It's legally a good shoot, but

[Hawkmoon]

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

Sorry ... multiple felony (beginning at age 17) and numerous misdemeanor convictions over a span of multiple years is a tad bit worse than "useless." But that's irrelevant. Drejka didn't shoot McGlockton because he was useless, or because of the rap sheet. He shot him because McGlockton assaulted him.

[De Selby]

Sorry ... multiple felony (beginning at age 17) and numerous misdemeanor convictions over a span of multiple years is a tad bit worse than "useless." But that's irrelevant. Drejka didn't shoot McGlockton because he was useless, or because of the rap sheet. He shot him because McGlockton assaulted him.

Shooting someone who is backing away from you after an assault isn’t legal. Provocation reduces your sentence, it doesn’t justify a killing.

Probably helpful to read the warrant - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4755192-Michael-Drejka-Arrest-Warrant-081318.html

[Perd Hapley]

Shooting someone who is backing away from you after an assault isn’t legal.

"After"?

[TommyGunn]

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

I wouldn't issue a ccw permit to anyone who couldn't recognize sarcasm .... they might not have a rap sheet,  but that's the only difference.  

[Fly320s]

I wouldn't issue a ccw permit who couldn't recognize sarcasm .... they might not have a rap sheet,  but that's the only difference. 

And I wouldn't issue a CCW permit ever.  CCW permits are for commies.   

[Strings]

Shooting someone who is backing away from you after an assault isn’t legal. Provocation reduces your sentence, it doesn’t justify a killing.

Admittedly, I haven't actually watched the video.

How long an interval between the assailant backing up and the first shot? Because it's entirely possible (and plausible) that the shooter was already squeezing the trigger when the assailant started to back up. I've read of shootings like that

[MechAg94]

I have heard a lot of people say he had stepped back.  With no sound and grainy picture, I couldn't really tell if he backed up when he saw him trying to draw or if it happened at the first shot.  I thought he knocked him to the ground, followed through with a couple steps, stopped, then backed up a step somewhere between the shooter drawing and the first shot.  Once the shooting started, he backed up more and went back into the store.  I just don't think the backing up is clear enough or soon enough to negate the self defense claim.

Maybe I will go back and watch it again later also.

[MechAg94]

Admittedly, I haven't actually watched the video.

How long an interval between the assailant backing up and the first shot? Because it's entirely possible (and plausible) that the shooter was already squeezing the trigger when the assailant started to back up. I've read of shootings like that

I recommend finding the video.  You can also see just how hard he knocked the guy to the ground.  

This is a news clip, but shows the video in the first 10 or 15 seconds.  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDtzofAUSJI

Looks like he did take a step back when he saw the gun being drawn, but I am not sure one or one and half steps negate the self defense claim.  Would you call that an attempt to break off?  The claim by the woman that he backed off after pushing is not true IMO.  It wasn't until after the draw and the shooting.  We also don't know what was being said by either man at that point.  Police saw this footage when they decided he would not be arrested also.

When it comes down to it, we don't control what happens to this guy.  For us, this is a good video to show people when you want to make a point about 1) not getting drawn into an argument while carrying, and 2) keeping aware of what is around you as someone can blindside you if you are distracted, and 3) stay aware of the situation as you pull your gun and are about to shoot.  Small things that might slip your notice across a short few seconds of time can change a good shoot to a bad shoot in many people's eyes after the fact.  

[Hawkmoon]

Shooting someone who is backing away from you after an assault isn’t legal. Provocation reduces your sentence, it doesn’t justify a killing.

So assault and battery is now equivalent to "provocation"? Got it.

Probably helpful to read the warrant - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4755192-Michael-Drejka-Arrest-Warrant-081318.html

Not helpful at all. All that does is set forth the state's contention that the shooting was illegal. Drejka says it was legal self defense. That's why we have trials, and judges, and juries. The warrant doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

[Strings]

OK, I watched it

Given stress compression, the shooter probably didn't even realize his assailant had backed up: looked like maybe a step or two at most. Disoriented after being violently shoved to the ground, and the assailant takes a step backwards? I probably wouldn't catch that, either

[Hawkmoon]

OK, I watched it

Given stress compression, the shooter probably didn't even realize his assailant had backed up: looked like maybe a step or two at most. Disoriented after being violently shoved to the ground, and the assailant takes a step backwards? I probably wouldn't catch that, either

Especially after the assailant had first taken a few steps forward, after the shove. And that shove wasn't an "excuse me, can we talk?" love tap -- that was a violent shove.

And, since you understand about stress and temporal distortion ... you can't be on the jury.

[De Selby]

So assault and battery is now equivalent to "provocation"? Got it.

Not helpful at all. All that does is set forth the state's contention that the shooting was illegal. Drejka says it was legal self defense. That's why we have trials, and judges, and juries. The warrant doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

Did you catch the part where other patrons were so worried about Drejkas behaviour towards the woman they considered intervening, and went inside to report it to the store owner? And that hearing that is why the deceased went outside in the first place?

How about when Drejka called a septic tank company and told them they were lucky he didn’t blow the drivers head off for parking in the disabled spot?

Yeah, no. Reading the warrant it’s pretty clear why he’s charged and if true, those facts are a pretty solid prosecution case.  I especially like how Drejka rant out of distance to keep backing up the cop during role play.

