police are racist or that some racist white guy got away with killing an unarmed black man in Clearwater....thus they are vulnurable to a threat of being boycotted.
As we saw in the drejka case the police investigated and said he was within his legal rights to use lethal force to defend his life.
Unfortunately for him, outside black political operatives descended on Clearwater,
fl. and organized protests, the media got heavily involved and very sympathetic towards the family of the black guy that was killed.
So under all this political pressure the politicians caved in and decided to arrest and charge drejka with manslaughter. Very similar to the Zimmerman case except the charge was manslaughter.....a result of the state failing to convict Z on a charger of murder...they learned to come up with a lesser charge in order to help them get a conviction and it worked.
Unfortunately for drejka his defense team was not nearly as good as the one Z had and the team of prosecutors were highly skilled unlike in the Z case.
Another big factor these days is if you are carrying a concealed weapon.....though legal in a lot of places....many people and especially many potential jurors....do not accept that as being really legit...They find it offensive....in other words they view such people as a danger and thus their decisions regarding legitimate self defense are going to be affected negatively by their hatred of guns and most especially by their mistrust of someone who carries and conceals a weapon.
. Such juries can be easily convinced that those who do that are just looking to shoot someone, or that they are a wanna b cop which has become objectionable in many places in our society today.
I have advised those who legally carry concealed weapons that they are putting themselves in danger because many juries irregardless of the legality of it find it objectionable.
i used to carry a concealed weapon but recognizing the inherent danger of it...I switched to carrying a knife. Very effective a close ranges.
In a nutshell due to racial politics, the power of the media and politicially correct juries....it is much more difficult to get a fair trial now if you find yourself in a situation where you feel you must use lethal force....and it is going to get even harder and this conviction of drejka will add to that difficulty.
Guilty as charged.
Lock him up!
El Wrongo his mental state was not self induced...it was inflicted on him by the aggressor and thus the aggressor is responsible which makes drejka innocent.
For example: Say I am standing on the corner in Winslow, Arizona and you come down the sidewalk and violently knock me to the ground. I hit my head on the ground and thus I am dazed and not all completely cognizant of what is going on....after knocking me to the ground you back up a couple of steps pausing to assess the situation. I in my impaired mental condidtion do not see you back up.....I just look up see you there and pull out my pistol and shoot you because I perceive you as a threat either to my life or of further grievious bodily harm.
No reasonable jury would fail to consider my mental state as in totally overlook it.
That is what happened in the drejka case.....the jury considered only the video itself and their perception of it as the main if not the only factor....which simply was not the case.
Thus they were in error and drejka deserves a new trial without a doubt.
What utter bullshit. We're talking about Drejka, not you. Drejka never said he hit his head. Drejka never said he was dazed. Drejka never said he was mentally impaired. Drejka never said he just looked up to see McGlockton standing there.
You're literally making up a defense for Drejka that he didn't make for himself because his actual defense failed him, resulting in a guilty verdict.
Lock him up!
"I hit my head on the ground and thus I am dazed and not all completely cognizant of what is going on....after knocking me to the ground you back up a couple of steps pausing to assess the situation. I in my impaired mental condidtion do not see you back up.....I just look up see you there and pull out my pistol and shoot you because I perceive you as a threat either to my life or of further grievious bodily harm."It's not a reasonable fear when you're hallucinating someone is coming at you when they're not.Well, you have a right to your opinion. Sorry If I don't agree. He got knocked down one time.I didn't see any kind of beating taking place... IMO, you cant make pulling the trigger that easy or people will be getting shot for looking at someone the wrong way.
Well of course you are entitled to your opinion but the law is the law and it says anyone in reasonable fear of their life or of great bodily harm is entitled to use lethal force.
To make it even more clear....one can be in reasonable fear of his life without getting knocked down even one time and without getting beat at all.
Nevertheless, you are a good example of how the Law of Self defense is eroding as we speak.
In order to successfully employ a claim of self defense you must be able or your lawyer must be able to convince a jury you were actually in reasonable fear of your life......that is much more difficult these days due to several factors...one of the most important now being how the media has been very successful in convincing so many that if you shoot a black man and most especially a unarmed black man you are obviously a racist and thus automatically wrong....and may very possibly be found guilty.-- even though you were in reasonable fear of your life.
