General Prosecutors overrule sheriff and charge man with manslaughter in "stand your ground" case

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,834
Watch the video that is in real time, without pauses, and you will find that "several seconds" is in fact "two seconds". To me that is a brief enough time for the guy on the ground to be in the moment and not aware that the threat is retreating.

Your assertion that the person is "backing/turning away" is only half right. He was slowly backing away, which as I asserted, the shooter may or may not have been aware of. The prosecution would have to prove that he was aware of it, and could stop himself in the midst of shooting even if he did become aware of the backing up a split second before he shot. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the shooter was not reasonably in fear for his life, not for the defense to prove that he was, so the lack of aggressive motions for two seconds is irrelevant.

The person shot was not, however, turning away. The turn came after the shot. Her is a screen grab of the two people in the instant after the shot.

if your feet are pointing the other way, you've turned around. That's pretty much what it means to turn around. His feet are pointed at the car 10' to the left of the shooter.
There's two seconds, and that's 2 seconds of cognition. Cognitive enough to pull a weapon and NOT fire means that you have assessed the threat and it was not a matter of life and death. If he had pulled the weapon and discharged it immediately, I would say he acted within his rights.

But he didn't. He drew and did not engage, which means that in the those two seconds he did not perceive an actionable threat. Nothing the target did from the moment the weapon is drawn until the shot is fired indicates a continuing threat. It's actually the opposite. He shows he hands and moves them away from his body as he backs up. He's turning to walk away when the shot is fired.
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,834
Gonna be difficult to prove that
It's the "reasonable person" standard, and those two seconds of not shooting are going to be huge. The prosecutor will concede everything about "self-defense" right up until he pulled the firearm and didn't shoot it. He had his attacker in his sights with a ready weapon and did nothing. So as a juror, what do you see in those two seconds that a reasonable person would view as a threat?

As an armchair juror who only has access to the video, and none of the witness statements or relevant personal history of the participants, I don't see anything. There could be something that sways a reasonable person that I haven't (or might never) see, but just on the video I think reasonable people are going to look at that and say it's manslaughter.

But seriously frens, the NRA is on-board with prosecuting a white guy who claims "self-defense" after being attacked by a large black man.
I think that says a lot.
 

psychicdeath

Member
Jan 21, 2015
955
1,521
if your feet are pointing the other way, you've turned around. That's pretty much what it means to turn around. His feet are pointed at the car 10' to the left of the shooter.
There's two seconds, and that's 2 seconds of cognition. Cognitive enough to pull a weapon and NOT fire means that you have assessed the threat and it was not a matter of life and death. If he had pulled the weapon and discharged it immediately, I would say he acted within his rights.

But he didn't. He drew and did not engage, which means that in the those two seconds he did not perceive an actionable threat. Nothing the target did from the moment the weapon is drawn until the shot is fired indicates a continuing threat. It's actually the opposite. He shows he hands and moves them away from his body as he backs up. He's turning to walk away when the shot is fired.
The fact he didn't fire immediately is irrelevant. Some concealed carriers have inadequate training with their weapons. This guy might have been one with minimal training who took some time to acquire his sights, fumbled with a safety, or whatever. You act like two seconds is an eternity and that everyone can perform at maximum efficiency under incredibly stressful situations. Again, I point to a strong possibility that in the moment he could have still perceived the attacker as a threat. Remember, the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at the instant of the shot the shooter was not in fear for his life. I'm just not buying it within those parameters.

The attacker being 10 feet away at that moment is also meaningless. From the freeze frame I posted earlier, it looks to me that the distance at the time of the shot was more likely seven feet, but I won't belabor that, and accept the 10 foot estimate. Human reaction time being what it is, 10 feet still represents a danger zone.

You are aware that human bodies can bend, swivel, etc, correct? If his face and body are directly pointed toward the shooter, and the shooter is looking at the face and body, how on earth could the shooter be aware that the assaulter had just then in that instant started - note STARTED - to turn? You're grasping at straws here, expecting some superhuman level of situational awareness from a guy who was just violently assaulted. Remember, you have the benefit of being able to pause the video, back it up, etc. The guy on the ground did not have that luxury, and the law does not expect him to know down to the millisecond everything that is going on around him. The situation was that he was attacked, then defended himself against a perceived threat to his life. The standard is that at that moment were his actions reasonable, not whether a freeze frame after the shot shows that his attacker had begun to turn his feet.
 