[freakazoid]

Did you catch the part where other patrons were so worried about Drejkas behaviour towards the woman they considered intervening,

Worried about what?

[De Selby]

Worried about what?

“He appeared to be irate” and was waving his arms and shouting, to the point that a customer went inside and told the counter (and the dead guy) that someone should go outside and intervene.

The full warrant outlining probable cause to arrest for manslaughter is at that link above.

The more facts that come out the more it looks like Drejka is the poster child for anti-ccw types. He appears to have a history of waving his gun around and looking for an excuse

[Perd Hapley]

nm.

[Doggy Daddy]

nm.

footnote needed.

[freakazoid]

“He appeared to be irate” and was waving his arms and shouting, to the point that a customer went inside and told the counter (and the dead guy) that someone should go outside and intervene.

The full warrant outlining probable cause to arrest for manslaughter is at that link above.

The more facts that come out the more it looks like Drejka is the poster child for anti-ccw types. He appears to have a history of waving his gun around and looking for an excuse

So he was angry. How does this change anything?
Any word on the woman?

[Hawkmoon]

So he was angry. How does this change anything?
Any word on the woman?

She has been hitting as many newscasts as she can. Obviously, Drejka was just out to kill a black man, because she "didn't do anything wrong."

I posted this link before, a commentary on the incident from the perspective of a black male. If you watched it before, no need to watch it again unless you want to. If you missed it ... here it is again.

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

[De Selby]

So he was angry. How does this change anything?
Any word on the woman?

Did you read the warrant??? His behaviour had bystanders who didn’t know anyone involved in the shooting concerned for her.

Hawk moon, more damaging than her words will be Drejka’s documented history of shouting racial slurs while threatening to shoot people over road rage incidents and parking spaces.  It is reasonable to believe he was looking to shoot a black person if that warrant has the facts straight.

I’ll add that shouting racial slurs and waving the gun is documented from multiple independent sources, some of which were recorded before the shooting.  Not looking good for the guy...harder to claim you were just not aware enough to see the victim backing away when you’ve got evidence about your mindset towards black people and guns like that.

[freakazoid]

Did you read the warrant??? His behaviour had bystanders who didn’t know anyone involved in the shooting concerned for her.

They were concerned for a woman, inside a truck, several feet away from a man who was yelling mean things; a man who made no attempt to actually come at her. And apparently this totally makes it ok for the guy to blindside him by violently shoving him to the ground, and then threateningly move towards him while he is on the ground.

[De Selby]

They were concerned for a woman, inside a truck, several feet away from a man who was yelling mean things; a man who made no attempt to actually come at her. And apparently this totally makes it ok for the guy to blindside him by violently shoving him to the ground, and then threateningly move towards him while he is on the ground.

Again - did you actually read the document setting out the charge? 

[Hawkmoon]

Again - did you actually read the document setting out the charge?  

Yes ... three times. What are you seeing that we're missing? Remember, this is only the state's allegation, it's not necessarily correct or factual, and it hasn't been tried in court.

Basically, all the warrant says is that Drejka used a gun to shoot a person, and the state thinks that it wasn't legal for him to have done so. Oh ... and in so doing, he offended the "peace and dignity" of the State of Florida.

[BobR]

I read the warrant and the one thing that jumped out at me was the statement that the shootee was over 10 feet away from the shooter. The access aisle (hashmarks on the ground) is 5 feet wide, and in looking at the video unless the shootee is 12 feet tall I find it hard to believe he was > 10 feet away. One fatal flaw in the warrant which points to possibly even more problems with it.

As far as the prior actions alleged by the Detective, they will never see the light of day in court.  It is hearsay at best and flat out lies at worst and even some two bit ambulance chasing lawyer knows how to get that thrown out.


bob

[Hawkmoon]

I read the warrant and the one thing that jumped out at me was the statement that the shootee was over 10 feet away from the shooter. The access aisle (hashmarks on the ground) is 5 feet wide, and in looking at the video unless the shootee is 12 feet tall I find it hard to believe he was > 10 feet away. One fatal flaw in the warrant which points to possibly even more problems with it.

I watched the video again, and I have to agree. I'd put the distance at more like 6 feet, certainly not "over 10 feet."

Distance aside, IMHO you can't overlook the factor of time. We get to watch a video, slow it down, rewind, play it again, and analyze it until we're cross-eyed. Drejka didn't have the benefit of instant replay. The shove was at 0:18. From 0:18 to 0:21, Drejka was falling and rolling on the ground, and McGlockton was advancing. At 0:21, Drejka apparently starts to draw and McGlockton stops advancing. The shot(s) was (were) at 0:23 to 0:24.

So in the span of five seconds Drejka's universe switched from being in a verbal argument with a woman to rolling on the ground and having shot a man, purportedly in self defense. That's just not a lot of time in which to process "Hey! WTF just happened here?"

[230RN]

Actually, my first reaction to McGlockton was that he was getting ready to follow up with a kicking and stomping attack.

After I watched it again, I wasn't so sure, but I could see how the person on the ground might view it that way, not having the "long view" of the camera.

We'll see.  I still don't see how any antecedent activities or statements mattered in terms of the self defense decision of the shooter at that moment.

In somewhat more civilized days, the respective parties would have selected Seconds to arrange a time and place to settle the matter.

But those were more civilized days.

Terry, 230RN