. Not even to mention a lot of people that serve on juries do not really understand the laws on self defense even though the judge will explain it to them.....they are very easily confused by a tough skilled prosecutor who wants to convict and will use any tool he can come up with to convict even if it means confusing the jury --if he perceives that will help him to get a conviction. Which is precisely what happened in the drejka case. The highly skilled prosecutor was able to persuade the jury all they had to do was watch the video....thus they neglected to examine all the evidence showing drejka was in reasonable fear of his life.
Your location will play a big role also.....in areas where political correctness is very strong you will have more difficulty claiming self defense.
This drejka case being a good example. Clearwater being a tourist town and heavily dependent on tourism for their economy ....the political leadership is very sensitive to anything that might give them a national black eye....such as black political activists claiming their police are racist or that some racist white guy got away with killing an unarmed black man in Clearwater....thus they are vulnurable to a threat of being boycotted.
As we saw in the drejka case the police investigated and said he was within his legal rights to use lethal force to defend his life.
Unfortunately for him, outside black political operatives descended on Clearwater,
fl. and organized protests, the media got heavily involved and very sympathetic towards the family of the black guy that was killed.
So under all this political pressure the politicians caved in and decided to arrest and charge drejka with manslaughter. Very similar to the Zimmerman case except the charge was manslaughter.....a result of the state failing to convict Z on a charger of murder...they learned to come up with a lesser charge in order to help them get a conviction and it worked.
Unfortunately for drejka his defense team was not nearly as good as the one Z had and the team of prosecutors were highly skilled unlike in the Z case.
Another big factor these days is if you are carrying a concealed weapon.....though legal in a lot of places....many people and especially many potential jurors....do not accept that as being really legit...They find it offensive....in other words they view such people as a danger and thus their decisions regarding legitimate self defense are going to be affected negatively by their hatred of guns and most especially by their mistrust of someone who carries and conceals a weapon.
. Such juries can be easily convinced that those who do that are just looking to shoot someone, or that they are a wanna b cop which has become objectionable in many places in our society today.
I have advised those who legally carry concealed weapons that they are putting themselves in danger because many juries irregardless of the legality of it find it objectionable.
i used to carry a concealed weapon but recognizing the inherent danger of it...I switched to carrying a knife. Very effective a close ranges.
In a nutshell due to racial politics, the power of the media and politicially correct juries....it is much more difficult to get a fair trial now if you find yourself in a situation where you feel you must use lethal force....and it is going to get even harder and this conviction of drejka will add to that difficulty.
Guilty as charged.
Lock him up!
El Wrongo his mental state was not self induced...it was inflicted on him by the aggressor and thus the aggressor is responsible which makes drejka innocent.
For example: Say I am standing on the corner in Winslow, Arizona and you come down the sidewalk and violently knock me to the ground. I hit my head on the ground and thus I am dazed and not all completely cognizant of what is going on....after knocking me to the ground you back up a couple of steps pausing to assess the situation. I in my impaired mental condidtion do not see you back up.....I just look up see you there and pull out my pistol and shoot you because I perceive you as a threat either to my life or of further grievious bodily harm.
No reasonable jury would fail to consider my mental state as in totally overlook it.
That is what happened in the drejka case.....the jury considered only the video itself and their perception of it as the main if not the only factor....which simply was not the case.
Thus they were in error and drejka deserves a new trial without a doubt.
What utter bullshit. We're talking about Drejka, not you. Drejka never said he hit his head. Drejka never said he was dazed. Drejka never said he was mentally impaired. Drejka never said he just looked up to see McGlockton standing there.
You're literally making up a defense for Drejka that he didn't make for himself because his actual defense failed him, resulting in a guilty verdict.
Lock him up!
Wrong again.....Michael Drejka indeed said he was dazed.
Did you watch the interrogation? If so you must not have been playing close attention.
Here it is and try and pay attention this time. My patience with your mistatement of facts is wearing thin.
Not even to mention drejka was in no condition to accurately appraise his mental state....the police were negligent in not having him examined. He should have been immediately transported to a medical facilty to have his mental and physical condition checked.
