Convenient store stand-your-ground shooter charged

[PredFan]

Lot of conservatives here who would convict the guy ....the film is damning.......side angle especially.............

Florida man found guilty of manslaughter in parking lot shooting that led to 'Stand Your Ground' trial
Guy didnt take the stand in his own defense....

He made the classic mistake of talking to the police without a lawyer. He sat in a police interrogation room for over 6 hrs and talked and talked. He thought the police were his friends as in he identified with them so much. His father was a state patrolman for over 28 yrs.

He was so convinced he was in the right that he was apparantly not worried about his words being used against him.

The jury made a huge mistake and this case will have a lot of ramifications none of which are good for society in general.

The concept of self-defense was struck a huge blow by this fallacious verdict.

Everyone that carries a concealed weapon should be on notice that your right to use that weapon in self defense has been struck a huge blow.

The main thing most should learn from this case is how one should never talk to the police without the presence of your lawyer. As is plainly said in the miranda rights....what you say can and WILL be used against you.

I'm a CCW holder and a gun rights advocate. I watched that video when it first was released. This defendant was wrong and an idiot. Even without hearing him or his side, the video is damning. HE instigated the fight, HE had multiple chances to end it peacefully, HE didn't have to shoot the guy. The jury made the correct call.

Wrong.

McGlockton instigated the incident when he made unlawful contact with Drejka; absent such contact the shooting would not have occurred.

Or Drejka’s use of deadly force absent the attack by McGlockton would be unlawful.

Garbage.

When the weapon was drawn, the attacker backed away. There was no need to shoot. The jury got it right.

 

[PredFan]

The point is not how long it took him to shoot, but how quickly he shot!

He never had to pull that trigger. I don't understand why you cannot see that. Perhaps a trip to the optometrist is in order.

If your life is in danger and when you have been subjected to a felonious assault you best believe your life may be in danger and if you are interested in defending your life or limb then you must act as quickly as possible..though you do have two options....hope or pray your attacker does not kill your or maim you or you can choose to fight back.

What would you have done if it had been you?

Minded my own business first and then I would not have pulled that trigger in any case unless he tried again.

Nonsense. He had a disabled family member so he was justifiably irritated by folks parking illegally in handicapped spaces. He had every right to talk to the black woman and point out the fact she was illegally parked...and her reaction was to go off on him.

In hindsight and with the benefit of slow motion video it is easy to say you would not have pulled the trigger. But if it had been you who had been violently and feloniously assaulted you might have a different view.

Drejka did not have the benefit of watching a slow motion video or hindsight to determine whether or not he should shoot. He was in justifiable fear of his life...but due to the political climate today he has been convicted and most likely will spend the rest of his life in prison....he has health issues.

He could be sentenced up to 30 yrs. since mansalughter with the use of a firearm is a first degree felony. I do not think he will get 30 yrs. but it will be a long term he will be sentenced to...at his age and with his state of health it will amount to a death sentence.

His lawyer says there will be an appeal but I see no chance of success there.

Garbage.

As a CCW holder, you don't go looking for a fight like that. It wouldn't have been me but if it had, I would have de-escalated the fight before the guy even came out. Maybe, I would have just stated my peace to her and then walked off.

If you start a fight that you end up drawing your weapon and shooting at the end, you had better be right. The weapon was drawn and the guy backed away. there was NO reason to shoot. 100% his fault and the correct verdict.

Also wrong.

As a matter of law the incident didn’t start until McGlockton made physical contact.

Irrelevant. If that were true, and it isn't, then there would not have been a trial.

 

[Faun]

We’ve seen time and again how progressives shut down just about any conversation that isn’t going their way by shifting from arguing the point – if they even bothered to begin with – to accusations of racism or bigotry.

Oh, for fuck's sake, grow a pair. When someone announces they're a racist by posting, "another dead magic Negro.. Who cares," they should expect to be called a racist. And calling that racist a racist didn't shut down the argument -- that poster didn't have an argument to begin with. He's just a racist troll who couldn't resist expressing his racism. Meanwhile, the argument goes on around him anyway.

Oh, and by the way, the argument is actually going our way... the shooter was convicted.

Well, of course everyone knows the shooter was convicted but the controversy is whether or not the jury got it right.

And the ball game is not over until the appeal is dealt with.

This is a much more important case than most realize because if the jury verdict is allowed to stand it will fundamentally change the law on self defense as has been pointed out previously.

Well you're not exactly winning an argument while our side of the argument prevailed in court.

And no, it doesn't change self-defense laws. Self defense laws were never intended to allow people to murder someone in retreat.

You are too biased to judge who is winning this argument....the object of this discussion should not be to just try and win the argument....it should be about ferreting out the truth and if the jury actually got it right or not.

It amazed me in the Zimmerman case and it amazes me now as to how many have no clue as to what the law on self defense actually is.

That is something else this thread is about ...educating people in regards to what the law on self defense actually is.

I do not see more than 3 or so posters on here who have a good understanding of the law on self defense....quite pathetic.

I was also just thinking about the 6 man jury concept...do you have any thoughts on that?

Here is something else to consider: The jury expected that Drejka whilst in a disoriented and dazed conditon to be able to discern in a couple of seconds whether or not the black dude was retreating or not retreating.

Whilst they had hours to come to the conclusion based on a couple of halting backward steps that the black guy was retreating.....what took them so long?

Here is something else to think about......how juries are selected. Is it a fair practice.

What do we know about how juries are selected? I wouold suppose it varies from lone ocale to another.

First they have a list from which to select prospective juries...I think in most places they use a list of registered voters or at least in some places i know they do that.

When i received my notice to report for jury duty....the first thing they did was to give everyone a long questionarie to fill out. It has been so long I forget all the questions or actually any of them...this was in Nevada.

There was a room full of people....must have been around at least a 100 people there.

Anyone know hat criteria they use to select jurors. Anyone been on jury duty recently?

"You are too biased to judge who is winning this argument....the object of this discussion should not be to just try and win the argument....it should be about ferreting out the truth and if the jury actually got it right or not."

Well it would be helpful if you could get the facts correct if you want to convince anyone you're right but the jury was wrong.

"I was also just thinking about the 6 man jury concept...do you have any thoughts on that?"

I have no problem with that. And I too am in Florida. Perhaps for capital crimes it could be 12. I'd have no problem with that either.

"Here is something else to consider: The jury expected that Drejka whilst in a disoriented and dazed conditon to be able to discern in a couple of seconds whether or not the black dude was retreating or not retreating."

He had about 4 seconds and what you're ignoring is that Drejka made zero effort to retreat.

"Anyone know hat criteria they use to select jurors."

During voir dire, the lawyers from all sides, along with the judge, determine prospective jurors' capability to be on the jury. That is why you had to fill out that long form in advance as it reduces the time needed to question potential jurors who can be weeded out quickly based on their answers. As far as which jurors get selected, the lawyers can protest any potential jurors if they feel they would favor the defense or the prosecution.

 

[Synthaholic]

Here is another video of the event. Get your stop watch out and time how long it took for Drejka to pull the trigger after he managed to get his weapon out.

Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law

The point is not how long it took him to shoot, but how quickly he shot!

He never had to pull that trigger. I don't understand why you cannot see that. Perhaps a trip to the optometrist is in order.

If your life is in danger and when you have been subjected to a felonious assault you best believe your life may be in danger and if you are interested in defending your life or limb then you must act as quickly as possible..though you do have two options....hope or pray your attacker does not kill your or maim you or you can choose to fight back.

What would you have done if it had been you?

Minded my own business first and then I would not have pulled that trigger in any case unless he tried again.

Nonsense. He had a disabled family member so he was justifiably irritated by folks parking illegally in handicapped spaces. He had every right to talk to the black woman and point out the fact she was illegally parked...and her reaction was to go off on him.

In hindsight and with the benefit of slow motion video it is easy to say you would not have pulled the trigger. But if it had been you who had been violently and feloniously assaulted you might have a different view.

Drejka did not have the benefit of watching a slow motion video or hindsight to determine whether or not he should shoot. He was in justifiable fear of his life...but due to the political climate today he has been convicted and most likely will spend the rest of his life in prison....he has health issues.

He could be sentenced up to 30 yrs. since mansalughter with the use of a firearm is a first degree felony. I do not think he will get 30 yrs. but it will be a long term he will be sentenced to...at his age and with his state of health it will amount to a death sentence.

His lawyer says there will be an appeal but I see no chance of success there.

Being “justifiably irritated” is no excuse for murder.

 

[Synthaholic]

Yet, you are right because in todays political climate one must be very,very careful in dealing with a protected class of people.

Fuck you.

 

[Faun]

If your life is in danger and when you have been subjected to a felonious assault you best believe your life may be in danger and if you are interested in defending your life or limb then you must act as quickly as possible..though you do have two options....hope or pray your attacker does not kill your or maim you or you can choose to fight back.

What would you have done if it had been you?

Minded my own business first and then I would not have pulled that trigger in any case unless he tried again.

Nonsense. He had a disabled family member so he was justifiably irritated by folks parking illegally in handicapped spaces. He had every right to talk to the black woman and point out the fact she was illegally parked...and her reaction was to go off on him.

In hindsight and with the benefit of slow motion video it is easy to say you would not have pulled the trigger. But if it had been you who had been violently and feloniously assaulted you might have a different view.

Drejka did not have the benefit of watching a slow motion video or hindsight to determine whether or not he should shoot. He was in justifiable fear of his life...but due to the political climate today he has been convicted and most likely will spend the rest of his life in prison....he has health issues.

He could be sentenced up to 30 yrs. since mansalughter with the use of a firearm is a first degree felony. I do not think he will get 30 yrs. but it will be a long term he will be sentenced to...at his age and with his state of health it will amount to a death sentence.

His lawyer says there will be an appeal but I see no chance of success there.

Garbage.

As a CCW holder, you don't go looking for a fight like that. It wouldn't have been me but if it had, I would have de-escalated the fight before the guy even came out. Maybe, I would have just stated my peace to her and then walked off.

If you start a fight that you end up drawing your weapon and shooting at the end, you had better be right. The weapon was drawn and the guy backed away. there was NO reason to shoot. 100% his fault and the correct verdict.

Nonsense....first of all drejka did not go looking for a fight. As has been pointed out ...he was never in a fight in his entire life. Also....he has been carrying a concealed weapon for around 25 yrs. and never shot anybody. He has a degree in physics and math.

He was under no obligation to de-escalate anything. He was verbally attacked by the black bitch and physically attacked by her boyfriend without legal justification. The boyfriend had a history of assault and he was high on drugs at the time he assaulted michael drejka. His assault of Michael was a crime. Not even to mention he was driving his kids around whilst under the influence of drugs....is that being responsible...of course not. The thug was not responsbile or reasonable...neither was his g/f.

Again Michael did not start a fight. In fact there was no fight. the black dude just rushed out of the store and assaulted michael..... knoked michael drejka to the ground....blindsided him as in drejka never even saw him coming.

Expert testimony in the trial showed that the black did not retreat. He was still within striking distance.

After violently shoving drejka to the ground he continued to advance on drejka until michael was able to get his weapon out. Then and only then did the black thug take a step or two backwards but still remained within striking range. If he wanted to retreat and thus save his life he should have taken off running like he did when he was shot....now that was actual retreating.

