It's legally a good shoot, but

[De Selby]

The sheriff said he would refer the case to the state's attorney. Doesn't that mean the SA will investigate?

Actually no, it doesnt

[De Selby]

Whether or not a "reasonable man" standard is objective is, itself, a subjective question. I submit that it is not an objective standard. An objective standard essentially is a standard that must be decided the same way for any case, regardless of who is reviewing the evidence and rendering the decision. With a "reasonable man" standard, one jury might view the evidence and deadlock 11:1 in favor of acquittal, a second jury might view the same evidence and deadlock 10:2 in favor of conviction, and a third jury might view the same evidence and hand down a unanimous verdict -- for acquittal or for conviction.

I respectfully submit that this is a subjective standard, not an objective standard.

A speed limit is an objective standard. Speed limit is 65 MPH. Was he going faster than 65? Convict. Was he going 65 or slower? Acquit.

Bank robbery is illegal. Did he point a gun at the teller, ask for money, and walk out with a bag full of greenbacks? If yes, guilty. If no, not guilty.

Those are objective standards.

"What would a hypothetical reasonable man have done if he had been in my client's shoes when the incident took place?" How can that be objective? Each juror has to make his or her own [subjective] decision as to what a hypothetical reasonable man would have felt or done in the circumstances as described -- and which almost certainly conjures up a different picture in the mind of each person hearing the sordid tale recounted.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the criminal law works.

Juries differ about all kinds of things. You’re confusing having to prove only facts and circumstances (which is called strict liability) to prove a crime, with having to prove something about an offenders state of mind (which might be a subjective or objective standard.)

Self defence is properly objective - John Hinckley might’ve had a case that he truly believed he was defending lives from Ronald Reagan otherwise. He may honestly have believed that.  But I don’t think any of us want the law to validate Subjective beliefs where most would find them unreasonable,  no matter how sincerely held

[De Selby]

The context was that the sheriff was misstating the legal standards behind "stand your ground", saying that the standard for self defense was "subjective", rather than the "reasonable man" standard that is actually written into the law. Basically, he was misrepresenting it in the same way that gun grabbers and people like De Selby have been. The NRA and the legislators that actually drafted it are pushing back against that misrepresentation, and AFAICT aren't actually taking a stance on this specific case.

So the investigating Sherriffs misunderstood the law, in the state where he is a Sherriff, yet you don’t think it’s a confusing or poorly written law??

[Hawkmoon]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the criminal law works.

Juries differ about all kinds of things. You’re confusing having to prove only facts and circumstances (which is called strict liability) to prove a crime, with having to prove something about an offenders state of mind (which might be a subjective or objective standard.)

Self defence is properly objective - John Hinckley might’ve had a case that he truly believed he was defending lives from Ronald Reagan otherwise. He may honestly have believed that.  But I don’t think any of us want the law to validate Subjective beliefs where most would find them unreasonable,  no matter how sincerely held

I'm not confusing anything.

Even with an objective standard of what the offense is (robbing a bank with a gun), the prosecution still has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is the miscreant who committed the offense. There's no question that the bank was robbed -- the teller made a statement, and the incident was recorded on video. The offense occurred -- the question is whether or not the accused was the perpetrator. There is no need to get inside the mind of the accused and make a [subjective] determination as to whether or not he (or she) held a belief at that moment that might (or might not) have been held by some hypothetical "reasonable man" under like circumstances.

Nobody (other than you) said anything about validating unreasonable subjective beliefs. That's a red herring. The purpose of the reasonable man test is to weed out sincerely (maybe) held beliefs that most people would find unreasonable. That doesn't make the determination objective rather than subjective.

The reasonable man test is not about "proving" anything regarding the defendant's state of mind. He (or she), by virtue of being there, has admitted to having committed the act, and has made a statement about his (or her) state of mind. "I feared for my life, so I shot the sumbitch." The reasonable man test does not attempt to prove or disprove the defendant's state of mind. It examines whether or not twelve other people agree that what the defendant thought/believed at that moment was reasonable under the circumstances. Since the determination is one of opinion on the part of each juror, it is not and cannot be an objective standard.

