Posted on 08/13/2018 12:33:43 PM PDT by servo1969
Michael Drejka, the 47-year old shooter of 28-year-old Markeis McGlockton over a July 19 dispute about a handicap parking spot, has been arrested and charged with manslaughter, reports the Tampa Bay Times and other news sources. He is being held on $100,000 bail in Pinellas County Jail.
We previously covered this case immediately after it occurred here:
and here:
Law of Self Defense: VIDEO: Shove-Shoot Case Sheriff's Statement
Drejak has a potential, if marginal, justification claim of self-defense here. The key issue is whether his decision to fire the shot was made while Drejak held a reasonable perception of an imminent deadly force attack. Keep in mind that "deadly force" is defined to include not just force capable of causing death, but also force capable of causing serious bodily harm.
Given that McGlockton had just moments before shoved Drejak forcibly to the ground, and remained within a couple of steps distance, close enough for McGlockton to continue his unlawful and potentially deadly force attack, it's not impossible to conceive that a reasonable person in Drejak's position on the ground could have perceived that such an imminent deadly force threat was present.
Of course, it's also not impossible to conceive that a reasonable person in the same position would not have perceived an imminent deadly force threat at that moment, hence the self-defense claim being marginal.
Clearly, if McGlockton had advanced on Drejak, an imminent deadly force threat would have been reasonably perceived. Similarly, if McGlockton had fled at the sight of the gun and been shot in the back while running away, not even a marginal claim of self-defense could be made. By merely taking a step or so back, and then remaining close enough to again attack, the circumstances became more ambiguous.
It's worth keeping in mind, as well, that at trial the prosecutors will need to convince a unanimous jury, likely of six jurors in Florida, that they have disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the legal standard in 49 states (all except Ohio), and a high legal standard.
Even prior to trial, however, the state must be prepared to disprove self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. That's because at his discretion Drejka can request a self-defense immunity hearing, make a prima facie case of self-defense (definitely possible on these facts), and compel the state to disprove that claim by the legal standard of clear and convincing evidence.
If you're wondering what "clear and convincing evidence" means, the truth is nobody really knows in any absolute sense, except that it's a higher legal standard than a mere preponderance of the evidence, and a lower legal standard than beyond a reasonable doubt. Florida jury instructions provide the following guidance:
"Clear and convincing evidence" is evidence that is precise, explicit, lacking in confusion, and of such weight that it produces a firm belief or conviction, without hesitation, about the matter in issue."
Naturally, the media and even some educated people are conflating this self-defense immunity law (§776.032) with the completely separate Stand-Your-Ground law (§776.012) in Florida. These are not at all the same things.
The use of the phrase "Stand-Your-Ground" to refer to self-defense immunity is an indication of seriously defective understanding of the law, as well as a considerable contributor (intentionally?) to sow confusion in the public mind on what "Stand-Your-Ground" actually does (pro-tip, "Stand-Your-Ground" merely waives the legal duty to retreat before using otherwise lawful deadly force in self-defense, and that's all it does).
This arrest also puts the lie to the claim that Florida's self-defense immunity law prohibits an arrest where a person claims their use of force against another was self-defense, which is what Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri announced at his press conference on July 20. The truth is that the self-defense immunity law merely prohibits an arrest in the absence of probable cause that a crime has been committed. If a use of force was done in apparent self-defense, that use of force is justified and is not a crime, and an arrest would be inappropriate. Where there is probable cause of a crime, however, the self-defense immunity law fully permits an arrest to be made.
§776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.
Whether the use of force qualifies as self-defense, or whether the use of force raises a probable cause that a crime has been committed, is a judgment call to be made by policer in deciding whether to arrest, just as they must make a determination of probable cause before they can arrest any suspect for any alleged crime. Later in the legal process a similar judgment is made by prosecutors in considering whether to prosecute a suspect.
Simply because the police choose not to charge in no way inhibits the prosecutors from charging, if they believe the prosecutors believe that they have the necessary probable cause. Two different people can readily come to two different conclusions when, as here, the facts are ambiguous.
-Attorney Andrew F. Branca, Law of Self Defense LLC
You need to refresh your definition of “projecting” my conclusions are drawn from what is clearly seen on the video.
More will follow and if they show something different I will revise my opinion.
There was guy in our town who use to hang out at the local Jr high when parents were picking up kids from football and volleyball practice. There wasn't a lot of parking and he'd wait until some mom (He generally didn't say much to men) parked in one of the handicapped spots and then just rip into her.