Now of course with the benefit of hindsight I am sure Michael Drejka would have done a lot of things differently as well as the black duo would also have done a lot of things differently such as to begin with not parking in a illegal parking spot.

But unlike you and others michael drejka did not have the benefit of hindsight, he did not have the benefit of a slow motion video to ponder what he should do.

In real life and in real time he only had approx 2 secs. to make a life or death decision....to shoot or not to shoot.

Not to mention that he had been dazed by the attack and no doubt was in shock to some degree plus his right arm had been injured...he was fortunate to have been able to get his weapon out and defend his life...if not he would probably have been kicked to death and the news of that might have made the back pages of the paper like all the other victims of black thugs hyped up on drugs

P.S. I sincerely hope you are never in such a situation where you are being threatened with death or serious bodily harm...i doubt you have the capability of actually using your weapon to defend your life...the thug would probably take your weapon whist you are pondering what to do and then shoot you with your own gun.

A common occurence with pussies who carry a weapon....you would be better of getting some mace...you might actually use that.

More garbage.

He was verbally attacked because he appointed himself the police of handicapped parking spaces. HE instigated the confrontation, not the woman, not her husband. The victim in fact did retreat, but he shot him anyway.

Your bull shit doesn't change facts, and your playground insults don't make you right.

The jury got it exactly right.

"He was under no obligation to de-escalate anything. He was verbally attacked by the black bitch..."

Uh, no. He initiated the confrontation because he was perturbed someone would dare park in a handicapped spot illegally on his watch. As far as verbal abuse, both sides accused the other of that.

 

[Flash]

McGlockton was in the wrong for battering Drejka. He had no lawful justification to use force on Drejka.

Drejka, in turn, utilized deadly force against a retreating assailant. The imminence of the threat was gone. Drejka exceeded the amount of force he was lawfully entitled to use at the time he fired the shot.

One dead, the other one probably in jail for the next 20 years or more.

Nonsense....you should have heard the expert witness in regards to what actually constitututes retreat. He was still in close proximity to his victim when he was shot...as in within sriking distance. He could have easily rushed his victim again if he had not been shot. Too many have no clue as to what actually constitutes retreat...to retreat means to be in a place where you are no longer a reasonable threat.

The black dude did not actually retreat until he was shot.

In addition you like many others do not have a adequate understanding of the law on self defense.



Anyhow here is something else I think that is extremely unfair to defendants in Florida....the 6 man jury. I was not even aware until relatively recently that this is going on...I think it is highly outrageous to anyone concerned about justice.

It is much easier.....much, much easier for the state to convict someone with a 6 man jury. This needs to be stopped.

In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of a 6-person jury in a Florida criminal case, ruling that neither the language nor the history of the U.S Constitution mandates a 12-person jury. Instead, the Supreme Court, referring to the 12-person jury as a “historical accident,” held that the purpose of a jury is to provide a cross-section of the community, and juries of less than 12 persons in serious felony cases do not violate that purpose or the constitution. Nevertheless, only two states in the U.S. (Florida and Connecticut) allow for 6-person juries for serious felony accusations.

I didn't hear any of the court proceedings so you may have better information than I do.

However, I did see the video. To me it looked like the thug had tried to retreat. I suspect that is what the jury saw and the reason Drejka was found guilty.

By the way, I served on a six man murder trial back in the 1980s. I was the jury foreman. It was Second Degree murder.

I think in Florida for murder the Defendant always has the right to request a 12 man jury. However, it could just be for 1st degree.

I am a strong supporter of the right to carry. I also teach responsible firearm use as a Firearms Instructor and Range Officer. I am a strong supporter of SYG. However, I don't think I would ever use a firearm for somebody pushing me down. I would need to perceive a greater threat to my life.

When I teach a concealed carry class I advise the students to be very careful about drawing a firearm. It will be a life changing experience. Drejka found that out the hard way.

To me Drejka was an asshole that didn't have the common sense to mind his own business. He met another asshole and now one asshole is dead and another asshole will be spending most, if not all, of the rest of his life in a state prison.

Assholes give responsible gun owners a bad name.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

McGlockton was in the wrong for battering Drejka. He had no lawful justification to use force on Drejka.

Drejka, in turn, utilized deadly force against a retreating assailant. The imminence of the threat was gone. Drejka exceeded the amount of force he was lawfully entitled to use at the time he fired the shot.

One dead, the other one probably in jail for the next 20 years or more.

Nonsense....you should have heard the expert witness in regards to what actually constitututes retreat. He was still in close proximity to his victim when he was shot...as in within sriking distance. He could have easily rushed his victim again if he had not been shot. Too many have no clue as to what actually constitutes retreat...to retreat means to be in a place where you are no longer a reasonable threat.

The black dude did not actually retreat until he was shot.

In addition you like many others do not have a adequate understanding of the law on self defense.



Anyhow here is something else I think that is extremely unfair to defendants in Florida....the 6 man jury. I was not even aware until relatively recently that this is going on...I think it is highly outrageous to anyone concerned about justice.

It is much easier.....much, much easier for the state to convict someone with a 6 man jury. This needs to be stopped.

In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of a 6-person jury in a Florida criminal case, ruling that neither the language nor the history of the U.S Constitution mandates a 12-person jury. Instead, the Supreme Court, referring to the 12-person jury as a “historical accident,” held that the purpose of a jury is to provide a cross-section of the community, and juries of less than 12 persons in serious felony cases do not violate that purpose or the constitution. Nevertheless, only two states in the U.S. (Florida and Connecticut) allow for 6-person juries for serious felony accusations.

I didn't hear any of the court proceedings so you may have better information than I do.

However, I did see the video. To me it looked like the thug had tried to retreat. I suspect that is what the jury saw and the reason Drejka was found guilty.

By the way, I served on a six man murder trial back in the 1980s. I was the jury foreman. It was Second Degree murder.

I think in Florida for murder the Defendant always has the right to request a 12 man jury. However, it could just be for 1st degree.

I am a strong supporter of the right to carry. I also teach responsible firearm use as a Firearms Instructor and Range Officer. I am a strong supporter of SYG. However, I don't think I would ever use a firearm for somebody pushing me down. I would need to perceive a greater threat to my life.

When I teach a concealed carry class I advise the students to be very careful about drawing a firearm. It will be a life changing experience. Drejka found that out the hard way.

To me Drejka was an asshole that didn't have the common sense to mind his own business. He met another asshole and now one asshole is dead and another asshole will be spending most, if not all, of the rest of his life in a state prison.

Assholes give responsible gun owners a bad name.

You betray your lack of knowledge of the law on self defense in Florida as most on here do. I have only noticed 3 or maybe 4 posters who seem to have a good understanding of the law on self defense in Florida.

First of all what you saw or what any of the jurors saw on the video is of little relevance....the law of self defense in Florida is based on the perception of the defendant....as in...'was he in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm?'

That is the essence of the law on self defense in Florida....now very intelligent people can and do have different perspectives on whether or not the black thug was retreating.

But that is neither here nor there....what the jurors should have concentrated on was whether or not Drejka had a reasonable fear of his life being in danger or of great bodily harm.

All this b.s. we see on here of folks going on and on about he had no business pointing out to someone they were illegally parked is irrelevant...has no legal bearing on this case at all.

I think where the jurors dropped the ball was that they were concentrating on their own opinions of whether or not the black guy was retreating.

What they should have been concentrating on was whether or not there was enough evidence to indicate Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm. That would have been following the law.

In the prosecutors summation he kept going on and on about how they should watch the video...of course watch the video but do not let your opinion of what happened divert you from your real duty............of determing whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm.

But the prosecution did not try to enlighten the jury on that they just harped on watch the video, watch the video...understanding the jurors would forget what they were really supposed to to do as in to concentrate on whether or not Drejka was in reasonable fear of life.

Here are the facts that need to be considered in regards to whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm

First of all he had been assaulted---slammed to the ground without reason. He was doing nothing illegal and had done nothing illegal. All he had done or was doing was within the parameter of the rights of any citizen.

Now what was Drejka likely to have thought about that? The jurors should have considered how that could have affected Drejka......violently slammed to the ground....very definitely it most likely put him in fear....how could it not...he did not even know who it was. When he is able to raise up he sees a black guy still hovering around him. It is only natural and reasonable to believe that put him in fear of life or at least of great bodily harm.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe he may have been in fear of his life or of great bodily harm....very possible and reasonable that he was in fear of his life.

Maybe not everyone would be...maybe none of you would be ...but we have to remember you and the jury have the benefit of hindsight and watching a slow motion video.

Drejka did not have the benefit of hindsight nor the ability to watch a slow motion video to figure out what was happening. All he knew was that he had been slammed to the ground for no justifiable reason and the perp was still very,very close the estimates range from 10 to l2 ft. how much time would it have taken the black guy to cover that distance...he could have been back on top of Drejka in a split second. That is the reality of the scenario on that parking lot.

Also they should have considered but I really doubt they did that Drejka had been dazed and was disoriented and at least in a mild state of shock. Did this affect his ability to determine whether or not the black guy was retreating?...of course it would and most likely did....but also we must remember that what Drejka was concentrating on was---how to neutralize the threat...that was his number one responsibility in order to preserve his own life.

To do that he had to get his weapon out which was difficult for him because his right arm had been injured....but he did managed to get it out and as soon as the black guy saw the weapon he stopped his advance on drejka....that is correct ...even after he had already slammed drejka to the ground he was still going towards Drejka...that is on the video as well but most seem to have not seen that. Why would he be doing that...he had already seperated Drejka from his wife which some claim is all he wanted to do.....nonsense....he wanted to inflict more damage on drejka as in kick him in the head etc.

Drejka fter getting his weapon out he had to bring it up to sight it on the threat...since his right arm was injured he had to use his left arm to support the weapon as he sighted it on the target. After doing all that he only had a couple of seconds to make a life or death decision.....to fire.....or not to fire.

What any of you or any of the jurors would do is irrelevant....the only relevant thing is was Drejka in reasonable fear of his life?

 

[PredFan]

McGlockton was in the wrong for battering Drejka. He had no lawful justification to use force on Drejka.

Drejka, in turn, utilized deadly force against a retreating assailant. The imminence of the threat was gone. Drejka exceeded the amount of force he was lawfully entitled to use at the time he fired the shot.

One dead, the other one probably in jail for the next 20 years or more.

Nonsense....you should have heard the expert witness in regards to what actually constitututes retreat. He was still in close proximity to his victim when he was shot...as in within sriking distance. He could have easily rushed his victim again if he had not been shot. Too many have no clue as to what actually constitutes retreat...to retreat means to be in a place where you are no longer a reasonable threat.

The black dude did not actually retreat until he was shot.

In addition you like many others do not have a adequate understanding of the law on self defense.



Anyhow here is something else I think that is extremely unfair to defendants in Florida....the 6 man jury. I was not even aware until relatively recently that this is going on...I think it is highly outrageous to anyone concerned about justice.

It is much easier.....much, much easier for the state to convict someone with a 6 man jury. This needs to be stopped.