[MechAg94]

So the investigating Sherriffs misunderstood the law, in the state where he is a Sherriff, yet you don’t think it’s a confusing or poorly written law??

Laws being poorly written is not unusual, but politicians not understanding the plain black and white law isn't all that uncommon either.  

There is lots of BS circulated about SYG laws in general.  Some of that is due to other things included in the same bills in different states.    

[Perd Hapley]

Actually no, it doesnt

Was the Sheriff wrong to send the case to the state, or are you saying the AG won't touch it?

[Regolith]

So the investigating Sherriffs misunderstood the law, in the state where he is a Sherriff, yet you don’t think it’s a confusing or poorly written law??

Sheriffs are elected; the only credential you need to do the job is to get the plurality of votes. In other words, just like most politicians, plenty of sheriffs are incompetent morons who only know how to convince other people to vote for them.

[dogmush]

Update:

The State Attorney filed Manslaughter charges this morning.

It seems that this case is likely to come down to how reasonable it was to fear for your safety after being pushed to the ground.  The State Attorney says that they feel they can prove he shouldn't have been in fear (paraphrase from the TV news).  We'll see.

FL has already proven that being a confrontational ahole doesn't give the other person the right to physically attack you.  Part of me really hopes that this isn't another high profile case that the State got pushed into by a media circus when they don't have the evidence to convict.  A conviction would at least put to rest rumblings in the legislature of looking at SYG again.  Legislatures rarely make laws better when they fiddle with them.

[MechAg94]

Update:

The State Attorney filed Manslaughter charges this morning.

It seems that this case is likely to come down to how reasonable it was to fear for your safety after being pushed to the ground.  The State Attorney says that they feel they can prove he shouldn't have been in fear (paraphrase from the TV news).  We'll see.

FL has already proven that being a confrontational *expletive deleted*hole doesn't give the other person the right to physically attack you.  Part of me really hopes that this isn't another high profile case that the State got pushed into by a media circus when they don't have the evidence to convict.  A conviction would at least put to rest rumblings in the legislature of looking at SYG again.  Legislatures rarely make laws better when they fiddle with them.

And that sort of underscores why concealed carriers are taught to avoid confrontation.  Even if you are right and get acquitted, the cost and stress of the process can still wreck you.

[Ben]

And that sort of underscores why concealed carriers are taught to avoid confrontation.  Even if you are right and get acquitted, the cost and stress of the process can still wreck you.

Yup. If this guy had any money and/or anything of value (house, car, etc.) it'll likely go to lawyers fees by the time the state gets done dragging it all out. Or else he has no money and the state (taxpayers) will be paying for both the prosecution and defense. Unless some gun rights group takes on the case. Though I don''t know if this is where I would draw my line in the sand if I were one of those groups.

[Hawkmoon]

Here's an interesting opinion on the incident, from the perspective of a black male:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1bst-lJr0Q

[De Selby]

He’s charged with manslaughter. Seems like the right call from the video. Had Zimmerman been charged with that instead of depraved heart murder he might’ve had a very different outcome - but then again he killed the only other direct witness. Drejka has witnesses and video to deal with in his defense.

Road rage and concealed carry do not mix.

[Pb]

He’s charged with manslaughter. Seems like the right call from the video. Had Zimmerman been charged with that instead of depraved heart murder he might’ve had a very different outcome - but then again he killed the only other direct witness. Drejka has witnesses and video to deal with in his defense.

Road rage and concealed carry do not mix.

He should get off.  I watched the video.  The only person who committed a crime was the attacker.

[Hawkmoon]

One of the participants in the discussion over at The Firing Line found McGlockton's rap sheet. Interesting ... but I'm sure he was just beginning to turn his life around when it was unfairly cut short by the murderous parking lot vigilante ...





He was 28 when he was killed. His first felony conviction was in 2007. That's eleven years ago, so he started with felonies at the tender age of 17. It looks like a lot of judges gave him a lot of breaks, and he didn't learn from them. More proof that our criminal justice system is broken.