He didn't seem to care that the signs designating them as handicapped spots were for during the school day only, after 3:30 they were normal spots. This guy was being a major jerk; virtue signaling before that was a thing.
Next thing you know he gets arrested for human trafficking. Him and another guy were holding a developmentally disabled teenage girl as a sex slave. They got caught pimping her out, making videos of guys raping and torturing her. All the guys ended up in prison.
Now, not every parking Nazi is brutalizing women, but they are not all law abiding citizens either.
The shooter had a habit of harassing people which I'm sure he wouldn't have done if unarmed. I believe in the right to carry and the responsible use of force for self defense, this guy's behavior is bad news for responsible gun owners.
But to your statement the guy had no reason to fire that is just not accurate. The bar had been met for imminent threat to bodily harm and continued as the attacker was just 5 feet away and had not shown any clear sign he was going to stop his attack. Stepping back a half a step will not cut it.
In another thread they are saying how the prosecutors are digging into the shooters past. Unfortunately for them he's never even been arrested. When prosecutors immediately start digging for dirt its a crystal clear indication they know that have no case.
No chance of conviction. The only chance the prosecution has is to taint the jury and not even that is likely to work. They will most likely drop the charges.
Has he set up his Fund Me account yet?
There have been no riots this summer which helps the Demons.
It will be incidents like this to stir up the lunatics and the media will use every one of them.
How long until the wrongful death civil suit is filed?
Tomorrow, if it hasn’t already been filed.
Talk about a Slam-dunk but this guy probably doesn’t have any resources to speak of.
You can count on that but like Zimmerman this case is a loser for them. I actually think the state knows this case is a loser but the sheriff really put the heat on when he said because of stand your ground law they could not make an arrest. He seemed to want it to sound like 2nd amendment supporters can just shoot anybody and there's nothing the police can do, well that's total BS. The bad news is the sheriff picked the wrong case because while they could arrest the shooter the DA would not legitimately pursue because the shooter was violently assaulted and the bar for belief of "imminent threat to bodily harm" had clearly been met.
I have stated before while the video does not have good optics the fact remains this is why we have laws like SYG to begin with. There are going to be cases where one uses lethal force for self defense where it may be questionable if the defender had to shoot. That just comes with the territory but in those cases we MUST side with the non aggressor otherwise we all face imprisonment for defending ourselves. In states that don't have SYG laws people go to prison for defending themselves all the time and that's much worse. The aggressor in this case was the one that was killed and he was killed while committing a violent assault. Case closed.
Absolutely, every disagreement may be provocation in hindsight. As I noted, as an old man I might well be in fear of my life were I thrown to the ground, particularly with a second youth approaching at a fast walk (see video) to my left. Add to that the risk of losing his weapon in a physical altercation. The problem the shooter will face here is both his past history of loud complaints, and his purported verbal harassment of the girlfriend. Which, imo, might merit a verbal attack, but not physical as the coach did. We really don’t know all the facts yet, but I can see where the shooter could have a problem. He clearly has a substantial legal bill. My opinion only, I’d have stayed in the car. Call the police if you’re upset. Don’t put yourself in a situation which can escalate needlessly.
The shooter has a clean arrest record. The attacker had a lengthy violent felony arrest record. Interesting that you call the man violently attacked a “Nazi”. Are you with Anti-FA?
Wrong. She got out of the car and got into Drejka's face after he called her out on illegally parking.
"It is clear that he did not have to shoot since he pointed the gun for several seconds and the BG backed off."
Wrong. The violent attacker was still advancing on Drejka when he drew the gun. Drejka fired the weapon within a second after drawing and aiming.
"It looked like he felt the shove was enough to handle the situation.
Wrong. The violent assailant with a felony record only stopped advancing after Drejka pulled the gun.
"The new poster-child for no CC and Second amendment thought otherwise."
Drejka was totally within his rights and the sherif even said so after he stated he would not press charges. The state is only charging him for political reasons just as in the Zimmerman case.
The shooter's behavior is a stereotype of the anti gunner's view of armed citizens. His aggressive, unnecessary provocations hurts hurts the cause of gun rights.
Of course, I could be wrong about your motivation. Thinking I might be Anti-FA may mean you are just an idiot.
No Doubt. I would have never gotten myself in that situation to begin with.
However, it wasn’t of changed the fear I would have had for my life had I been down on the ground.