In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of a 6-person jury in a Florida criminal case, ruling that neither the language nor the history of the U.S Constitution mandates a 12-person jury. Instead, the Supreme Court, referring to the 12-person jury as a “historical accident,” held that the purpose of a jury is to provide a cross-section of the community, and juries of less than 12 persons in serious felony cases do not violate that purpose or the constitution. Nevertheless, only two states in the U.S. (Florida and Connecticut) allow for 6-person juries for serious felony accusations.

I didn't hear any of the court proceedings so you may have better information than I do.

However, I did see the video. To me it looked like the thug had tried to retreat. I suspect that is what the jury saw and the reason Drejka was found guilty.

By the way, I served on a six man murder trial back in the 1980s. I was the jury foreman. It was Second Degree murder.

I think in Florida for murder the Defendant always has the right to request a 12 man jury. However, it could just be for 1st degree.

I am a strong supporter of the right to carry. I also teach responsible firearm use as a Firearms Instructor and Range Officer. I am a strong supporter of SYG. However, I don't think I would ever use a firearm for somebody pushing me down. I would need to perceive a greater threat to my life.

When I teach a concealed carry class I advise the students to be very careful about drawing a firearm. It will be a life changing experience. Drejka found that out the hard way.

To me Drejka was an asshole that didn't have the common sense to mind his own business. He met another asshole and now one asshole is dead and another asshole will be spending most, if not all, of the rest of his life in a state prison.

Assholes give responsible gun owners a bad name.

You betray your lack of knowledge of the law on self defense in Florida as most on here do. I have only noticed 3 or maybe 4 posters who seem to have a good understanding of the law on self defense in Florida.

First of all what you saw or what any of the jurors saw on the video is of little relevance....the law of self defense in Florida is based on the perception of the defendant....as in...'was he in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm?'

That is the essence of the law on self defense in Florida....now very intelligent people can and do have different perspectives on whether or not the black thug was retreating.

But that is neither here nor there....what the jurors should have concentrated on was whether or not Drejka had a reasonable fear of his life being in danger or of great bodily harm.

All this b.s. we see on here of folks going on and on about he had no business pointing out to someone they were illegally parked is irrelevant...has no legal bearing on this case at all.

I think where the jurors dropped the ball was that they were concentrating on their own opinions of whether or not the black guy was retreating.

What they should have been concentrating on was whether or not there was enough evidence to indicate Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm. That would have been following the law.

In the prosecutors summation he kept going on and on about how they should watch the video...of course watch the video but do not let your opinion of what happened divert you from your real duty............of determing whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm.

But the prosecution did not try to enlighten the jury on that they just harped on watch the video, watch the video...understanding the jurors would forget what they were really supposed to to do as in to concentrate on whether or not Drejka was in reasonable fear of life.

Here are the facts that need to be considered in regards to whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm

First of all he had been assaulted---slammed to the ground without reason. He was doing nothing illegal and had done nothing illegal. All he had done or was doing was within the parameter of the rights of any citizen.

Now what was Drejka likely to have thought about that? The jurors should have considered how that could have affected Drejka......violently slammed to the ground....very definitely it most likely put him in fear....how could it not...he did not even know who it was. When he is able to raise up he sees a black guy still hovering around him. It is only natural and reasonable to believe that put him in fear of life or at least of great bodily harm.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe he may have been in fear of his life or of great bodily harm....very possible and reasonable that he was in fear of his life.

Maybe not everyone would be...maybe none of you would be ...but we have to remember you and the jury have the benefit of hindsight and watching a slow motion video.

Drejka did not have the benefit of hindsight nor the ability to watch a slow motion video to figure out what was happening. All he knew was that he had been slammed to the ground for no justifiable reason and the perp was still very,very close the estimates range from 10 to l2 ft. how much time would it have taken the black guy to cover that distance...he could have been back on top of Drejka in a split second. That is the reality of the scenario on that parking lot.

Also they should have considered but I really doubt they did that Drejka had been dazed and was disoriented and at least in a mild state of shock. Did this affect his ability to determine whether or not the black guy was retreating?...of course it would and most likely did....but also we must remember that what Drejka was concentrating on was---how to neutralize the threat...that was his number one responsibility in order to preserve his own life.

To do that he had to get his weapon out which was difficult for him because his right arm had been injured....but he did managed to get it out and as soon as the black guy saw the weapon he stopped his advance on drejka....that is correct ...even after he had already slammed drejka to the ground he was still going towards Drejka...that is on the video as well but most seem to have not seen that. Why would he be doing that...he had already seperated Drejka from his wife which some claim is all he wanted to do.....nonsense....he wanted to inflict more damage on drejka as in kick him in the head etc.

Drejka fter getting his weapon out he had to bring it up to sight it on the threat...since his right arm was injured he had to use his left arm to support the weapon as he sighted it on the target. After doing all that he only had a couple of seconds to make a life or death decision.....to fire.....or not to fire.

What any of you or any of the jurors would do is irrelevant....the only relevant thing is was Drejka in reasonable fear of his life?

And the answer to that question is "no".

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Minded my own business first and then I would not have pulled that trigger in any case unless he tried again.

Nonsense. He had a disabled family member so he was justifiably irritated by folks parking illegally in handicapped spaces. He had every right to talk to the black woman and point out the fact she was illegally parked...and her reaction was to go off on him.

In hindsight and with the benefit of slow motion video it is easy to say you would not have pulled the trigger. But if it had been you who had been violently and feloniously assaulted you might have a different view.

Drejka did not have the benefit of watching a slow motion video or hindsight to determine whether or not he should shoot. He was in justifiable fear of his life...but due to the political climate today he has been convicted and most likely will spend the rest of his life in prison....he has health issues.

He could be sentenced up to 30 yrs. since mansalughter with the use of a firearm is a first degree felony. I do not think he will get 30 yrs. but it will be a long term he will be sentenced to...at his age and with his state of health it will amount to a death sentence.

His lawyer says there will be an appeal but I see no chance of success there.

Garbage.

As a CCW holder, you don't go looking for a fight like that. It wouldn't have been me but if it had, I would have de-escalated the fight before the guy even came out. Maybe, I would have just stated my peace to her and then walked off.

If you start a fight that you end up drawing your weapon and shooting at the end, you had better be right. The weapon was drawn and the guy backed away. there was NO reason to shoot. 100% his fault and the correct verdict.

Nonsense....first of all drejka did not go looking for a fight. As has been pointed out ...he was never in a fight in his entire life. Also....he has been carrying a concealed weapon for around 25 yrs. and never shot anybody. He has a degree in physics and math.

He was under no obligation to de-escalate anything. He was verbally attacked by the black bitch and physically attacked by her boyfriend without legal justification. The boyfriend had a history of assault and he was high on drugs at the time he assaulted michael drejka. His assault of Michael was a crime. Not even to mention he was driving his kids around whilst under the influence of drugs....is that being responsible...of course not. The thug was not responsbile or reasonable...neither was his g/f.

Again Michael did not start a fight. In fact there was no fight. the black dude just rushed out of the store and assaulted michael..... knoked michael drejka to the ground....blindsided him as in drejka never even saw him coming.

Expert testimony in the trial showed that the black did not retreat. He was still within striking distance.

After violently shoving drejka to the ground he continued to advance on drejka until michael was able to get his weapon out. Then and only then did the black thug take a step or two backwards but still remained within striking range. If he wanted to retreat and thus save his life he should have taken off running like he did when he was shot....now that was actual retreating.

Now of course with the benefit of hindsight I am sure Michael Drejka would have done a lot of things differently as well as the black duo would also have done a lot of things differently such as to begin with not parking in a illegal parking spot.

But unlike you and others michael drejka did not have the benefit of hindsight, he did not have the benefit of a slow motion video to ponder what he should do.

In real life and in real time he only had approx 2 secs. to make a life or death decision....to shoot or not to shoot.

Not to mention that he had been dazed by the attack and no doubt was in shock to some degree plus his right arm had been injured...he was fortunate to have been able to get his weapon out and defend his life...if not he would probably have been kicked to death and the news of that might have made the back pages of the paper like all the other victims of black thugs hyped up on drugs

P.S. I sincerely hope you are never in such a situation where you are being threatened with death or serious bodily harm...i doubt you have the capability of actually using your weapon to defend your life...the thug would probably take your weapon whist you are pondering what to do and then shoot you with your own gun.

A common occurence with pussies who carry a weapon....you would be better of getting some mace...you might actually use that.

More garbage.

He was verbally attacked because he appointed himself the police of handicapped parking spaces. HE instigated the confrontation, not the woman, not her husband. The victim in fact did retreat, but he shot him anyway.

Your bull shit doesn't change facts, and your playground insults don't make you right.

The jury got it exactly right.

"He was under no obligation to de-escalate anything. He was verbally attacked by the black bitch..."

Uh, no. He initiated the confrontation because he was perturbed someone would dare park in a handicapped spot illegally on his watch. As far as verbal abuse, both sides accused the other of that.

Ridculous, childish and exceedingly stupid analysis. Not to mention you have it ass backwards...how could you possibly be so confused? ...oh my bad i forgot the black peeps are always innocent....that of course is the liberal narrative.

The black lying bitch was the one that was perturbed.

Drejka was calmly going about to see if the vehicle had handicap placards...that is all he was doing. He had no idea that anyone was even in the vehicle due to the fact he could not see in it because of the tinted windows.

While he was at the front of the car the black bitch rolled down the window and axed him what he was doing....he then explained to her that she was illegally parked. That is when she went off on him telling him it was none of his business. He persisted in explaining to her there were other spots available that spot was reserved for handicapped people etc.

As has been explained that people illegally parking in handicap spots was his pet peeve because he had a family member who was handicapped. It is not unusual for people to be upset about that...many,many people are. As pointed out by the defense at the trial several jurors were disqualified because they voiced their opinion on people violating handicap parking spaces.

Anyhow, the black bitch not only verbally assaulted drejka she threatend him....telling him when her man got back they would fuck him up per witness testimony.

On being cross-examined she even admitted she wanted to put her hands on drejka...the black vernacular expressing a desire to whup up on someone.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

McGlockton was in the wrong for battering Drejka. He had no lawful justification to use force on Drejka.

Drejka, in turn, utilized deadly force against a retreating assailant. The imminence of the threat was gone. Drejka exceeded the amount of force he was lawfully entitled to use at the time he fired the shot.

One dead, the other one probably in jail for the next 20 years or more.

Nonsense....you should have heard the expert witness in regards to what actually constitututes retreat. He was still in close proximity to his victim when he was shot...as in within sriking distance. He could have easily rushed his victim again if he had not been shot. Too many have no clue as to what actually constitutes retreat...to retreat means to be in a place where you are no longer a reasonable threat.

The black dude did not actually retreat until he was shot.

In addition you like many others do not have a adequate understanding of the law on self defense.



Anyhow here is something else I think that is extremely unfair to defendants in Florida....the 6 man jury. I was not even aware until relatively recently that this is going on...I think it is highly outrageous to anyone concerned about justice.

It is much easier.....much, much easier for the state to convict someone with a 6 man jury. This needs to be stopped.

