Posted on 08/13/2018 9:58:09 AM PDT by dragnet2
The Florida man who invoked the "stand your ground" self-defense after shooting a black man in a dispute over a parking space was charged Monday with manslaughter, officials said.
Michael Drejka, 47, was arrested Monday morning in the fatal shooting in July of Markeis McGlockton in Clearwater, Florida.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Told you he'd be charged.
But that sentence makes no sense. He invoked self-defense. There's no such things as "the 'stand your ground' self-defense".
Agreed.
Yes, and at the moment he pulled the trigger. It's not what happened before that moment that matters.
He started it he saw a women and decided to harass her. He deserves manslaughter.
The thing that bothered me all along about this case is it is a self-defense case, not SYG. For SYG to apply the shooter has to have somewhere to retreat to. Drejka, being on the ground, had no such place; thus, the issue was whether he had the right to pull the gun and, second, whether he had the right to fire. Being sucker punched and knocked down definitely, IMHO, put him at reasonable risk of death or great bodily harm, giving him the right to pull the gun. However, at that moment, the decedent backed off, a retreat that could reasonably be seen as terminating Dredjka’s reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm and his right to fire the weapon. Since the discharge was under great stress, in a situation that was at least close to self-defense, a manslaughter charge seems also to be the most logical.
The manslaughter charge means Dredjka is at real risk because the DA definitely has not over-charged, as with the bogus second degree murder charge against George Zimmerman. Thus, the jury is likely to look at the case carefully and not be bothered by politics.
"Once you saw your homie coming down the sidewalk, and approx. 15 feet from your car, why did you decide to exit your vehicle just before your homie launched his attack? What were your intentions?"
I am quite sure I did not say that.
5 or so feet away is “striking range”?
“He started it he saw a women and decided to harass her. He deserves manslaughter.”
Maybe. He pointed out that she was ILLEGALLY PARKED. But many leftist Handicapped activists would have chained-locked the cars in cases like that.
Watch out, he’s going to say that you’re from democrat underground.
20 feet is striking range.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y49rv3QBtkk
5 feet is kicking range, especially against a stationary (on the ground) target.
I agree.
If he wasn’t armed he wouldn’t have the stones to start confronting anybody over a handicapped parking spot.
That difference in perception you two have is what the jury will ultimately be deciding, it seems to me.
There are a lot of people to blame.
The cops should have yanked his permit.
The girl should have just stayed in the car and just said, I’m sorry.
The deceased should not have pushed him. Should have just said “Lighten up Francis” and walked away and both then drove away.
The shooter should not have went back.
The shooter should have kept his mouth shut this time and all the other times.
The shooter placed others at risk in the future by being a poster boy against “stand your ground” laws which protect the rest of us. For the good of “stand your ground” laws I hope he goes to jail.
I was wondering if you get one free sucker shove to the ground.
I can tell you *without any doubt*, that if I would have wasted some local ON THE JOB in an identical situation, I would have been, fired then sued, then jailed... and you know it.
Read up on the shooter and you'll quit defending this POS. You and your "two blinks" nonsense.
“Yep, shooter was assaulted, knocked to the ground, unable to retreat and “victim” continues to advance.”
Except...the victim did NOT continue to advance. He retreated.
No, the victim DID advance a half step, and was still well within striking distance. The victim did not retreat a half step until AFTER the gun was drawn.
They are making a play and in my mind even this case does not diminish the law. All the law did was keep him from being arrested on the spot and being presumed guilty for daring to have a gun.
As seen now, the existence of the law didn’t prevent him from being charged. At least there’s some video evidence here.
Imagine a case where there isn’t. You’re attacked at night and defend yourself. Cops show and there’s you with a gun and a dead body. Without the law you would be put under arrest for murder and would have to provide evidence that your use of deadly force was justified.
With the law the burden is on the state as it should be. This won’t stop people from committing crimes but it will keep even more innocent people out of prison.
P.S. NO law can prevent you from being shot for any reason and unless they are acting as your personal bodyguard the police can NEVER do anything about it.
That’s one of the reasons we need guns!
And who’s to say that the woman wasn’t trying to get out of the car to go into the safety of the store?
So right there it goes back to rule #1.
The shooter whining over a handicap parking space. Nobody hired him to be Paul Blart, Handicap Parking Cop.
The shooter tries to hide behind his mother claiming that she’s handicapped that his mother needed the space. Never mind the fact that she’s been dead for 11 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.