The police did not do this even though it was obvious he had been injured as you can see in the video he has his right arm in a make-shift sling that he had made using his shirt.
"I hit my head on the ground and thus I am dazed and not all completely cognizant of what is going on....after knocking me to the ground you back up a couple of steps pausing to assess the situation. I in my impaired mental condidtion do not see you back up.....I just look up see you there and pull out my pistol and shoot you because I perceive you as a threat either to my life or of further grievious bodily harm."It's not a reasonable fear when you're hallucinating someone is coming at you when they're not.Well of course you are entitled to your opinion but the law is the law and it says anyone in reasonable fear of their life or of great bodily harm is entitled to use lethal force.
To make it even more clear....one can be in reasonable fear of his life without getting knocked down even one time and without getting beat at all.
Nevertheless, you are a good example of how the Law of Self defense is eroding as we speak.
In order to successfully employ a claim of self defense you must be able or your lawyer must be able to convince a jury you were actually in reasonable fear of your life......that is much more difficult these days due to several factors...one of the most important now being how the media has been very successful in convincing so many that if you shoot a black man and most especially a unarmed black man you are obviously a racist and thus automatically wrong....and may very possibly be found guilty.-- even though you were in reasonable fear of your life.
. Not even to mention a lot of people that serve on juries do not really understand the laws on self defense even though the judge will explain it to them.....they are very easily confused by a tough skilled prosecutor who wants to convict and will use any tool he can come up with to convict even if it means confusing the jury --if he perceives that will help him to get a conviction. Which is precisely what happened in the drejka case. The highly skilled prosecutor was able to persuade the jury all they had to do was watch the video....thus they neglected to examine all the evidence showing drejka was in reasonable fear of his life.
Your location will play a big role also.....in areas where political correctness is very strong you will have more difficulty claiming self defense.
This drejka case being a good example. Clearwater being a tourist town and heavily dependent on tourism for their economy ....the political leadership is very sensitive to anything that might give them a national black eye....such as black political activists claiming their police are racist or that some racist white guy got away with killing an unarmed black man in Clearwater....thus they are vulnurable to a threat of being boycotted.
As we saw in the drejka case the police investigated and said he was within his legal rights to use lethal force to defend his life.
Unfortunately for him, outside black political operatives descended on Clearwater,
fl. and organized protests, the media got heavily involved and very sympathetic towards the family of the black guy that was killed.
So under all this political pressure the politicians caved in and decided to arrest and charge drejka with manslaughter. Very similar to the Zimmerman case except the charge was manslaughter.....a result of the state failing to convict Z on a charger of murder...they learned to come up with a lesser charge in order to help them get a conviction and it worked.
Unfortunately for drejka his defense team was not nearly as good as the one Z had and the team of prosecutors were highly skilled unlike in the Z case.
Another big factor these days is if you are carrying a concealed weapon.....though legal in a lot of places....many people and especially many potential jurors....do not accept that as being really legit...They find it offensive....in other words they view such people as a danger and thus their decisions regarding legitimate self defense are going to be affected negatively by their hatred of guns and most especially by their mistrust of someone who carries and conceals a weapon.
. Such juries can be easily convinced that those who do that are just looking to shoot someone, or that they are a wanna b cop which has become objectionable in many places in our society today.
I have advised those who legally carry concealed weapons that they are putting themselves in danger because many juries irregardless of the legality of it find it objectionable.
i used to carry a concealed weapon but recognizing the inherent danger of it...I switched to carrying a knife. Very effective a close ranges.
In a nutshell due to racial politics, the power of the media and politicially correct juries....it is much more difficult to get a fair trial now if you find yourself in a situation where you feel you must use lethal force....and it is going to get even harder and this conviction of drejka will add to that difficulty.
Guilty as charged.
Lock him up!
El Wrongo his mental state was not self induced...it was inflicted on him by the aggressor and thus the aggressor is responsible which makes drejka innocent.
For example: Say I am standing on the corner in Winslow, Arizona and you come down the sidewalk and violently knock me to the ground. I hit my head on the ground and thus I am dazed and not all completely cognizant of what is going on....after knocking me to the ground you back up a couple of steps pausing to assess the situation. I in my impaired mental condidtion do not see you back up.....I just look up see you there and pull out my pistol and shoot you because I perceive you as a threat either to my life or of further grievious bodily harm.