In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of a 6-person jury in a Florida criminal case, ruling that neither the language nor the history of the U.S Constitution mandates a 12-person jury. Instead, the Supreme Court, referring to the 12-person jury as a “historical accident,” held that the purpose of a jury is to provide a cross-section of the community, and juries of less than 12 persons in serious felony cases do not violate that purpose or the constitution. Nevertheless, only two states in the U.S. (Florida and Connecticut) allow for 6-person juries for serious felony accusations.

I didn't hear any of the court proceedings so you may have better information than I do.

However, I did see the video. To me it looked like the thug had tried to retreat. I suspect that is what the jury saw and the reason Drejka was found guilty.

By the way, I served on a six man murder trial back in the 1980s. I was the jury foreman. It was Second Degree murder.

I think in Florida for murder the Defendant always has the right to request a 12 man jury. However, it could just be for 1st degree.

I am a strong supporter of the right to carry. I also teach responsible firearm use as a Firearms Instructor and Range Officer. I am a strong supporter of SYG. However, I don't think I would ever use a firearm for somebody pushing me down. I would need to perceive a greater threat to my life.

When I teach a concealed carry class I advise the students to be very careful about drawing a firearm. It will be a life changing experience. Drejka found that out the hard way.

To me Drejka was an asshole that didn't have the common sense to mind his own business. He met another asshole and now one asshole is dead and another asshole will be spending most, if not all, of the rest of his life in a state prison.

Assholes give responsible gun owners a bad name.

You betray your lack of knowledge of the law on self defense in Florida as most on here do. I have only noticed 3 or maybe 4 posters who seem to have a good understanding of the law on self defense in Florida.

First of all what you saw or what any of the jurors saw on the video is of little relevance....the law of self defense in Florida is based on the perception of the defendant....as in...'was he in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm?'

That is the essence of the law on self defense in Florida....now very intelligent people can and do have different perspectives on whether or not the black thug was retreating.

But that is neither here nor there....what the jurors should have concentrated on was whether or not Drejka had a reasonable fear of his life being in danger or of great bodily harm.

All this b.s. we see on here of folks going on and on about he had no business pointing out to someone they were illegally parked is irrelevant...has no legal bearing on this case at all.

I think where the jurors dropped the ball was that they were concentrating on their own opinions of whether or not the black guy was retreating.

What they should have been concentrating on was whether or not there was enough evidence to indicate Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm. That would have been following the law.

In the prosecutors summation he kept going on and on about how they should watch the video...of course watch the video but do not let your opinion of what happened divert you from your real duty............of determing whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm.

But the prosecution did not try to enlighten the jury on that they just harped on watch the video, watch the video...understanding the jurors would forget what they were really supposed to to do as in to concentrate on whether or not Drejka was in reasonable fear of life.

Here are the facts that need to be considered in regards to whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm

First of all he had been assaulted---slammed to the ground without reason. He was doing nothing illegal and had done nothing illegal. All he had done or was doing was within the parameter of the rights of any citizen.

Now what was Drejka likely to have thought about that? The jurors should have considered how that could have affected Drejka......violently slammed to the ground....very definitely it most likely put him in fear....how could it not...he did not even know who it was. When he is able to raise up he sees a black guy still hovering around him. It is only natural and reasonable to believe that put him in fear of life or at least of great bodily harm.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe he may have been in fear of his life or of great bodily harm....very possible and reasonable that he was in fear of his life.

Maybe not everyone would be...maybe none of you would be ...but we have to remember you and the jury have the benefit of hindsight and watching a slow motion video.

Drejka did not have the benefit of hindsight nor the ability to watch a slow motion video to figure out what was happening. All he knew was that he had been slammed to the ground for no justifiable reason and the perp was still very,very close the estimates range from 10 to l2 ft. how much time would it have taken the black guy to cover that distance...he could have been back on top of Drejka in a split second. That is the reality of the scenario on that parking lot.

Also they should have considered but I really doubt they did that Drejka had been dazed and was disoriented and at least in a mild state of shock. Did this affect his ability to determine whether or not the black guy was retreating?...of course it would and most likely did....but also we must remember that what Drejka was concentrating on was---how to neutralize the threat...that was his number one responsibility in order to preserve his own life.

To do that he had to get his weapon out which was difficult for him because his right arm had been injured....but he did managed to get it out and as soon as the black guy saw the weapon he stopped his advance on drejka....that is correct ...even after he had already slammed drejka to the ground he was still going towards Drejka...that is on the video as well but most seem to have not seen that. Why would he be doing that...he had already seperated Drejka from his wife which some claim is all he wanted to do.....nonsense....he wanted to inflict more damage on drejka as in kick him in the head etc.

Drejka fter getting his weapon out he had to bring it up to sight it on the threat...since his right arm was injured he had to use his left arm to support the weapon as he sighted it on the target. After doing all that he only had a couple of seconds to make a life or death decision.....to fire.....or not to fire.

What any of you or any of the jurors would do is irrelevant....the only relevant thing is was Drejka in reasonable fear of his life?

And the answer to that question is "no".

You base that on your perception of the video....thus like the jury...you are not following the law. The law of self defense in florida is based on the perception of the defendant ...as in whether or not he was in reasonable fear of his life...I have laid out all the reasons regarding why he was or could have been in fear of his life or great bodily injury.

For anyone to logically claim he was not in fear of his life you would need to point out why he could not possibly have been in fear of his life or of great bodily injury.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

McGlockton was in the wrong for battering Drejka. He had no lawful justification to use force on Drejka.

Drejka, in turn, utilized deadly force against a retreating assailant. The imminence of the threat was gone. Drejka exceeded the amount of force he was lawfully entitled to use at the time he fired the shot.

One dead, the other one probably in jail for the next 20 years or more.

Nonsense....you should have heard the expert witness in regards to what actually constitututes retreat. He was still in close proximity to his victim when he was shot...as in within sriking distance. He could have easily rushed his victim again if he had not been shot. Too many have no clue as to what actually constitutes retreat...to retreat means to be in a place where you are no longer a reasonable threat.

The black dude did not actually retreat until he was shot.

In addition you like many others do not have a adequate understanding of the law on self defense.



Anyhow here is something else I think that is extremely unfair to defendants in Florida....the 6 man jury. I was not even aware until relatively recently that this is going on...I think it is highly outrageous to anyone concerned about justice.

It is much easier.....much, much easier for the state to convict someone with a 6 man jury. This needs to be stopped.

In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of a 6-person jury in a Florida criminal case, ruling that neither the language nor the history of the U.S Constitution mandates a 12-person jury. Instead, the Supreme Court, referring to the 12-person jury as a “historical accident,” held that the purpose of a jury is to provide a cross-section of the community, and juries of less than 12 persons in serious felony cases do not violate that purpose or the constitution. Nevertheless, only two states in the U.S. (Florida and Connecticut) allow for 6-person juries for serious felony accusations.

I didn't hear any of the court proceedings so you may have better information than I do.

However, I did see the video. To me it looked like the thug had tried to retreat. I suspect that is what the jury saw and the reason Drejka was found guilty.

By the way, I served on a six man murder trial back in the 1980s. I was the jury foreman. It was Second Degree murder.

I think in Florida for murder the Defendant always has the right to request a 12 man jury. However, it could just be for 1st degree.

I am a strong supporter of the right to carry. I also teach responsible firearm use as a Firearms Instructor and Range Officer. I am a strong supporter of SYG. However, I don't think I would ever use a firearm for somebody pushing me down. I would need to perceive a greater threat to my life.

When I teach a concealed carry class I advise the students to be very careful about drawing a firearm. It will be a life changing experience. Drejka found that out the hard way.

To me Drejka was an asshole that didn't have the common sense to mind his own business. He met another asshole and now one asshole is dead and another asshole will be spending most, if not all, of the rest of his life in a state prison.

Assholes give responsible gun owners a bad name.

You betray your lack of knowledge of the law on self defense in Florida as most on here do. I have only noticed 3 or maybe 4 posters who seem to have a good understanding of the law on self defense in Florida.

First of all what you saw or what any of the jurors saw on the video is of little relevance....the law of self defense in Florida is based on the perception of the defendant....as in...'was he in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm?'

That is the essence of the law on self defense in Florida....now very intelligent people can and do have different perspectives on whether or not the black thug was retreating.

But that is neither here nor there....what the jurors should have concentrated on was whether or not Drejka had a reasonable fear of his life being in danger or of great bodily harm.

All this b.s. we see on here of folks going on and on about he had no business pointing out to someone they were illegally parked is irrelevant...has no legal bearing on this case at all.

I think where the jurors dropped the ball was that they were concentrating on their own opinions of whether or not the black guy was retreating.

What they should have been concentrating on was whether or not there was enough evidence to indicate Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm. That would have been following the law.

In the prosecutors summation he kept going on and on about how they should watch the video...of course watch the video but do not let your opinion of what happened divert you from your real duty............of determing whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm.

But the prosecution did not try to enlighten the jury on that they just harped on watch the video, watch the video...understanding the jurors would forget what they were really supposed to to do as in to concentrate on whether or not Drejka was in reasonable fear of life.

Here are the facts that need to be considered in regards to whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm

First of all he had been assaulted---slammed to the ground without reason. He was doing nothing illegal and had done nothing illegal. All he had done or was doing was within the parameter of the rights of any citizen.

Now what was Drejka likely to have thought about that? The jurors should have considered how that could have affected Drejka......violently slammed to the ground....very definitely it most likely put him in fear....how could it not...he did not even know who it was. When he is able to raise up he sees a black guy still hovering around him. It is only natural and reasonable to believe that put him in fear of life or at least of great bodily harm.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe he may have been in fear of his life or of great bodily harm....very possible and reasonable that he was in fear of his life.

Maybe not everyone would be...maybe none of you would be ...but we have to remember you and the jury have the benefit of hindsight and watching a slow motion video.

Drejka did not have the benefit of hindsight nor the ability to watch a slow motion video to figure out what was happening. All he knew was that he had been slammed to the ground for no justifiable reason and the perp was still very,very close the estimates range from 10 to l2 ft. how much time would it have taken the black guy to cover that distance...he could have been back on top of Drejka in a split second. That is the reality of the scenario on that parking lot.

Also they should have considered but I really doubt they did that Drejka had been dazed and was disoriented and at least in a mild state of shock. Did this affect his ability to determine whether or not the black guy was retreating?...of course it would and most likely did....but also we must remember that what Drejka was concentrating on was---how to neutralize the threat...that was his number one responsibility in order to preserve his own life.

To do that he had to get his weapon out which was difficult for him because his right arm had been injured....but he did managed to get it out and as soon as the black guy saw the weapon he stopped his advance on drejka....that is correct ...even after he had already slammed drejka to the ground he was still going towards Drejka...that is on the video as well but most seem to have not seen that. Why would he be doing that...he had already seperated Drejka from his wife which some claim is all he wanted to do.....nonsense....he wanted to inflict more damage on drejka as in kick him in the head etc.

Drejka fter getting his weapon out he had to bring it up to sight it on the threat...since his right arm was injured he had to use his left arm to support the weapon as he sighted it on the target. After doing all that he only had a couple of seconds to make a life or death decision.....to fire.....or not to fire.

What any of you or any of the jurors would do is irrelevant....the only relevant thing is was Drejka in reasonable fear of his life?

And the answer to that question is "no".