[De Selby]

You generally can’t shoot people for having a rap sheet

[Hawkmoon]

You generally can’t shoot people for having a rap sheet

No, but you can generally shoot people for physically assaulting you and putting you in fear of death or serious bodily injury.

The rap sheet is of interest because various people have cited unconfirmed sources as claiming that Drejka previously threatened to shoot someone over parking illegally in the handicapped space. However, apparently there were no formal complaints filed, no police investigations, no arrests, no convictions. McGlockton, on the other hand, does not appear to have been exactly a model citizen.

[TommyGunn]

You generally can’t shoot people for having a rap sheet

Some might consider that one of the defects of our current judicial system .....

[De Selby]

No, but you can generally shoot people for physically assaulting you and putting you in fear of death or serious bodily injury.

The rap sheet is of interest because various people have cited unconfirmed sources as claiming that Drejka previously threatened to shoot someone over parking illegally in the handicapped space. However, apparently there were no formal complaints filed, no police investigations, no arrests, no convictions. McGlockton, on the other hand, does not appear to have been exactly a model citizen.

You generally have to actually be in fear and shouldn’t have provoked a confrontation if you want to assert self defense.

Starting fights over a parking spot and then shooting someone who shoved you is a good way to end up charged. Drejkas rap sheet is now much worse than the person he shot.

[De Selby]

Some might consider that one of the defects of our current judicial system .....

Would you issue a concealed carry permit to someone who thinks shooting people for being generally useless is a good thing?

[zxcvbob]

You generally can’t shoot people for having a rap sheet

How would the shooter know about the rap sheet?

[De Selby]

How would the shooter know about the rap sheet?

Exactly. That’s a small part of why it isn’t and shouldn’t be relevant.

[Perd Hapley]

You generally have to actually be in fear and shouldn’t have provoked a confrontation if you want to assert self defense.

Starting fights over a parking spot and then shooting someone who shoved you is a good way to end up charged. Drejkas rap sheet is now much worse than the person he shot.

Hands up! Don't shoot!

[Devonai]

I saw a video with Mas Ayoob talking about this very thing. The rap sheet means nothing.

[Hawkmoon]

You generally have to actually be in fear and shouldn’t have provoked a confrontation if you want to assert self defense.

Starting fights over a parking spot and then shooting someone who shoved you is a good way to end up charged. Drejkas rap sheet is now much worse than the person he shot.

Time out.

Drejka was engaged in a dispute with a woman, who was safely inside her car. McGlockton "inserted" himself into the situation by way of an unprovoked, physical assault. McGlockton blindsided Drejka with a violent attack when Drejka didn't even see him coming, so it's entirely unfair to claim that Drejka was in a confrontation with McGlockton.

There is a principle known as "escalation," and I'd say if there was any escalating done, it was McGlockton who did the escalating. In the space of a second or two he escalated what had been a verbal confrontation (in which he was NOT involved) into an assault and battery.

[dogmush]

I tend to think Drejka is in a bit of trouble.  I believe that HE was scared for his life when he pulled the trigger.  The case is, as I said, going to come down to whether he can convince a Jury that that fear was reasonable given the circumstances he was in.  And he may very well have a hard time doing that.

It's worth remembering as De Selby talks himself in circles about another Florida SD shooting, that Drejka didn't start a fight with McGlockton.  Drejka started an altercation (there was no physical component, and as far as we know now not even threats of a physical nature) with McGlockton's female companion.  McGlockton started the fight, and he did it with no warning, by escalating a situation he wasn't involved in to a physical assault.

Yes, Drejka made some poor choices, and he did so while carrying a weapon.  He may very well go to jail for manslaughter.  He may very well be guilty of manslaughter. (those two do not necessarily go together)  However, McGlockton is the one that "started a fight over a parking spot", and that's not nothing.  Drejka isn't actually the aggressor here.


ETA:  Hawk and I cross posted, but yup.