M

member 3289

Guest
It's the "reasonable person" standard, and those two seconds of not shooting are going to be huge. The prosecutor will concede everything about "self-defense" right up until he pulled the firearm and didn't shoot it. He had his attacker in his sights with a ready weapon and did nothing. So as a juror, what do you see in those two seconds that a reasonable person would view as a threat?

As an armchair juror who only has access to the video, and none of the witness statements or relevant personal history of the participants, I don't see anything. There could be something that sways a reasonable person that I haven't (or might never) see, but just on the video I think reasonable people are going to look at that and say it's manslaughter.

But seriously frens, the NRA is on-board with prosecuting a white guy who claims "self-defense" after being attacked by a large black man.
I think that says a lot.
You are making the fatal error of confusing "self-defense" with "stand your ground", the latter of which is what applies here.
 

MachidaKarate

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2018
553
636
The fact he didn't fire immediately is irrelevant. Some concealed carriers have inadequate training with their weapons. This guy might have been one with minimal training who took some time to acquire his sights, fumbled with a safety, or whatever. You act like two seconds is an eternity and that everyone can perform at maximum efficiency under incredibly stressful situations.
I was thinking something along these lines as well.

It's easy to do armchair quarterbacking in a situation like this, but none of us have any idea what his perception was like with that adrenaline spike and what was quite possibly a sense of shock, panic and danger.

I'm sure everyone here understands the phrase, "It all happened so fast."
 
Last edited:

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,834
You are making the fatal error of confusing "self-defense" with "stand your ground", the latter of which is what applies here.
no. "Stand Your Ground" statute only shields you from prosecution if a reasonable person would think that lethal force was necessary to prevent imminent injury or death. SYG only prevents a prosecutor from arguing that lethal force was not necessary because there was an avenue of retreat. SYG removes any duty to retreat, but it does not lower the bar of justifiable homicide.
 
M

member 3289

Guest
no. "Stand Your Ground" statute only shields you from prosecution if a reasonable person would think that lethal force was necessary to prevent imminent injury or death. SYG only prevents a prosecutor from arguing that lethal force was not necessary because there was an avenue of retreat. SYG removes any duty to retreat, but it does not lower the bar of justifiable homicide.
Never said it lowers the bar of justifiable homicide.

The initial shove, imo, is going to be enough to say that Drejka was reasonable enough to fear imminent injury or death.

As I've said before, the way this statute works (you're not from Florida so you don't know) is that the prosecution has to DISPROVE stand your ground rather than the defense having to PROVE it.
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,834
Never said it lowers the bar of justifiable homicide.

The initial shove, imo, is going to be enough to say that Drejka was reasonable enough to fear imminent injury or death.

As I've said before, the way this statute works (you're not from Florida so you don't know) is that the prosecution has to DISPROVE stand your ground rather than the defense having to PROVE it.
I'm a bit of a gun nut, so I know a lot about SYG laws...especially after Trayvon.

All the prosecution has to Prove is that a reasonable person would not fear imminent injury or death from a man who was backing away from a brandished weapon. The person who uses lethal force has their actions compared against the "reasonable person" standard before the jury. It's not as simple as being involved in a physical confrontation and saying "I was scared for my life".

Neither the SYG of 2005 or the subsequent 'clarifications' (Dennis v Florida -2010 or the 2017 change to pre-trial self-defense hearing rules) remove the requirement for prosecutor and jurors to make an objective determination if the shooter's actions were reasonable, regardless of the subjective perception of the shooter.

SYG isn't the legal equivalent of "It's Coming Right For Us!!!"
 
1

1031

Guest
This is a Florida case so I've been following it. Tbh I wasn't comfortable with the no charge against the guy. You can clearly see McGlockton turning the other way when Drejka pulls out his gun. Drejka then shoots him anyway.

McGlockton was wrong to park in a handicapped parking spot and he was wrong to push Drejka to the ground, but he wasn't going after Drejka when shot.

Lessons have been learned since Zimmerman. That's why Drejka was charged with manslaughter and not murder.
this sounds reasonable.
 
1

1031

Guest
The shooter's lawyer could argue the guy was just sizing him up to continue the assault.
The prosecution could argue the shooter pulling a gun de-escalated (spelling?) the situation and caused the deceased to retreat.