You base that on your perception of the video....thus like the jury...you are not following the law. The law of self defense in florida is based on the perception of the defendant ...as in whether or not he was in reasonable fear of his life...I have laid out all the reasons regarding why he was in or could have been in reasonable fear of his life or great bodily injury.

 

[PredFan]

McGlockton was in the wrong for battering Drejka. He had no lawful justification to use force on Drejka.

Drejka, in turn, utilized deadly force against a retreating assailant. The imminence of the threat was gone. Drejka exceeded the amount of force he was lawfully entitled to use at the time he fired the shot.

One dead, the other one probably in jail for the next 20 years or more.

Nonsense....you should have heard the expert witness in regards to what actually constitututes retreat. He was still in close proximity to his victim when he was shot...as in within sriking distance. He could have easily rushed his victim again if he had not been shot. Too many have no clue as to what actually constitutes retreat...to retreat means to be in a place where you are no longer a reasonable threat.

The black dude did not actually retreat until he was shot.

In addition you like many others do not have a adequate understanding of the law on self defense.



Anyhow here is something else I think that is extremely unfair to defendants in Florida....the 6 man jury. I was not even aware until relatively recently that this is going on...I think it is highly outrageous to anyone concerned about justice.

It is much easier.....much, much easier for the state to convict someone with a 6 man jury. This needs to be stopped.

In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of a 6-person jury in a Florida criminal case, ruling that neither the language nor the history of the U.S Constitution mandates a 12-person jury. Instead, the Supreme Court, referring to the 12-person jury as a “historical accident,” held that the purpose of a jury is to provide a cross-section of the community, and juries of less than 12 persons in serious felony cases do not violate that purpose or the constitution. Nevertheless, only two states in the U.S. (Florida and Connecticut) allow for 6-person juries for serious felony accusations.

I didn't hear any of the court proceedings so you may have better information than I do.

However, I did see the video. To me it looked like the thug had tried to retreat. I suspect that is what the jury saw and the reason Drejka was found guilty.

By the way, I served on a six man murder trial back in the 1980s. I was the jury foreman. It was Second Degree murder.

I think in Florida for murder the Defendant always has the right to request a 12 man jury. However, it could just be for 1st degree.

I am a strong supporter of the right to carry. I also teach responsible firearm use as a Firearms Instructor and Range Officer. I am a strong supporter of SYG. However, I don't think I would ever use a firearm for somebody pushing me down. I would need to perceive a greater threat to my life.

When I teach a concealed carry class I advise the students to be very careful about drawing a firearm. It will be a life changing experience. Drejka found that out the hard way.

To me Drejka was an asshole that didn't have the common sense to mind his own business. He met another asshole and now one asshole is dead and another asshole will be spending most, if not all, of the rest of his life in a state prison.

Assholes give responsible gun owners a bad name.

You betray your lack of knowledge of the law on self defense in Florida as most on here do. I have only noticed 3 or maybe 4 posters who seem to have a good understanding of the law on self defense in Florida.

First of all what you saw or what any of the jurors saw on the video is of little relevance....the law of self defense in Florida is based on the perception of the defendant....as in...'was he in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm?'

That is the essence of the law on self defense in Florida....now very intelligent people can and do have different perspectives on whether or not the black thug was retreating.

But that is neither here nor there....what the jurors should have concentrated on was whether or not Drejka had a reasonable fear of his life being in danger or of great bodily harm.

All this b.s. we see on here of folks going on and on about he had no business pointing out to someone they were illegally parked is irrelevant...has no legal bearing on this case at all.

I think where the jurors dropped the ball was that they were concentrating on their own opinions of whether or not the black guy was retreating.

What they should have been concentrating on was whether or not there was enough evidence to indicate Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm. That would have been following the law.

In the prosecutors summation he kept going on and on about how they should watch the video...of course watch the video but do not let your opinion of what happened divert you from your real duty............of determing whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm.

But the prosecution did not try to enlighten the jury on that they just harped on watch the video, watch the video...understanding the jurors would forget what they were really supposed to to do as in to concentrate on whether or not Drejka was in reasonable fear of life.

Here are the facts that need to be considered in regards to whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm

First of all he had been assaulted---slammed to the ground without reason. He was doing nothing illegal and had done nothing illegal. All he had done or was doing was within the parameter of the rights of any citizen.

Now what was Drejka likely to have thought about that? The jurors should have considered how that could have affected Drejka......violently slammed to the ground....very definitely it most likely put him in fear....how could it not...he did not even know who it was. When he is able to raise up he sees a black guy still hovering around him. It is only natural and reasonable to believe that put him in fear of life or at least of great bodily harm.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe he may have been in fear of his life or of great bodily harm....very possible and reasonable that he was in fear of his life.

Maybe not everyone would be...maybe none of you would be ...but we have to remember you and the jury have the benefit of hindsight and watching a slow motion video.

Drejka did not have the benefit of hindsight nor the ability to watch a slow motion video to figure out what was happening. All he knew was that he had been slammed to the ground for no justifiable reason and the perp was still very,very close the estimates range from 10 to l2 ft. how much time would it have taken the black guy to cover that distance...he could have been back on top of Drejka in a split second. That is the reality of the scenario on that parking lot.

Also they should have considered but I really doubt they did that Drejka had been dazed and was disoriented and at least in a mild state of shock. Did this affect his ability to determine whether or not the black guy was retreating?...of course it would and most likely did....but also we must remember that what Drejka was concentrating on was---how to neutralize the threat...that was his number one responsibility in order to preserve his own life.

To do that he had to get his weapon out which was difficult for him because his right arm had been injured....but he did managed to get it out and as soon as the black guy saw the weapon he stopped his advance on drejka....that is correct ...even after he had already slammed drejka to the ground he was still going towards Drejka...that is on the video as well but most seem to have not seen that. Why would he be doing that...he had already seperated Drejka from his wife which some claim is all he wanted to do.....nonsense....he wanted to inflict more damage on drejka as in kick him in the head etc.

Drejka fter getting his weapon out he had to bring it up to sight it on the threat...since his right arm was injured he had to use his left arm to support the weapon as he sighted it on the target. After doing all that he only had a couple of seconds to make a life or death decision.....to fire.....or not to fire.

What any of you or any of the jurors would do is irrelevant....the only relevant thing is was Drejka in reasonable fear of his life?

And the answer to that question is "no".

You base that on your perception of the video....thus like the jury...you are not following the law. The law of self defense in florida is based on the perception of the defendant ...as in whether or not he was in reasonable fear of his life...I have laid out all the reasons regarding why he was or could have been in fear of his life or great bodily injury.

For anyone to logically claim he was not in fear of his life you would need to point out why he could not possibly have been in fear of his life or of great bodily injury.

Your hatred of black people has you saying stupid shit. If that nonsense you are spouting was true, then all anyone would have to say is that they felt threatened. That isn't how the law works. I can take no more of your ignorance. Dismissed.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Nonsense....you should have heard the expert witness in regards to what actually constitututes retreat. He was still in close proximity to his victim when he was shot...as in within sriking distance. He could have easily rushed his victim again if he had not been shot. Too many have no clue as to what actually constitutes retreat...to retreat means to be in a place where you are no longer a reasonable threat.

The black dude did not actually retreat until he was shot.

In addition you like many others do not have a adequate understanding of the law on self defense.



Anyhow here is something else I think that is extremely unfair to defendants in Florida....the 6 man jury. I was not even aware until relatively recently that this is going on...I think it is highly outrageous to anyone concerned about justice.

It is much easier.....much, much easier for the state to convict someone with a 6 man jury. This needs to be stopped.

In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of a 6-person jury in a Florida criminal case, ruling that neither the language nor the history of the U.S Constitution mandates a 12-person jury. Instead, the Supreme Court, referring to the 12-person jury as a “historical accident,” held that the purpose of a jury is to provide a cross-section of the community, and juries of less than 12 persons in serious felony cases do not violate that purpose or the constitution. Nevertheless, only two states in the U.S. (Florida and Connecticut) allow for 6-person juries for serious felony accusations.

I didn't hear any of the court proceedings so you may have better information than I do.

However, I did see the video. To me it looked like the thug had tried to retreat. I suspect that is what the jury saw and the reason Drejka was found guilty.

By the way, I served on a six man murder trial back in the 1980s. I was the jury foreman. It was Second Degree murder.

I think in Florida for murder the Defendant always has the right to request a 12 man jury. However, it could just be for 1st degree.

I am a strong supporter of the right to carry. I also teach responsible firearm use as a Firearms Instructor and Range Officer. I am a strong supporter of SYG. However, I don't think I would ever use a firearm for somebody pushing me down. I would need to perceive a greater threat to my life.

When I teach a concealed carry class I advise the students to be very careful about drawing a firearm. It will be a life changing experience. Drejka found that out the hard way.

To me Drejka was an asshole that didn't have the common sense to mind his own business. He met another asshole and now one asshole is dead and another asshole will be spending most, if not all, of the rest of his life in a state prison.

Assholes give responsible gun owners a bad name.

You betray your lack of knowledge of the law on self defense in Florida as most on here do. I have only noticed 3 or maybe 4 posters who seem to have a good understanding of the law on self defense in Florida.

First of all what you saw or what any of the jurors saw on the video is of little relevance....the law of self defense in Florida is based on the perception of the defendant....as in...'was he in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm?'

That is the essence of the law on self defense in Florida....now very intelligent people can and do have different perspectives on whether or not the black thug was retreating.

But that is neither here nor there....what the jurors should have concentrated on was whether or not Drejka had a reasonable fear of his life being in danger or of great bodily harm.

All this b.s. we see on here of folks going on and on about he had no business pointing out to someone they were illegally parked is irrelevant...has no legal bearing on this case at all.

I think where the jurors dropped the ball was that they were concentrating on their own opinions of whether or not the black guy was retreating.

What they should have been concentrating on was whether or not there was enough evidence to indicate Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm. That would have been following the law.

In the prosecutors summation he kept going on and on about how they should watch the video...of course watch the video but do not let your opinion of what happened divert you from your real duty............of determing whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm.

But the prosecution did not try to enlighten the jury on that they just harped on watch the video, watch the video...understanding the jurors would forget what they were really supposed to to do as in to concentrate on whether or not Drejka was in reasonable fear of life.

Here are the facts that need to be considered in regards to whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm

First of all he had been assaulted---slammed to the ground without reason. He was doing nothing illegal and had done nothing illegal. All he had done or was doing was within the parameter of the rights of any citizen.

Now what was Drejka likely to have thought about that? The jurors should have considered how that could have affected Drejka......violently slammed to the ground....very definitely it most likely put him in fear....how could it not...he did not even know who it was. When he is able to raise up he sees a black guy still hovering around him. It is only natural and reasonable to believe that put him in fear of life or at least of great bodily harm.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe he may have been in fear of his life or of great bodily harm....very possible and reasonable that he was in fear of his life.

Maybe not everyone would be...maybe none of you would be ...but we have to remember you and the jury have the benefit of hindsight and watching a slow motion video.

Drejka did not have the benefit of hindsight nor the ability to watch a slow motion video to figure out what was happening. All he knew was that he had been slammed to the ground for no justifiable reason and the perp was still very,very close the estimates range from 10 to l2 ft. how much time would it have taken the black guy to cover that distance...he could have been back on top of Drejka in a split second. That is the reality of the scenario on that parking lot.