No reasonable jury would fail to consider my mental state as in totally overlook it.
That is what happened in the drejka case.....the jury considered only the video itself and their perception of it as the main if not the only factor....which simply was not the case.
Thus they were in error and drejka deserves a new trial without a doubt.
What utter bullshit. We're talking about Drejka, not you. Drejka never said he hit his head. Drejka never said he was dazed. Drejka never said he was mentally impaired. Drejka never said he just looked up to see McGlockton standing there.
You're literally making up a defense for Drejka that he didn't make for himself because his actual defense failed him, resulting in a guilty verdict.
Lock him up!
Wrong again.....Michael Drejka indeed said he was dazed.
Did you watch the interrogation? If so you must not have been playing close attention.
Here it is and try and pay attention this time. My patience with your mistatement of facts is wearing thin.
Not even to mention drejka was in no condition to accurately appraise his mental state....the police were negligent in not having him examined. He should have been immediately transported to a medical facilty to have his mental and physical condition checked.
The police did not do this even though it was obvious he had been injured as you can see in the video he has his right arm in a make-shift sling that he had made using his shirt.
Lyin' beotch, at no point in that interrogation did Drejka ever say he was dazed. Let's just add this to your ever growing list of lies...
- McGlockton took only 1 or two steps backwards
- Drejka had difficulty drawing his firearm
- McGlockton was on a position to lunge at Drejka when he was shot
- That Drejka didn'tsee McGlockton backing away
- from the time Drejka was knocked to the ground, till he pulled the trigger, 4 seconds went by
If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to keep lying to defend Drejka the way ya do.
- While being interrogated, Drejka claimed he was dazed from being knocked down by McGlockton
Lock that loser up!
"My patience with your mistatement of facts is wearing thin."
Spits the piece of shit felon defender who's told all of the lies above ^^^
"I hit my head on the ground and thus I am dazed and not all completely cognizant of what is going on....after knocking me to the ground you back up a couple of steps pausing to assess the situation. I in my impaired mental condidtion do not see you back up.....I just look up see you there and pull out my pistol and shoot you because I perceive you as a threat either to my life or of further grievious bodily harm."It's not a reasonable fear when you're hallucinating someone is coming at you when they're not.
Guilty as charged.
Lock him up!
El Wrongo his mental state was not self induced...it was inflicted on him by the aggressor and thus the aggressor is responsible which makes drejka innocent.
For example: Say I am standing on the corner in Winslow, Arizona and you come down the sidewalk and violently knock me to the ground. I hit my head on the ground and thus I am dazed and not all completely cognizant of what is going on....after knocking me to the ground you back up a couple of steps pausing to assess the situation. I in my impaired mental condidtion do not see you back up.....I just look up see you there and pull out my pistol and shoot you because I perceive you as a threat either to my life or of further grievious bodily harm.
No reasonable jury would fail to consider my mental state as in totally overlook it.
That is what happened in the drejka case.....the jury considered only the video itself and their perception of it as the main if not the only factor....which simply was not the case.
Thus they were in error and drejka deserves a new trial without a doubt.
What utter bullshit. We're talking about Drejka, not you. Drejka never said he hit his head. Drejka never said he was dazed. Drejka never said he was mentally impaired. Drejka never said he just looked up to see McGlockton standing there.
You're literally making up a defense for Drejka that he didn't make for himself because his actual defense failed him, resulting in a guilty verdict.
Lock him up!
Wrong again.....Michael Drejka indeed said he was dazed.
Did you watch the interrogation? If so you must not have been playing close attention.
Here it is and try and pay attention this time. My patience with your mistatement of facts is wearing thin.
Not even to mention drejka was in no condition to accurately appraise his mental state....the police were negligent in not having him examined. He should have been immediately transported to a medical facilty to have his mental and physical condition checked.
The police did not do this even though it was obvious he had been injured as you can see in the video he has his right arm in a make-shift sling that he had made using his shirt.
Lyin' beotch, at no point in that interrogation did Drejka ever say he was dazed. Let's just add this to your ever growing list of lies...