You are calling the man who lawfully defended himself against a violent attack a “Nazi” . And you wonder why people might suspect you are a member of AntiFA? Think about it.
No people, just you.
Looks like my 2nd thought was right.
Actually, someone got talked to by a guy who has a handicapped mother, because they took a handicapped space they were not entitled to.
Then a guy was killed because he physically assaulted a man who had a gun.
It isn’t complicated. This guy, who is not in the best of shape himself, has a mother who is handicapped, and who couldn’t find a parking space because healthy people thought they were too important to follow rules.
So he seems to have taken it on himself to REMIND healthy people not to break the law, so his mother, and others like her, don’t have to park in the back while healthy, entitled jerks park in handicap spaces.
In this case, the woman he spoke with seems to have argued the point, and at some point actually got out of her car to get in his face. If she had simply said “sorry, you are right”, and backup her car out and over to a non-handicapped space, her guy would be alive today. But let’s not blame her for anything, even though she wasn’t even GOING INTO THE STORE, and therefore could have simply driven to the back, parked, watched for her husband to come out of the store, and then pulled up and picked him up.
No, let’s blame the guy who told her she was breaking the law.
And then, let’s not blame the guy who, instead of politely asking him to leave, decided to violently assault him. Instead, let’s blame him for, after being violently assaulted by a large young man, reacting too violently in response.
If the victim had used his words instead of getting violent, he’d still be alive.
He could very well go to jail. That’s what a trial is for. I don’t see an issue with arresting him, the facts of the case are iffy at best, and we have a small picture.
But I can see him getting off. THis is hardly a slam-dunk case of murder, or even manslaughter. The fact that the arguments against him always include prior acts, and the suggestion he was some vigilante, show that those who think he’ll be convicted are banking on “state of mind” and “intent” to overcome his assertion that he was assaulted and feared for his life when he pulled the trigger.
In his favor is that nobody has suggested he did anything untoward against the woman, that there is a video showing him being blindsided and assaulted, that at the time he pulled the gun the victim was approaching him, and that he only took a single shot.
Against him is that once he started pulling the gun, it took him two seconds to aim and shoot, and during that time the victim stopped moving forward, and began to turn; and that he had approached the woman to complain about her parking, which some jurors will see as provoking the attack; and the current hearsay evidence is that he did this before.
In my opinion, a guy who has just been blindsided, who while on the ground, facing a much larger, younger, more physical opponent, takes 2 seconds to pull his gun, take careful aim because he feels he’s only got one chance at this, and fires a single shot to stop the assault, sounds reasonable to me, even if during that 2 second window the victim goes from approaching him to backing off.
Because, once you are pulling the gun, you have already decided you are in danger, and your first thought it to aim well, and you may not be trying to assess whether there is a change in the situation. Maybe you should be, but you might well not be. And a single shot can clearly kill, but even officers are taught that if you are shooting, take multiple shots, this guy clearly took a single shot, and then felt like the danger was over.
If he was in a rage and just wanted to kill the guy, he’d take multiple shots. That’s what his lawyer is going to argue, and it is a reasonable argument. Not many people are good enough with a gun to assure a kill with a single body shot. In this case, the victim didn’t die immediately, but he did die.
I am not defending jerks for taking handicap spots they should be leaving open for those that really need them.
But despite all that you say, the shooter in question is very likely to be convicted or at the very least be bankrupted and ruined for life all because he choose, yes HE CHOOSE, to intervene and let a situation escalate to the point of killing, where it would have been more appropriate for him to call a cop or the store manager to deal with the problem. Most accidents result from a chain of events, a chain that if broken anywhere on that path, could have prevented the accident. The shooter injected himself into the situation.
Now even if he was right to intervene, do you think he is sitting at home or in jail awaiting trial thinking “Man I am glad I pointed out the parking error of that dead jerk I had to kill?”
Sometimes its best to leave judgement to God.
grrr CHOSE, not CHOOSE.
Need coffee now
Its pretty clear that some folks here don’t carry, or probably shouldn’t, as they haven’t considered the down side consequences of actually having to use the gun even if justified.
Your comment makes it pretty clear you carry as one should, not attracting attention to oneself or what you carry with you.
Your fantasy did include a truth. When he saw the gun he stopped although he was not advancing. Long enough to mean the idiot will be convicted of Manslaughter.
Fortunately, at a minimum, the idiot will pay massively for this insanity.
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.