Racial publicity got him convicted....

[VenomJockey]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-michael-drejka-second-amendment-guilty-manslaughter-mcglockton

Excerpt: "In a case that brought national attention to Florida’s "Stand Your Ground" gun law, a jury on Friday night convicted a licensed gun owner on manslaughter charges after deliberating for six hours following a weeklong trial.

The defendant, Michael Drejka, was accused of killing Markeis McGlockton in the parking lot of a convenience store in Clearwater on July 19, 2018, after arguing with McGlockton's girlfriend over a handicapped parking space. Drejka claimed he fatally shot McGlockton in self-defense.

In surveillance video played for the jury, McGlockton is seen emerging from the store and shoving Drejka to the ground. Seconds later, Drejka pulls out Glock .40-caliber handgun and shoots McGlockton, 28, as he turned away."

 

[DrHenley]

Sounds to me like the "as he turned away" part contradicted his claim of self defense.

 

[tmttactical]

The time delay between draw and firing, plus the video of the attacker turning away killed the self defense claim. It went from self defense to retaliation --- manslaughter.

 

[Dani]

I have to admit that I get irritated with people who park in a handicapped spot when I think by looks it really isn't needed, but that is an extreme measures. No self defense if he had turned to walk away.

 

[VenomJockey]

Sounds to me like the "as he turned away" part contradicted his claim of self defense.

That provided the opening for the conviction. Shoulda shot him right off the bat.

 

[TexasFreedom]

This is a hard one to support. A young guy shoves an older guy to the ground. That's assault. The older guy decided to pull his gun and fire BEFORE the fellow turned away. The turning happened during the reaction time (if you watch the video).

This is a lose-lose scenario. The younger guy should have faced assault charges (which would have ended as a hand-slap if anything). But he didn't deserve to die for his assault (but it was a stupid move). The older guy shouldn't have gotten shoved to the ground, and pulling his gun was a stretch. At night in a dark alley, fire away. But in broad daylight in an open parking lot, nope. Now if the guy was stepping toward him for more, fire away.

This was a case of too much testosterone and not enough brain cells. From both sides.

 

[tmttactical]

Texas provided the best analyse. Too much and too little.

 

[Brent S]

TF is dead on on this. There are times I believe you should use deadly force, this just wasn’t one of those.

 

[Kevin L]

This is a hard one to support. A young guy shoves an older guy to the ground. That's assault. The older guy decided to pull his gun and fire BEFORE the fellow turned away. The turning happened during the reaction time (if you watch the video).

This is a lose-lose scenario. The younger guy should have faced assault charges (which would have ended as a hand-slap if anything). But he didn't deserve to die for his assault (but it was a stupid move). The older guy shouldn't have gotten shoved to the ground, and pulling his gun was a stretch. At night in a dark alley, fire away. But in broad daylight in an open parking lot, nope. Now if the guy was stepping toward him for more, fire away.

This was a case of too much testosterone and not enough brain cells. From both sides.

You and I often have a lot of differences, but we agree on this.

"Too much testosterone and not enough brain cells" is a perfect way to describe the situation.

As for me (I have a CCW, and I carry almost all the time), I will swallow my ego and eat a lot of humiliation before I shoot somebody.

As for the "stand your ground" thing, I will only stand my ground to protect someone who can't run away (like a third party in a wheelchair), or if I'm up against a precipice.

By this, I mean that if I have to jump off a building rooftop to flee my assailant, if I have to run into busy traffic on a highway, or walk through a fire or something.

People suggest that I'm cowardly, but I suggest that dropping $100,000.00 (on some greedy, bottom-feeding attorney) for a legal defense as a consequence of showing the world how "I'm a real man who doesn't run away" is profoundly stupid.

There was, however, an interesting case during Hurricane Andrew that involved a man who hunted an assailant down and shot him.

There was a family with a cousin who had Lou Gehrig's disease (amyotropic lateral sclerosis), who was being taken care of in the home with a portable home ventilator (run by their generator) that was hooked up to the patient's tracheostomy.

Well, it seems that the looters broke in, held the family at gunpoint, disconnected the ventilator, and left with it.