- McGlockton took only 1 or two steps backwards
- Drejka had difficulty drawing his firearm
- McGlockton was on a position to lunge at Drejka when he was shot
- That Drejka didn'tsee McGlockton backing away
- from the time Drejka was knocked to the ground, till he pulled the trigger, 4 seconds went by
If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to keep lying to defend Drejka the way ya do.
- While being interrogated, Drejka claimed he was dazed from being knocked down by McGlockton
Lock that loser up!
"My patience with your mistatement of facts is wearing thin."
Spits the piece of shit felon defender who's told all of the lies above ^^^
Apparantly much of that video has been edited out.....I wonder why? Anyhow it is on video of him talking about being dazed...whether or not it is still available is questionable.
It is beyond questioning that the black thug was still within striking distance....l2 ft is a short distance...a distance the black threat could have covered very quickly and then been on top of drejka stripping away his weapon...and even on this edited video you see drejka saying he expected to be kicked and drejka is also correct in that the black thug continued to advance on drejka even after he slammed him to the ground proving he intended to inflict more harm.
The media and the sheriff said from the time drejka was knocked down till the time of the shooting was 4 secs.---so your argument about whether it was 4 secs. or 6 sex is with them not me.
It is also on video on Michael Drejka having difficulty getting his weapon out due to his right arm being injured...you can see even the obviously edited video him talking about having to use his left hand because of the injury to his arm.
Drejka, definitely did not see drejka take a couple of halting backward steps....and it is just common sense he would not have noticed that...he was focused on getting his gun out, clecking the safety off, having to use his left hand to hold the gun up, zeroing his gun in on the center body mass of his assailant and then squeezing off a round. He had no reason to note the foot movements of the thug...he was focused on one thing and one thing only...to neutralize his assailant and rightly and reasonably so.
Thus it is seen you have no substantive argument...you bring up all these minor points to compensate for you inability to accurately analyze the whole scenario aka....you cannot see the woods for the trees.
You have zero evidence Drejka ever claimed he was dazed. You're making that up.It is undeniable....the video was edited
The thug was within striking distance and whether or not drejka had his gun trained on the black thug is irrelevant.
Certainly no guarantee he would have been able to hit a moving target and certainly no gurantee even if he had been able to hit him that the shot would have stopped the black guy.
Thus you and those of your ilk claim drejka should have gambled with his life. Outrageous.
Reality is that many people have had their gun taken away from them under similar scenarios and then used on them.
Any prudent or reasonable person would not have hesitated to see what the thug might do next...they would fire whilst they still had the opportunity which is what Drejka did ...very reasonable. Undeniably reasonable.
Those of your ilk simply let your politics cloud you analysis. Just like in the Zimmerman case....did you also think Z was guilty?
BTW drejka was not parked illegally...just more media noise.
You have zero evidence Drejka ever claimed he was dazed. You're making that up.It is undeniable....the video was edited
The thug was within striking distance and whether or not drejka had his gun trained on the black thug is irrelevant.
Certainly no guarantee he would have been able to hit a moving target and certainly no gurantee even if he had been able to hit him that the shot would have stopped the black guy.
Thus you and those of your ilk claim drejka should have gambled with his life. Outrageous.
Reality is that many people have had their gun taken away from them under similar scenarios and then used on them.
Any prudent or reasonable person would not have hesitated to see what the thug might do next...they would fire whilst they still had the opportunity which is what Drejka did ...very reasonable. Undeniably reasonable.
Those of your ilk simply let your politics cloud you analysis. Just like in the Zimmerman case....did you also think Z was guilty?
BTW drejka was not parked illegally...just more media noise.
And Drejka did hesitate. He didn't shoot immediately. He waited a couple of seconds before killing a man who was backing up and by Drejka's own words, was neutralized and no longer a threat. And then he killed him anyway.
Lock him up! Let genpop take care of him.
You have zero evidence Drejka ever claimed he was dazed. You're making that up.It is undeniable....the video was edited
The thug was within striking distance and whether or not drejka had his gun trained on the black thug is irrelevant.
Certainly no guarantee he would have been able to hit a moving target and certainly no gurantee even if he had been able to hit him that the shot would have stopped the black guy.