Also they should have considered but I really doubt they did that Drejka had been dazed and was disoriented and at least in a mild state of shock. Did this affect his ability to determine whether or not the black guy was retreating?...of course it would and most likely did....but also we must remember that what Drejka was concentrating on was---how to neutralize the threat...that was his number one responsibility in order to preserve his own life.

To do that he had to get his weapon out which was difficult for him because his right arm had been injured....but he did managed to get it out and as soon as the black guy saw the weapon he stopped his advance on drejka....that is correct ...even after he had already slammed drejka to the ground he was still going towards Drejka...that is on the video as well but most seem to have not seen that. Why would he be doing that...he had already seperated Drejka from his wife which some claim is all he wanted to do.....nonsense....he wanted to inflict more damage on drejka as in kick him in the head etc.

Drejka fter getting his weapon out he had to bring it up to sight it on the threat...since his right arm was injured he had to use his left arm to support the weapon as he sighted it on the target. After doing all that he only had a couple of seconds to make a life or death decision.....to fire.....or not to fire.

What any of you or any of the jurors would do is irrelevant....the only relevant thing is was Drejka in reasonable fear of his life?

And the answer to that question is "no".

You base that on your perception of the video....thus like the jury...you are not following the law. The law of self defense in florida is based on the perception of the defendant ...as in whether or not he was in reasonable fear of his life...I have laid out all the reasons regarding why he was or could have been in fear of his life or great bodily injury.

For anyone to logically claim he was not in fear of his life you would need to point out why he could not possibly have been in fear of his life or of great bodily injury.

Your hatred of black people has you saying stupid shit. If that nonsense you are spouting was true, then all anyone would have to say is that they felt threatened. That isn't how the law works. I can take no more of your ignorance. Dismissed.

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa another one bites the dust. As has been said when liberals perceive they have lost an argument they always, always resort to playing the race card.....you a waycist, you a waycist LOL

Again...you make it quite clear you have no understanding of the law of self defense in Florida though I explained it to you in a manner that even a 6yr old should be able to understand it.

The key woids being....IN REASONABLE FEAR OF THEIR LIFE or OF GRIEVIOUS BODILY HARM

I laid out all the reasons why it would have been reasonable for Drejka to be in fear of his life or of great bodily harm.

The guy is not stupid....he has a degree in math and physics...... he would have had no reason to pull the trigger if he had not been in fear of his life or of great bodily harm.

You and all the others on here he want to dispute the fact that he was in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm are the ones that are being un-reasonable and illogical not even to mention with no good understanding of the law. Pathetic but I needed a good laugh....thanx. LOL

5 Reasons That Shouting "Racism" Doesn't Work Anymore

 

[PredFan]

Moron thinks I'm a liberal.

 

[Flash]

McGlockton was in the wrong for battering Drejka. He had no lawful justification to use force on Drejka.

Drejka, in turn, utilized deadly force against a retreating assailant. The imminence of the threat was gone. Drejka exceeded the amount of force he was lawfully entitled to use at the time he fired the shot.

One dead, the other one probably in jail for the next 20 years or more.

Nonsense....you should have heard the expert witness in regards to what actually constitututes retreat. He was still in close proximity to his victim when he was shot...as in within sriking distance. He could have easily rushed his victim again if he had not been shot. Too many have no clue as to what actually constitutes retreat...to retreat means to be in a place where you are no longer a reasonable threat.

The black dude did not actually retreat until he was shot.

In addition you like many others do not have a adequate understanding of the law on self defense.



Anyhow here is something else I think that is extremely unfair to defendants in Florida....the 6 man jury. I was not even aware until relatively recently that this is going on...I think it is highly outrageous to anyone concerned about justice.

It is much easier.....much, much easier for the state to convict someone with a 6 man jury. This needs to be stopped.

In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of a 6-person jury in a Florida criminal case, ruling that neither the language nor the history of the U.S Constitution mandates a 12-person jury. Instead, the Supreme Court, referring to the 12-person jury as a “historical accident,” held that the purpose of a jury is to provide a cross-section of the community, and juries of less than 12 persons in serious felony cases do not violate that purpose or the constitution. Nevertheless, only two states in the U.S. (Florida and Connecticut) allow for 6-person juries for serious felony accusations.

I didn't hear any of the court proceedings so you may have better information than I do.

However, I did see the video. To me it looked like the thug had tried to retreat. I suspect that is what the jury saw and the reason Drejka was found guilty.

By the way, I served on a six man murder trial back in the 1980s. I was the jury foreman. It was Second Degree murder.

I think in Florida for murder the Defendant always has the right to request a 12 man jury. However, it could just be for 1st degree.

I am a strong supporter of the right to carry. I also teach responsible firearm use as a Firearms Instructor and Range Officer. I am a strong supporter of SYG. However, I don't think I would ever use a firearm for somebody pushing me down. I would need to perceive a greater threat to my life.

When I teach a concealed carry class I advise the students to be very careful about drawing a firearm. It will be a life changing experience. Drejka found that out the hard way.

To me Drejka was an asshole that didn't have the common sense to mind his own business. He met another asshole and now one asshole is dead and another asshole will be spending most, if not all, of the rest of his life in a state prison.

Assholes give responsible gun owners a bad name.

You betray your lack of knowledge of the law on self defense in Florida as most on here do. I have only noticed 3 or maybe 4 posters who seem to have a good understanding of the law on self defense in Florida.

First of all what you saw or what any of the jurors saw on the video is of little relevance....the law of self defense in Florida is based on the perception of the defendant....as in...'was he in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm?'

That is the essence of the law on self defense in Florida....now very intelligent people can and do have different perspectives on whether or not the black thug was retreating.

But that is neither here nor there....what the jurors should have concentrated on was whether or not Drejka had a reasonable fear of his life being in danger or of great bodily harm.

All this b.s. we see on here of folks going on and on about he had no business pointing out to someone they were illegally parked is irrelevant...has no legal bearing on this case at all.

I think where the jurors dropped the ball was that they were concentrating on their own opinions of whether or not the black guy was retreating.

What they should have been concentrating on was whether or not there was enough evidence to indicate Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm. That would have been following the law.

In the prosecutors summation he kept going on and on about how they should watch the video...of course watch the video but do not let your opinion of what happened divert you from your real duty............of determing whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm.

But the prosecution did not try to enlighten the jury on that they just harped on watch the video, watch the video...understanding the jurors would forget what they were really supposed to to do as in to concentrate on whether or not Drejka was in reasonable fear of life.

Here are the facts that need to be considered in regards to whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm

First of all he had been assaulted---slammed to the ground without reason. He was doing nothing illegal and had done nothing illegal. All he had done or was doing was within the parameter of the rights of any citizen.

Now what was Drejka likely to have thought about that? The jurors should have considered how that could have affected Drejka......violently slammed to the ground....very definitely it most likely put him in fear....how could it not...he did not even know who it was. When he is able to raise up he sees a black guy still hovering around him. It is only natural and reasonable to believe that put him in fear of life or at least of great bodily harm.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe he may have been in fear of his life or of great bodily harm....very possible and reasonable that he was in fear of his life.

Maybe not everyone would be...maybe none of you would be ...but we have to remember you and the jury have the benefit of hindsight and watching a slow motion video.

Drejka did not have the benefit of hindsight nor the ability to watch a slow motion video to figure out what was happening. All he knew was that he had been slammed to the ground for no justifiable reason and the perp was still very,very close the estimates range from 10 to l2 ft. how much time would it have taken the black guy to cover that distance...he could have been back on top of Drejka in a split second. That is the reality of the scenario on that parking lot.

Also they should have considered but I really doubt they did that Drejka had been dazed and was disoriented and at least in a mild state of shock. Did this affect his ability to determine whether or not the black guy was retreating?...of course it would and most likely did....but also we must remember that what Drejka was concentrating on was---how to neutralize the threat...that was his number one responsibility in order to preserve his own life.

To do that he had to get his weapon out which was difficult for him because his right arm had been injured....but he did managed to get it out and as soon as the black guy saw the weapon he stopped his advance on drejka....that is correct ...even after he had already slammed drejka to the ground he was still going towards Drejka...that is on the video as well but most seem to have not seen that. Why would he be doing that...he had already seperated Drejka from his wife which some claim is all he wanted to do.....nonsense....he wanted to inflict more damage on drejka as in kick him in the head etc.

Drejka fter getting his weapon out he had to bring it up to sight it on the threat...since his right arm was injured he had to use his left arm to support the weapon as he sighted it on the target. After doing all that he only had a couple of seconds to make a life or death decision.....to fire.....or not to fire.

What any of you or any of the jurors would do is irrelevant....the only relevant thing is was Drejka in reasonable fear of his life?

I think you are a little confused.

First of all you seem to not understand how juries look at evidence. It is obvious to me that Drejka was found guilty because the jury perceived McG to be retreating. That is the only logical reason to find him guilty.

Juries do weird things all the time. Look at OJ walking free and the Casey Anthony case. I did listen to most of the Anthony trial and it was obvious to me that the bitch was a murderer but 12 other people decided differently.

Assault is a bad thing. We all can agree on that. However, there are different kinds of assault. If somebody assaults me with a baseball bat and I can get to my carry weapon the sonofabitch is going to die. If he pushes me down I will be pissed but probably not kill him.

Drejka may have been a stupid shithead that didn't understand what was going on. He may have been scared to death or he may have just thought he had the right to kill the thug and did it. I think he was simply beaucoup dinky dau.

Where you are obviously confused is thinking that it was Drejka's judgement that made him guilty or not guilty. It was not his judgement. It was the jury's judgement and they listened to all the evidence and found him guilty. If you or I were on the jury we may have voted differently but we weren't were we?

This case is a great examples of why you need to be very careful if you ever decide to use your carry weapon. If you chose badly you could be spending the rest of your life in jail. Drejka chose badly. He chose badly in initiating a confrontation over a stupid thing and he chose badly when he pulled the trigger.

Drejka was a piece of shit. He was a known hothead and probably crazy. If he was pissed about somebody parking in a handicap spot then he should have copied down the tag number and reported it to the police. Instead he got in a big argument and killed somebody and now he is facing 20+ years in jail. Dumbass!

Also that thug who attacked him was also a piece of shit. He had a rap sheet a mile long. He could have shoved twenty other people and went home that afternoon. But he shoved the one guy with a gun that was willing to use it and now he is dead.

Plenty of dumbassery to go around.

 

[PredFan]

McGlockton was in the wrong for battering Drejka. He had no lawful justification to use force on Drejka.

Drejka, in turn, utilized deadly force against a retreating assailant. The imminence of the threat was gone. Drejka exceeded the amount of force he was lawfully entitled to use at the time he fired the shot.

One dead, the other one probably in jail for the next 20 years or more.

Nonsense....you should have heard the expert witness in regards to what actually constitututes retreat. He was still in close proximity to his victim when he was shot...as in within sriking distance. He could have easily rushed his victim again if he had not been shot. Too many have no clue as to what actually constitutes retreat...to retreat means to be in a place where you are no longer a reasonable threat.