After they left, the home owner retrieved his hunting rifle and chased them, got into an altercation, and gunned down two of these assailants so that he could get his ventilator back and hook up the cousin again.

Now, one is not supposed to persue a thief and gun them down to get back property....but I see this situation as an exception. The police weren't available, 911 wasn't available, and an extra ventilator wasn't available.

The cops who were discussing this divided into one camp or another, and the only conclusion that we could reach is that everyone was glad that they weren't in the situation.

And by the way, some people can get by for 10 or 15 minutes without the ventilator, so it's not like the patient instantly stopped breathing when he was disconnected.

Do the ends justify the means in the eyes of the law?

 

[DrHenley]

Do the ends justify the means in the eyes of the law?

That IS exactly what happens in self defense. The "end" is to stay alive. The "means" is to use lethal force...which under most circumstances is not justified. Legally it is called "justifiable homicide."

In the case of the ventilator, if the thieves were to keep the ventilator, and the patient were to die, then they would be guilty of felony murder. Retrieving the ventilator prevented that murder. In most states lethal force is justified when preventing a murder.

 

[Kevin L]

That IS exactly what happens in self defense.

In the case of the ventilator, if the thieves were to keep the ventilator, and the patient were to die, then they would be guilty of felony murder. In most states lethal force is justified when preventing a murder.

I agree.

I don't think that they proscecuted the case, but there was a question about if this relative took the law into his own hands.

I just thought that it was an interesting point to bring up.

 

[VenomJockey]

There is room for prosecution in this case.....but I think the jury was swayed by all the racial publicity. Al Sharpton, et al, weighed in on this, and I believe the jury went along with it because of that. Had he shot a white guy, I do not believe he would have been convicted.

 

[Mountain trapper]

The POS that did the shoving deserved to get his ass kicked, not a bullet. I also don't think the shooter should get 30 years either. But then I wasn't there, nor was I on the jury.

 

[tmttactical]

Kevin, thanks for the thought provoking ventilator story. We do differ in I will not flee from an attacker . 1-- I have COPD and that means 10 feet or 10 seconds of running, which ever comes first. 2) I will not draw my weapon except in self defense, ego does not come into play. 3) Defense of home property does warrant shooting. Today's thief could be tomorrow killer and they took the chance and deserve their fate. The value of life is what the owner is willing to risk it for. I value the life of a First Responder --- the life of a thief, no value.

 

[tmttactical]

VJ, the fact the shooting victim was black did not help but the film was the deciding factor. Nothing in the film showed self defense. As TF said, too much and too little but not enough for self defense.

 

[Kevin L]

Kevin, thanks for the thought provoking ventilator story. We do differ in I will not flee from an attacker . 1-- I have COPD and that means 10 feet or 10 seconds of running, which ever comes first. 2) I will not draw my weapon except in self defense, ego does not come into play. 3) Defense of home property does warrant shooting. Today's thief could be tomorrow killer and they took the chance and deserve their fate. The value of life is what the owner is willing to risk it for. I value the life of a First Responder --- the life of a thief, no value.

I "value" all human life.....even if the person is a walking human-shaped cockroach.

The reason for this is not grounded in religion or higher ideals, but rather practicality.

If I have to go to trial in a self-defense shooting (may G-d forbid), I want to give the impression that I went overboard to avoid the situation because of the fundamental sanctity of human life (regardless of whether or not I actually feel that way).

Florida has the death penalty, legal defense is expensive enough to bankrupt me, and I have no desire to become Bubba's "wife" by ending up in the stir for the next 30 years.

Even if you disagree with me, can you see my point?

 

[tmttactical]

I do understand your point but I cannot allow criminals to succeed in their endevors. Unlike you,I feel human life is only worth what the owner has placed on it. Thrill seekers die all the time, their choice. By committing a criminal act, that person has just placed a bet they won't die or be injured. They are rolling the dice and taking their chances. Pick the wrong house, business or person to attack and they can end up six feet under. Now the real sad part is YOU (Kevin) having to be worried about prosecution or financial for defending your self. We need more Law and Order people and fewer liberal criminal caretakers.