It's legally a good shoot, but

[Hawkmoon]

Hahahaha did you read the warrant?  Explains very well how they measured the distance - including the shooters own version

You are confusing the warrant with the supporting affidavit -- most of which is inadmissable because it speaks to prior acts.

[Hawkmoon]

There's something else that De Selby is overlooking ... there's no indication that Drejka chose to engage the woman because she was black. Rather, the handicapped space seems to have been his hot button issue. From the affidavit (which De Selby refers to as "the warrant," but which is not the warrant):

Britany Jacobs remained in the car with her two children. The car remained on with the windows in the upward position.

This was Florida, and these were (IMHO, based on what we know of McGlockton's criminal record) low-life trash. There's about a 98.7 percent probability that the windows of that car are tinted with limo tint so dark that you can't see who's behind the glass. And the windows were closed until after Drejka initiated the "discussion." My guess is that he had no idea what color or race or even gender she was until after she opened her windows and started mouthing back at him.

So he didn't pick a fight with Britany because she was black ... he confronted Britany because she was illegally parked in a parking space reserved for the handicapped.

[Perd Hapley]

There's something else that De Selby is overlooking ... there's no indication that Drejka chose to engage the woman because she was black. Rather, the handicapped space seems to have been his hot button issue. From the affidavit (which De Selby refers to as "the warrant," but which is not the warrant):

This was Florida, and these were (IMHO, based on what we know of McGlockton's criminal record) low-life trash. There's about a 98.7 percent probability that the windows of that car are tinted with limo tint so dark that you can't see who's behind the glass. And the windows were closed until after Drejka initiated the "discussion." My guess is that he had no idea what color or race or even gender she was until after she opened her windows and started mouthing back at him.

So he didn't pick a fight with Britany because she was black ... he confronted Britany because she was illegally parked in a parking space reserved for the handicapped.

On the other hand, if he saw the deceased exit the car...

[De Selby]

Will the dead thugs history of crime and violence be allowed in court as evidence of his mindset?

Or will mind reading only be allowed to be used by the prosecutors?

No, because he isn’t being charged for the shove. His mindset isn’t relevant to what Drejka perceived.

[De Selby]

You are confusing the warrant with the supporting affidavit -- most of which is inadmissable because it speaks to prior acts.

The fact of something being “prior” by itself does not make evidence inadmissible in any jurisdiction in the United States. I have no clue what you’re talking about here but it is certainly possible to admit evidence of the kind described in the [pick your technical term].

[De Selby]

There's something else that De Selby is overlooking ... there's no indication that Drejka chose to engage the woman because she was black. Rather, the handicapped space seems to have been his hot button issue. From the affidavit (which De Selby refers to as "the warrant," but which is not the warrant):

This was Florida, and these were (IMHO, based on what we know of McGlockton's criminal record) low-life trash. There's about a 98.7 percent probability that the windows of that car are tinted with limo tint so dark that you can't see who's behind the glass. And the windows were closed until after Drejka initiated the "discussion." My guess is that he had no idea what color or race or even gender she was until after she opened her windows and started mouthing back at him.

So he didn't pick a fight with Britany because she was black ... he confronted Britany because she was illegally parked in a parking space reserved for the handicapped.

This is a great piece of fantasy that demonstrates how far you’re going to try and lock this up as a good shoot.

Drejka would be unrealistically lucky to have jurors so motivated to find a way to acquit.

[Hawkmoon]

This is a great piece of fantasy that demonstrates how far you’re going to try and lock this up as a good shoot.

Drejka would be unrealistically lucky to have jurors so motivated to find a way to acquit.

It only takes one ...

[De Selby]

It only takes one ...

To hang a jury.  With that video of the guy backing away as soon as Drejka reaches for the gun....

[freakazoid]

Many of you are missing the salient point here, and it’s not a theoretical one - past actions absolutely can be used to say something about your state of mind in a self defence shooting.

The problem and the relevance of these past incidents isn’t that they show Drejka is a toolbag.

What’s important is that in a trial where the video divides opinions even on the most presumptively favourable to ccs shooting boards, he will have to show that his state of mind was fear, and that he shot someoen backing away out of fear.

But that’s going to be a problem - because there’s a history of his behaviour in very similar circumstances that suggests his decision to shoot was motivated by retaliation, anger, and racism. The argument will be made, not unreasonably, that he should’ve seen McGlockton backing away, but chose to follow him with his pistol sights in order to carry out his clearly indicated “looking for an excuse” fantasy.

The analogy is being a homeowner with “trespassers will be shot” signs, and a history of pulling guns on jehovahs witnesses.  If one day the police show up to find a body at your house, of course you’ll say “I was afraid for my life.”  But they’re going to look at your past conduct and, if it looks like you were itching to shoot someone, there’s a much higher chance they’ll let the jury decide whether to believe you.