The black dude did not actually retreat until he was shot.

In addition you like many others do not have a adequate understanding of the law on self defense.



Anyhow here is something else I think that is extremely unfair to defendants in Florida....the 6 man jury. I was not even aware until relatively recently that this is going on...I think it is highly outrageous to anyone concerned about justice.

It is much easier.....much, much easier for the state to convict someone with a 6 man jury. This needs to be stopped.

In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of a 6-person jury in a Florida criminal case, ruling that neither the language nor the history of the U.S Constitution mandates a 12-person jury. Instead, the Supreme Court, referring to the 12-person jury as a “historical accident,” held that the purpose of a jury is to provide a cross-section of the community, and juries of less than 12 persons in serious felony cases do not violate that purpose or the constitution. Nevertheless, only two states in the U.S. (Florida and Connecticut) allow for 6-person juries for serious felony accusations.

I didn't hear any of the court proceedings so you may have better information than I do.

However, I did see the video. To me it looked like the thug had tried to retreat. I suspect that is what the jury saw and the reason Drejka was found guilty.

By the way, I served on a six man murder trial back in the 1980s. I was the jury foreman. It was Second Degree murder.

I think in Florida for murder the Defendant always has the right to request a 12 man jury. However, it could just be for 1st degree.

I am a strong supporter of the right to carry. I also teach responsible firearm use as a Firearms Instructor and Range Officer. I am a strong supporter of SYG. However, I don't think I would ever use a firearm for somebody pushing me down. I would need to perceive a greater threat to my life.

When I teach a concealed carry class I advise the students to be very careful about drawing a firearm. It will be a life changing experience. Drejka found that out the hard way.

To me Drejka was an asshole that didn't have the common sense to mind his own business. He met another asshole and now one asshole is dead and another asshole will be spending most, if not all, of the rest of his life in a state prison.

Assholes give responsible gun owners a bad name.

You betray your lack of knowledge of the law on self defense in Florida as most on here do. I have only noticed 3 or maybe 4 posters who seem to have a good understanding of the law on self defense in Florida.

First of all what you saw or what any of the jurors saw on the video is of little relevance....the law of self defense in Florida is based on the perception of the defendant....as in...'was he in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm?'

That is the essence of the law on self defense in Florida....now very intelligent people can and do have different perspectives on whether or not the black thug was retreating.

But that is neither here nor there....what the jurors should have concentrated on was whether or not Drejka had a reasonable fear of his life being in danger or of great bodily harm.

All this b.s. we see on here of folks going on and on about he had no business pointing out to someone they were illegally parked is irrelevant...has no legal bearing on this case at all.

I think where the jurors dropped the ball was that they were concentrating on their own opinions of whether or not the black guy was retreating.

What they should have been concentrating on was whether or not there was enough evidence to indicate Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm. That would have been following the law.

In the prosecutors summation he kept going on and on about how they should watch the video...of course watch the video but do not let your opinion of what happened divert you from your real duty............of determing whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm.

But the prosecution did not try to enlighten the jury on that they just harped on watch the video, watch the video...understanding the jurors would forget what they were really supposed to to do as in to concentrate on whether or not Drejka was in reasonable fear of life.

Here are the facts that need to be considered in regards to whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm

First of all he had been assaulted---slammed to the ground without reason. He was doing nothing illegal and had done nothing illegal. All he had done or was doing was within the parameter of the rights of any citizen.

Now what was Drejka likely to have thought about that? The jurors should have considered how that could have affected Drejka......violently slammed to the ground....very definitely it most likely put him in fear....how could it not...he did not even know who it was. When he is able to raise up he sees a black guy still hovering around him. It is only natural and reasonable to believe that put him in fear of life or at least of great bodily harm.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe he may have been in fear of his life or of great bodily harm....very possible and reasonable that he was in fear of his life.

Maybe not everyone would be...maybe none of you would be ...but we have to remember you and the jury have the benefit of hindsight and watching a slow motion video.

Drejka did not have the benefit of hindsight nor the ability to watch a slow motion video to figure out what was happening. All he knew was that he had been slammed to the ground for no justifiable reason and the perp was still very,very close the estimates range from 10 to l2 ft. how much time would it have taken the black guy to cover that distance...he could have been back on top of Drejka in a split second. That is the reality of the scenario on that parking lot.

Also they should have considered but I really doubt they did that Drejka had been dazed and was disoriented and at least in a mild state of shock. Did this affect his ability to determine whether or not the black guy was retreating?...of course it would and most likely did....but also we must remember that what Drejka was concentrating on was---how to neutralize the threat...that was his number one responsibility in order to preserve his own life.

To do that he had to get his weapon out which was difficult for him because his right arm had been injured....but he did managed to get it out and as soon as the black guy saw the weapon he stopped his advance on drejka....that is correct ...even after he had already slammed drejka to the ground he was still going towards Drejka...that is on the video as well but most seem to have not seen that. Why would he be doing that...he had already seperated Drejka from his wife which some claim is all he wanted to do.....nonsense....he wanted to inflict more damage on drejka as in kick him in the head etc.

Drejka fter getting his weapon out he had to bring it up to sight it on the threat...since his right arm was injured he had to use his left arm to support the weapon as he sighted it on the target. After doing all that he only had a couple of seconds to make a life or death decision.....to fire.....or not to fire.

What any of you or any of the jurors would do is irrelevant....the only relevant thing is was Drejka in reasonable fear of his life?

I think you are a little confused.

First of all you seem to not understand how juries look at evidence. It is obvious to me that Drejka was found guilty because the jury perceived McG to be retreating. That is the only logical reason to find him guilty.

Juries do weird things all the time. Look at OJ walking free and the Casey Anthony case. I did listen to most of the Anthony trial and it was obvious to me that the bitch was a murderer but 12 other people decided differently.

Assault is a bad thing. We all can agree on that. However, there are different kinds of assault. If somebody assaults me with a baseball bat and I can get to my carry weapon the sonofabitch is going to die. If he pushes me down I will be pissed but probably not kill him.

Drejka may have been a stupid shithead that didn't understand what was going on. He may have been scared to death or he may have just thought he had the right to kill the thug and did it. I think he was simply beaucoup dinky dau.

Where you are obviously confused is thinking that it was Drejka's judgement that made him guilty or not guilty. It was not his judgement. It was the jury's judgement and they listened to all the evidence and found him guilty. If you or I were on the jury we may have voted differently but we weren't were we?

This case is a great examples of why you need to be very careful if you ever decide to use your carry weapon. If you chose badly you could be spending the rest of your life in jail. Drejka chose badly. He chose badly in initiating a confrontation over a stupid thing and he chose badly when he pulled the trigger.

Drejka was a piece of shit. He was a known hothead and probably crazy. If he was pissed about somebody parking in a handicap spot then he should have copied down the tag number and reported it to the police. Instead he got in a big argument and killed somebody and now he is facing 20+ years in jail. Dumbass!

Also that thug who attacked him was also a piece of shit. He had a rap sheet a mile long. He could have shoved twenty other people and went home that afternoon. But he shoved the one guy with a gun that was willing to use it and now he is dead.

Plenty of dumbassery to go around.

Had I been on the jury, it would have been a no-brainer. The video shows it very clear, McGlockton backed away and turned to get away. Drejka has an eternity to decide to shoot or not. On the jury I would have needed to hear or see evidence that disproved what the video clearly showed. Unless I did, he's guilty.

 

[Flash]

Nonsense....you should have heard the expert witness in regards to what actually constitututes retreat. He was still in close proximity to his victim when he was shot...as in within sriking distance. He could have easily rushed his victim again if he had not been shot. Too many have no clue as to what actually constitutes retreat...to retreat means to be in a place where you are no longer a reasonable threat.

The black dude did not actually retreat until he was shot.

In addition you like many others do not have a adequate understanding of the law on self defense.



Anyhow here is something else I think that is extremely unfair to defendants in Florida....the 6 man jury. I was not even aware until relatively recently that this is going on...I think it is highly outrageous to anyone concerned about justice.

It is much easier.....much, much easier for the state to convict someone with a 6 man jury. This needs to be stopped.

In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of a 6-person jury in a Florida criminal case, ruling that neither the language nor the history of the U.S Constitution mandates a 12-person jury. Instead, the Supreme Court, referring to the 12-person jury as a “historical accident,” held that the purpose of a jury is to provide a cross-section of the community, and juries of less than 12 persons in serious felony cases do not violate that purpose or the constitution. Nevertheless, only two states in the U.S. (Florida and Connecticut) allow for 6-person juries for serious felony accusations.

I didn't hear any of the court proceedings so you may have better information than I do.

However, I did see the video. To me it looked like the thug had tried to retreat. I suspect that is what the jury saw and the reason Drejka was found guilty.

By the way, I served on a six man murder trial back in the 1980s. I was the jury foreman. It was Second Degree murder.

I think in Florida for murder the Defendant always has the right to request a 12 man jury. However, it could just be for 1st degree.

I am a strong supporter of the right to carry. I also teach responsible firearm use as a Firearms Instructor and Range Officer. I am a strong supporter of SYG. However, I don't think I would ever use a firearm for somebody pushing me down. I would need to perceive a greater threat to my life.

When I teach a concealed carry class I advise the students to be very careful about drawing a firearm. It will be a life changing experience. Drejka found that out the hard way.

To me Drejka was an asshole that didn't have the common sense to mind his own business. He met another asshole and now one asshole is dead and another asshole will be spending most, if not all, of the rest of his life in a state prison.

Assholes give responsible gun owners a bad name.

You betray your lack of knowledge of the law on self defense in Florida as most on here do. I have only noticed 3 or maybe 4 posters who seem to have a good understanding of the law on self defense in Florida.

First of all what you saw or what any of the jurors saw on the video is of little relevance....the law of self defense in Florida is based on the perception of the defendant....as in...'was he in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm?'

That is the essence of the law on self defense in Florida....now very intelligent people can and do have different perspectives on whether or not the black thug was retreating.

But that is neither here nor there....what the jurors should have concentrated on was whether or not Drejka had a reasonable fear of his life being in danger or of great bodily harm.

All this b.s. we see on here of folks going on and on about he had no business pointing out to someone they were illegally parked is irrelevant...has no legal bearing on this case at all.

I think where the jurors dropped the ball was that they were concentrating on their own opinions of whether or not the black guy was retreating.

What they should have been concentrating on was whether or not there was enough evidence to indicate Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm. That would have been following the law.

In the prosecutors summation he kept going on and on about how they should watch the video...of course watch the video but do not let your opinion of what happened divert you from your real duty............of determing whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm.

But the prosecution did not try to enlighten the jury on that they just harped on watch the video, watch the video...understanding the jurors would forget what they were really supposed to to do as in to concentrate on whether or not Drejka was in reasonable fear of life.

Here are the facts that need to be considered in regards to whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm

First of all he had been assaulted---slammed to the ground without reason. He was doing nothing illegal and had done nothing illegal. All he had done or was doing was within the parameter of the rights of any citizen.