Thus you and those of your ilk claim drejka should have gambled with his life. Outrageous.
Reality is that many people have had their gun taken away from them under similar scenarios and then used on them.
Any prudent or reasonable person would not have hesitated to see what the thug might do next...they would fire whilst they still had the opportunity which is what Drejka did ...very reasonable. Undeniably reasonable.
Those of your ilk simply let your politics cloud you analysis. Just like in the Zimmerman case....did you also think Z was guilty?
BTW drejka was not parked illegally...just more media noise.
And Drejka did hesitate. He didn't shoot immediately. He waited a couple of seconds before killing a man who was backing up and by Drejka's own words, was neutralized and no longer a threat. And then he killed him anyway.
Lock him up! Let genpop take care of him.
Drejka was not hesitating...merely lining up his sights and thus intently focused on did not notice the thug make a halting backward movement.
As pointed out experts have testified under oath he was not in actual retreat. If he wanted to retreat he would have taken off running like his buddy did and after he got shot....he waited till he go shot to actually retreat...how stooopid...very likely as a result of being under the influence of drugs...he thought he was invulnurable and had a right to attack a older white man jus cuz he was arguing wid his woman...and what really upset him was that drejka was white...if it had been a black dude arguing with his wife he would not have gone crazy he would have tried to figure out what the problem was.
I found the complete video:
It wasn't a stand your ground case. You said so yourself. And that op/ed was published before all the facts were known.Aug 23, 2019 - We're doing live updates in the manslaughter trial of Michael Drejka, ... of the interview in which Drejka says he was “slightly dazed” when he .
On July 26, Michael Drejka shot and killed Markeis McGlockton in a Clearwater, Florida parking lot. Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri declined to charge Drejka, citing the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law. Outrage ensued.
It was just an argument over a parking spot, some say, hinting that the whole thing is Drejka’s fault in the first place because he has a reputation for arguing about parking spots.
Drejka’s presumptive belief that shooting McGlockton was “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” (as the “Stand Your Ground” law requires), they claim, was obviously not “reasonable” (as the law also requires). They want Drejka charged with murder. Some want the law allegedly protecting his conduct repealed.
They’re wrong. Drejka’s belief that he was in danger of “imminent death or great bodily harm” was clearly reasonable, the law was clearly applicable and his actions were clearly taken in self-defense. The video tells the story — not completely, of course, but with a measure of clarity.
Britany Jacobs pulls into the parking lot of Circle A Food Store. Even with several non-handicapped parking spaces available, she pulls into a handicapped-only spot. Her boyfriend (McGlockton) and their son exit the car and enter the store.
A short time later, Drejka pulls up, exits his own vehicle, steps behind Jacobs’s car to look at her plate, then begins to verbally remonstrate with her about illegally (and rudely) using a parking spot reserved for the handicapped.
McGlockton exits the store. Jacobs exits her car — whether to attack Drejka herself, or to distract him while McGlockton attacks, or for some other reason, is unclear. In any case, Drejka is still speaking to Jacobs and seemingly unaware of McGlockton’s presence when McGlockton knocks him to the ground.
At this point, Drejka is on his knees and likely dazed. He’s just been violently assaulted, by surprise, out of the blue, by someone he didn’t even know was there. His actual assailant and a second potential assailant are on their feet and may be preparing to do him more violence. He has neither a duty to retreat nor the ability to do so if he wants to.
It’s about five seconds from the time McGlockton attacks Drejka to the moment that Drejka shoots McGlockton. In that five seconds, Drejka has to determine whether or not he is at risk of “imminent death or great bodily harm” and act accordingly. His assessment, whether correct or not, is obviously within reason.
“Stand Your Ground” isn’t about cases in which the victim has 10 minutes to make a decision while watching a known serial killer approach from afar, wearing a hockey mask, chainsaw in one hand and severed head of his last victim in the other. “Stand Your Ground” is about cases in which a victim has to make a difficult and almost certainly life-changing decision, in a very short time frame, and under extreme pressure.
Michael Drejka’s decision to defend himself wasn’t improper.
Markeis McGlockton’s decision to commit assault was the problem....by T.L.Knapp
Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.