And in making a call, that jury is highly likely to hear about how you’ve behaved in those circumstances in the past.

I don't think you're wrong.

[Ben]

I don't think you're wrong.

I have to agree with that as well. From the layperson's perspective, I don't understand why the dead guy's past wouldn't be brought up, since he initiated the physical stuff, but I don't see how the shooter's past would not be brought up as well, because it's just too related to his behavior before the physical part of the incident started.

That doesn't mean I think the shooter should be prosecuted. There is still the law and reasonable doubt, and the initiation of physical contact by the other party. It's just the more I read about the shooter, this is kind of going to be like a first amendment case, where someone says something stupid and disgusting, but their rights have to be protected just like anyone else's.

As I said earlier in the thread, if the shooter had been circling my vehicle, I'd be prepared to go to condition orange.  If he pulled his gun to wave it around to show me he was a tough guy, I'd likely consider it a threat to my life and shoot. Again, the dead guy wasn't the one in the car, and all I said about him earlier in the thread still holds, which is why I (barely) give the shooter the benefit of the doubt.

As was pointed out elsewhere here by zxcvbob, this is really a case of "When aholes collide".

[MechAg94]

Are past complaints admissible that didn't result in charges and may or may not be true? 

[Perd Hapley]

This is a great piece of fantasy that demonstrates how far you’re going to try and lock this up as a good shoot.

Yeah, almost as fantastical as those who tried to make Zimmerman guilty.

In any case, the kernel of Hawkmoon's post was that Drejka was upset about the parking issue more than the race of the driver. That seems reasonable enough, right, since he had accosted people for that previously?

[De Selby]

Yeah, almost as fantastical as those who tried to make Zimmerman guilty.

In any case, the kernel of Hawkmoon's post was that Drejka was upset about the parking issue more than the race of the driver. That seems reasonable enough, right, since he had accosted people for that previously?

You mean accosted people by shouting racial slurs?  Yeah, I’m sure it was just about the parking.

The video itself is also a problem. His victim is clearly backing away before the shot. And take a look at how many people are staring at him before the confrontation with the victim.

He’s also, unlike Zimmerman, charged with a more easily proveable offence.

[De Selby]

Are past complaints admissible that didn't result in charges and may or may not be true? 

There are two actual witnesses identified in those papers. Whether they are admissible or not will depend on lots of things, but the fact that they weren’t charged won’t be determinative.

People who have seen you do a thing are always liable to show up testifying at the worst times.

[Perd Hapley]

You mean accosted people by shouting racial slurs?  Yeah, I’m sure it was just about the parking.

The video itself is also a problem. His victim is clearly backing away before the shot. And take a look at how many people are staring at him before the confrontation with the victim.

He’s also, unlike Zimmerman, charged with a more easily proveable offence.

I have no argument with the last two things, and I never said it was only the parking that bothered him. But aren't all of the past incidents related to parking, or road rage?

[freakazoid]

You mean accosted people by shouting racial slurs?  Yeah, I’m sure it was just about the parking.

The video itself is also a problem. His victim is clearly backing away before the shot. And take a look at how many people are staring at him before the confrontation with the victim.

He’s also, unlike Zimmerman, charged with a more easily proveable offence.

Did he ever yell and say mean things to non-black people over parking in spots where they weren't supposed to or did he ignore them, or did he simply never see one do it so hadn't had the opportunity?

[Hawkmoon]

Did he ever yell and say mean things to non-black people over parking in spots where they weren't supposed to or did he ignore them, or did he simply never see one do it so hadn't had the opportunity?

If a tree falls in the forest when there's no one there to hear ... does it make a sound?

[Ben]

Thread necro:

Convicted on Manslaughter. I need to reread this thread, because I can't remember exactly where I ended up on this, other than "When aholes collide".

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

[MechAg94]

Thinking back, that was a case that was hard to pin down outside of arguing with DeSelby.  I could see it from either perspective.  What kept getting to me is the dead guy just walked up and knocked him to the ground without a word.  I guess the lesson if there is one is to be really careful.  Even if attacked, if pulling the gun makes them back off, it is likely better legally to avoid firing.  Every situation is different.   That and juries are not necessarily going to make dispassionate decision based solely on the law. 

Drejka will be sentenced in October and could get up to 30 years behind bars.

You can get 30 years for manslaughter in Florida?  That seems excessive for that charge.

[Hawkmoon]

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that both the prosecution and the jury decision may have been heavily tilted by the fact that a certain other notorious shooting in Florida did not result in a conviction.