Now what was Drejka likely to have thought about that? The jurors should have considered how that could have affected Drejka......violently slammed to the ground....very definitely it most likely put him in fear....how could it not...he did not even know who it was. When he is able to raise up he sees a black guy still hovering around him. It is only natural and reasonable to believe that put him in fear of life or at least of great bodily harm.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe he may have been in fear of his life or of great bodily harm....very possible and reasonable that he was in fear of his life.

Maybe not everyone would be...maybe none of you would be ...but we have to remember you and the jury have the benefit of hindsight and watching a slow motion video.

Drejka did not have the benefit of hindsight nor the ability to watch a slow motion video to figure out what was happening. All he knew was that he had been slammed to the ground for no justifiable reason and the perp was still very,very close the estimates range from 10 to l2 ft. how much time would it have taken the black guy to cover that distance...he could have been back on top of Drejka in a split second. That is the reality of the scenario on that parking lot.

Also they should have considered but I really doubt they did that Drejka had been dazed and was disoriented and at least in a mild state of shock. Did this affect his ability to determine whether or not the black guy was retreating?...of course it would and most likely did....but also we must remember that what Drejka was concentrating on was---how to neutralize the threat...that was his number one responsibility in order to preserve his own life.

To do that he had to get his weapon out which was difficult for him because his right arm had been injured....but he did managed to get it out and as soon as the black guy saw the weapon he stopped his advance on drejka....that is correct ...even after he had already slammed drejka to the ground he was still going towards Drejka...that is on the video as well but most seem to have not seen that. Why would he be doing that...he had already seperated Drejka from his wife which some claim is all he wanted to do.....nonsense....he wanted to inflict more damage on drejka as in kick him in the head etc.

Drejka fter getting his weapon out he had to bring it up to sight it on the threat...since his right arm was injured he had to use his left arm to support the weapon as he sighted it on the target. After doing all that he only had a couple of seconds to make a life or death decision.....to fire.....or not to fire.

What any of you or any of the jurors would do is irrelevant....the only relevant thing is was Drejka in reasonable fear of his life?

And the answer to that question is "no".

You base that on your perception of the video....thus like the jury...you are not following the law. The law of self defense in florida is based on the perception of the defendant ...as in whether or not he was in reasonable fear of his life...I have laid out all the reasons regarding why he was or could have been in fear of his life or great bodily injury.

For anyone to logically claim he was not in fear of his life you would need to point out why he could not possibly have been in fear of his life or of great bodily injury.

Your hatred of black people has you saying stupid shit. If that nonsense you are spouting was true, then all anyone would have to say is that they felt threatened. That isn't how the law works. I can take no more of your ignorance. Dismissed.

That Black guy was a piece of shit. I posted his rap sheet earlier. He was not too bright and he had a record of being a thug. He picked the wrong guy to be a thug to, didn't he?

Reminds me of that Trayvon Martin piece of shit. He picked the wrong "Cracker" to attack, didn't he?

 

[Flash]

McGlockton was in the wrong for battering Drejka. He had no lawful justification to use force on Drejka.

Drejka, in turn, utilized deadly force against a retreating assailant. The imminence of the threat was gone. Drejka exceeded the amount of force he was lawfully entitled to use at the time he fired the shot.

One dead, the other one probably in jail for the next 20 years or more.

Nonsense....you should have heard the expert witness in regards to what actually constitututes retreat. He was still in close proximity to his victim when he was shot...as in within sriking distance. He could have easily rushed his victim again if he had not been shot. Too many have no clue as to what actually constitutes retreat...to retreat means to be in a place where you are no longer a reasonable threat.

The black dude did not actually retreat until he was shot.

In addition you like many others do not have a adequate understanding of the law on self defense.



Anyhow here is something else I think that is extremely unfair to defendants in Florida....the 6 man jury. I was not even aware until relatively recently that this is going on...I think it is highly outrageous to anyone concerned about justice.

It is much easier.....much, much easier for the state to convict someone with a 6 man jury. This needs to be stopped.

In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of a 6-person jury in a Florida criminal case, ruling that neither the language nor the history of the U.S Constitution mandates a 12-person jury. Instead, the Supreme Court, referring to the 12-person jury as a “historical accident,” held that the purpose of a jury is to provide a cross-section of the community, and juries of less than 12 persons in serious felony cases do not violate that purpose or the constitution. Nevertheless, only two states in the U.S. (Florida and Connecticut) allow for 6-person juries for serious felony accusations.

I didn't hear any of the court proceedings so you may have better information than I do.

However, I did see the video. To me it looked like the thug had tried to retreat. I suspect that is what the jury saw and the reason Drejka was found guilty.

By the way, I served on a six man murder trial back in the 1980s. I was the jury foreman. It was Second Degree murder.

I think in Florida for murder the Defendant always has the right to request a 12 man jury. However, it could just be for 1st degree.

I am a strong supporter of the right to carry. I also teach responsible firearm use as a Firearms Instructor and Range Officer. I am a strong supporter of SYG. However, I don't think I would ever use a firearm for somebody pushing me down. I would need to perceive a greater threat to my life.

When I teach a concealed carry class I advise the students to be very careful about drawing a firearm. It will be a life changing experience. Drejka found that out the hard way.

To me Drejka was an asshole that didn't have the common sense to mind his own business. He met another asshole and now one asshole is dead and another asshole will be spending most, if not all, of the rest of his life in a state prison.

Assholes give responsible gun owners a bad name.

You betray your lack of knowledge of the law on self defense in Florida as most on here do. I have only noticed 3 or maybe 4 posters who seem to have a good understanding of the law on self defense in Florida.

First of all what you saw or what any of the jurors saw on the video is of little relevance....the law of self defense in Florida is based on the perception of the defendant....as in...'was he in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm?'

That is the essence of the law on self defense in Florida....now very intelligent people can and do have different perspectives on whether or not the black thug was retreating.

But that is neither here nor there....what the jurors should have concentrated on was whether or not Drejka had a reasonable fear of his life being in danger or of great bodily harm.

All this b.s. we see on here of folks going on and on about he had no business pointing out to someone they were illegally parked is irrelevant...has no legal bearing on this case at all.

I think where the jurors dropped the ball was that they were concentrating on their own opinions of whether or not the black guy was retreating.

What they should have been concentrating on was whether or not there was enough evidence to indicate Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm. That would have been following the law.

In the prosecutors summation he kept going on and on about how they should watch the video...of course watch the video but do not let your opinion of what happened divert you from your real duty............of determing whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm.

But the prosecution did not try to enlighten the jury on that they just harped on watch the video, watch the video...understanding the jurors would forget what they were really supposed to to do as in to concentrate on whether or not Drejka was in reasonable fear of life.

Here are the facts that need to be considered in regards to whether or not Drejka could have been in reasonable fear of his life or of great bodily harm

First of all he had been assaulted---slammed to the ground without reason. He was doing nothing illegal and had done nothing illegal. All he had done or was doing was within the parameter of the rights of any citizen.

Now what was Drejka likely to have thought about that? The jurors should have considered how that could have affected Drejka......violently slammed to the ground....very definitely it most likely put him in fear....how could it not...he did not even know who it was. When he is able to raise up he sees a black guy still hovering around him. It is only natural and reasonable to believe that put him in fear of life or at least of great bodily harm.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe he may have been in fear of his life or of great bodily harm....very possible and reasonable that he was in fear of his life.

Maybe not everyone would be...maybe none of you would be ...but we have to remember you and the jury have the benefit of hindsight and watching a slow motion video.

Drejka did not have the benefit of hindsight nor the ability to watch a slow motion video to figure out what was happening. All he knew was that he had been slammed to the ground for no justifiable reason and the perp was still very,very close the estimates range from 10 to l2 ft. how much time would it have taken the black guy to cover that distance...he could have been back on top of Drejka in a split second. That is the reality of the scenario on that parking lot.

Also they should have considered but I really doubt they did that Drejka had been dazed and was disoriented and at least in a mild state of shock. Did this affect his ability to determine whether or not the black guy was retreating?...of course it would and most likely did....but also we must remember that what Drejka was concentrating on was---how to neutralize the threat...that was his number one responsibility in order to preserve his own life.

To do that he had to get his weapon out which was difficult for him because his right arm had been injured....but he did managed to get it out and as soon as the black guy saw the weapon he stopped his advance on drejka....that is correct ...even after he had already slammed drejka to the ground he was still going towards Drejka...that is on the video as well but most seem to have not seen that. Why would he be doing that...he had already seperated Drejka from his wife which some claim is all he wanted to do.....nonsense....he wanted to inflict more damage on drejka as in kick him in the head etc.

Drejka fter getting his weapon out he had to bring it up to sight it on the threat...since his right arm was injured he had to use his left arm to support the weapon as he sighted it on the target. After doing all that he only had a couple of seconds to make a life or death decision.....to fire.....or not to fire.

What any of you or any of the jurors would do is irrelevant....the only relevant thing is was Drejka in reasonable fear of his life?

I think you are a little confused.

First of all you seem to not understand how juries look at evidence. It is obvious to me that Drejka was found guilty because the jury perceived McG to be retreating. That is the only logical reason to find him guilty.

Juries do weird things all the time. Look at OJ walking free and the Casey Anthony case. I did listen to most of the Anthony trial and it was obvious to me that the bitch was a murderer but 12 other people decided differently.

Assault is a bad thing. We all can agree on that. However, there are different kinds of assault. If somebody assaults me with a baseball bat and I can get to my carry weapon the sonofabitch is going to die. If he pushes me down I will be pissed but probably not kill him.

Drejka may have been a stupid shithead that didn't understand what was going on. He may have been scared to death or he may have just thought he had the right to kill the thug and did it. I think he was simply beaucoup dinky dau.

Where you are obviously confused is thinking that it was Drejka's judgement that made him guilty or not guilty. It was not his judgement. It was the jury's judgement and they listened to all the evidence and found him guilty. If you or I were on the jury we may have voted differently but we weren't were we?

This case is a great examples of why you need to be very careful if you ever decide to use your carry weapon. If you chose badly you could be spending the rest of your life in jail. Drejka chose badly. He chose badly in initiating a confrontation over a stupid thing and he chose badly when he pulled the trigger.

Drejka was a piece of shit. He was a known hothead and probably crazy. If he was pissed about somebody parking in a handicap spot then he should have copied down the tag number and reported it to the police. Instead he got in a big argument and killed somebody and now he is facing 20+ years in jail. Dumbass!

Also that thug who attacked him was also a piece of shit. He had a rap sheet a mile long. He could have shoved twenty other people and went home that afternoon. But he shoved the one guy with a gun that was willing to use it and now he is dead.

Plenty of dumbassery to go around.

Had I been on the jury, it would have been a no-brainer. The video shows it very clear, McGlockton backed away and turned to get away. Drejka has an eternity to decide to shoot or not. On the jury I would have needed to hear or see evidence that disproved what the video clearly showed. Unless I did, he's guilty.

Did you listen to all the evidence? If not you don't know then you are rushing to judgement. I agree that the video was compelling but there was other evidence. Like you I made up my mind based on just one piece of evidence. Had I been on the jury and listened to everything I may have though differently.

I have been on juries before including one for murder. You never know how juries think until you get in the room with them.

 

[BigTruck]

Some of you assholes just refuse to believe it’s murder when a black person killed without actual justification.

You think the black skin is the justification.

Go fuck yourselves.