I wouldn't want to be on the jury.
 

MachidaKarate

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2018
553
636
The shooter's lawyer could argue the guy was just sizing him up to continue the assault.
The prosecution could argue the shooter pulling a gun de-escalated (spelling?) the situation and caused the deceased to retreat.

I wouldn't want to be on the jury.
Seems like "reasonable doubt" will be tested here.

At least in theory, that's all that's required for an acquittal.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
The shooter's lawyer could argue the guy was just sizing him up to continue the assault.
The prosecution could argue the shooter pulling a gun de-escalated (spelling?) the situation and caused the deceased to retreat.

I wouldn't want to be on the jury.
Imo, it's pretty easy to be on that jury. He needs to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The guy attacked him out of nowhere, it's not unreasonable to have thought in the moment he was going to do it again.

For the record, when I first saw the video a few weeks ago I thought it was a bad shoot l amd I still do. But I don't see how the prosecution wins this retroactive case that's very clearly being politically driven.
 
Last edited:

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,834
Imo, it's pretty easy to be on that jury. He needs to be proven guilty beyond readorable doubt. The guy attacked him out of nowhere, it's not unreasonable to have thought in the moment he was going to do it again.

For the record, when I first saw the video a few weeks ago I thought it was a bad shoot l amd I still do. But I don't see how the prosecution wins this retroactive case that's very clearly being politically driven.
If it was politically driven, the conservative and pro-freedom outlets would be rallying around the shooter.

They're not.

The shooter wasn't attacked out of no where. Shoving someone to the ground and then backing away with outstretched arms is not a threat. The prosecutor doesn't have to prove that a reasonable person wouldn't be afraid, he has to prove that shooting someone who retreated in the face of a weapon isn't reasonable.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,095
The shooter wasn't attacked out of no where.

Huh?

Shooter was standing more than an arm's Reach away from the woman's car such that he was zero threat. His feet are planted neutral such that any motion forward or backwards is difficult and hes sort of hunched over with one hand down and one hand kind of gesticulating... Not outstretched. Hot threatening. Not moving towards the vehicle. Flat-footed.
In fact, the girlfriend approaches him first.

The guy who pushed him had absolutely zero reason to do so other than he was an over aggressive idiot that starts fights if anybody dare correct him or his girlfriend.

His girlfriend was in the wrong.
The guy pushing him was in the wrong.
I believe the shooter was in the wrong, however I still think good points are made he will probably get off.
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,834
Huh?

Shooter was standing more than an arm's Reach away from the woman's car such that he was zero threat. His feet are planted neutral such that any motion forward or backwards is difficult and hes sort of hunched over with one hand down and one hand kind of gesticulating... Not outstretched. Hot threatening. Not moving towards the vehicle. Flat-footed.
In fact, the girlfriend approaches him first.

The guy who pushed him had absolutely zero reason to do so other than he was an over aggressive idiot that starts fights if anybody dare correct him or his girlfriend.

His girlfriend was in the wrong.
The guy pushing him was in the wrong.
I believe the shooter was in the wrong, however I still think good points are made he will probably get off.
He sought out a confrontation over handicapped parking. Shouldn't be shoved over it, but getting shoved to the ground doesn't justify shooting someone who is moving away.

1) this shooting was immoral, and can argued as unlawful
2) he has a good shot at acquittal
3) Stand Your Ground has no bearing on this case, except that shooter had no duty to flee. But being shoved to the ground probably already covered that.
 
Last edited:

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,095
He sought out a confrontation over handicapped parking. Shouldn't be shoved over it, but getting shoved to the ground doesn't justify shooting someone who is moving away.
Is verbally calling somebody out for illegal and unethical Behavior "seeking a confrontation"?

I agree that the shooting was not justified.

You said he wasn't pushed out of nowhere. The implication was that either the pushing was justified/expected or that he saw it coming. The pushing was not justified and he did not see it coming. From his standpoint there is no reason for him to expect to be pushed like that... Hence out of nowhere.
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,834
Do you believe the shooter would be charged if there hadn't been race related protests?
Yes. The sheriff's decision to not arrest was not correct, and his reasons were immediately identified as bullshit by the representatives who drafted the legislation, the lobbyists who supported it, and legal scholars around the US.