To convict, the decision of the jury must be unanimous. Obviously, I wasn't in the courtroom so I didn't hear the witnesses or the arguments offered by the prosecution or the defense. I DID watch the video -- numerous times, both at normal speed and slowed down. I get that the video shows the attacker beginning to back off -- AFTER Drejka pulled the gun and was in the process of "presenting" and firing. I can understand also how that's too late to back off. The way the mind works, and the way muscle response works, once Drejka started the act of drawing, especially after having just been shoved rather violently to the ground, I can understand how drawing and firing became a single act that he might not have been able to consciously interrupt, even if he had realized that the attacker had reversed direction.

I can understand that some on the jury voted to convict. I think many of the members here who joined in the discussion probably would have voted to convict. What I find surprising is that everyone on the jury voted to convict. I would have expected a hung jury.

[Chester32141]

This provides a pretty good breakdown of the verdict … 

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/08/verdict-michael-drejka-guilty-of-manslaughter/

Although sentencing isn’t scheduled until October 10, there seems little ambiguity in what that sentence is likely to be. Florida’s “10-20-Life” firearms sentencing statute, §775.087, mandates a 25-year-to-life sentence for a crime committed with a gun in which the gun is used to shoot and kill a victim. Drejka turned 49 earlier this month, so he would be 74 years of age before there is a possibility of his release from prison.

[Hawkmoon]

My take-away from the article in Chester's link:

In evaluating whether Drejka reasonably perceived an imminent deadly force threat from McGlockton at the time he fired the shot, it’s important to differentiate between facts and claims that are relevant to that question and those that are not. Frankly, it seemed to me in my quick review of the trial testimony and argument that there was an excessive emphasis on irrelevant matters.

To start, even the video itself is not decisive on the question of whether Drejka was seeing what the video camera was seeing, if only because of differences in position and angle. Also, the camera had not just been thrown violently to the ground, a physical experience that can affect perception. The reasonableness of Drejka’s perception of a threat is properly judged in the context of a person in his circumstances—that is, was it the reasonable perception of a person who had just been violently thrown to the ground?

Related, it doesn’t matter if McGlockton actually presented a deadly force threat to Drejka. Rather, it only matters if Drejka reasonably perceived such a threat.

And that's why I am amazed that there wasn't at least a hung jury, if not an acquittal.

[RoadKingLarry]

White shooter, black decedent.  The outcome was predetermined.

[T.O.M.]

This case and thread remind me of a presentation I saw on the impact of Hollywood on the legal system.  Jurors now, having watched so many TV shows and movies, have grossly distorted beliefs when it comes to injuries caused by violence.  People seriously underestimate the level of damage that can be done by punches and kicks, because they have seen many times people kicked in the head by Chuck Norris be completely fine moments later.  Jurors don't equate unarmed violence with deadly force.  At the same time, the "shoot him in the arm/leg" thing still exists.  Frankly, from what I have read and seen of this case, I believe that the Hollywood factor came into play.  Unarmed man = no threat.  Drawn gun fired center of mass = shoot to kill.  For us as lawful gun owners, need to keep in mind that jurors won't know everything we know.  They wont know an unarmed man can be a deadly threat.  They wont know that you aim center of mass because it's the best way to get a hit.  Your lawyer does need to know these things, and be prepared to present expert testimony as needed.

[Ben]

This case and thread remind me of a presentation I saw on the impact of Hollywood on the legal system.  Jurors now, having watched so many TV shows and movies, have grossly distorted beliefs when it comes to injuries caused by violence.  People seriously underestimate the level of damage that can be done by punches and kicks, because they have seen many times people kicked in the head by Chuck Norris be completely fine moments later.  Jurors don't equate unarmed violence with deadly force.  At the same time, the "shoot him in the arm/leg" thing still exists.  Frankly, from what I have read and seen of this case, I believe that the Hollywood factor came into play.  Unarmed man = no threat.  Drawn gun fired center of mass = shoot to kill.  For us as lawful gun owners, need to keep in mind that jurors won't know everything we know.  They wont know an unarmed man can be a deadly threat.  They wont know that you aim center of mass because it's the best way to get a hit.  Your lawyer does need to know these things, and be prepared to present expert testimony as needed.

All good points. A single punch can cause permanent damage, or kill. Even the shove here could have killed - all it would have taken was for the victim's head to smack the curb.

Also (again, thanks to Hollywood), far too many otherwise rational people really believe that if you have a gun, you can "shoot him in the leg". They completely ignore all the instances of trained LE sending 20 rounds downrange (while aiming for COM) before they hit a guy.

I'm still unsure where I fall here. Absolutely Drejka should have not been an ass. I reiterate that if someone approached me in my car in the manner he did with that woman, I would go to condition orange. I also reiterate that what he did did not deserve the shove out of nowhere after the fact. I still submit that the dead guy was a bully who figured he had an easy advantage. The potential sentence certainly seems out of line considering the circumstances. Had Drejka shot before he was shoved (depending on circumstances and perceived threat), I might agree with "up to 30 years". I'd be curious on the demographics of the jury.