It's legally a good shoot, but

[HankB]

. . . I'd be curious on the demographics of the jury.

Ditto. As well as the judge, prosecutor, and any witnesses.

[Hawkmoon]

This case and thread remind me of a presentation I saw on the impact of Hollywood on the legal system.  Jurors now, having watched so many TV shows and movies, have grossly distorted beliefs when it comes to injuries caused by violence.  People seriously underestimate the level of damage that can be done by punches and kicks, because they have seen many times people kicked in the head by Chuck Norris be completely fine moments later.  Jurors don't equate unarmed violence with deadly force.

People also aren't aware of the effects of temporal distortion in times of stress. I have been in more than one incident (thankfully none involving physical attack) in which the time the event actually took to transpire was completely different from the perceived time as the incident unfolded. Also, irrespective of whether or not Drejka's head bounced off the pavement when he was shoved, the violent shove had to have been disorienting. It was a sneak attack -- he didn't see it coming. In fact, as I think I commented at the time, the female set him up for it. She stayed in the car until McGlockton came out of the store. THEN she got out of the car, attracting Drejka's attention toward her so McGlockton was able to blindside Drejka.

Try to imagine yourself in that situation. One second you're standing on a sidewalk, arguing with a woman. The next second you've been violently shoved to the ground and there's a big, angry, muscular dude coming at you (and probably telling you he's going to stomp your [bleep]ing butt). I respectfully submit that it's completely unrealistic to expect that Drejka could have been capable of calm, rational analysis at that moment in time. And, as the author of the recent article stated, self defense law is supposed to be viewed according to what a reasonable person in the same position as the defendant would have known and would have done.

[MillCreek]

When I was a paramedic, I saw many patients who died or suffered permanent disabling injuries as a result of a punch, strike, kick, stomp or shove.  The skull, brain and spine are more fragile than most people think.

[gunsmith]

it seemed like a clear case of self defense to me, i hope it gets tossed out on an appeal.
I certainly don't want that idiot telling me how to park tho.

[De Selby]

The shooting someone backing away part of the video was likely key.

The lesson is that you’ll be expected to make quick decisions if you carry a gun. If you have a history of waving the thing around and starting confrontations, it seems to me a jury is always going to be much less likely to buy a defense.

[T.O.M.]

On the issue or prior acts coming into evidence, here's what the rules are in general...

For the "victim" (i.e. the person who got shot), that person's prior history generally can't come into evidence.  Why?  Can't justify a shooting using information the shooter obtained after the shooting is all done.  The shooting must be justified by the acts leading up to the shot.  Now, someone in this crowd is going to say "but what if the shooter knew of the person's history of violence/prior threats/etc.?"  That can change the rule somewhat, and you have an argument that can be made as long as you can demonstrate that the shooter had that knowledge before the incident.  Example:  Guy has repeatedly said "I'm going to cut your head off," and one day he's walking towards you with a machete in his hands.  You can probably get those threats into evidence.

For the shooter, now it gets less clear.  In general, a prosecutor cannot introduce "prior bad acts."  In plain English, a prosecutor generally cannot introduce evidence of previous actions by the accused in an effort to show "he did it before, so he must have done it again."  This rule (like almost all court rules) has exceptions, and among those are the use of prior acts to show motive, or to demonstrate a continuing course of conduct.  The biggest is for use as impeachment, and that's where a good lawyer comes in.  If the shooter is testifying and says something along the lines of "I would never pull my gun on someone because of (X reason)," the prosecutor can then introduce evidence of all the times you did pull your gun for that reason. 

Bottom line:  assume that the prior history of the person shot isn't going to see the light of day at trial.  And, live your life as if everything you do will be offered as evidence against you.  Don't go around making racist statements.  Don't go around threatening people.  Don't go around saying you'll shot someone.  Don't wear shirts that say "kill them all and let God sort them out."  Don't create a history of drawing your weapon.  Avoid giving evidence to the other side if, God forbid, you end up in a shooting and are on the legal defense.

[Hawkmoon]

Bottom line:  assume that the prior history of the person shot isn't going to see the light of day at trial.  And, live your life as if everything you do will be offered as evidence against you.  Don't go around making racist statements.  Don't go around threatening people.  Don't go around saying you'll shot someone.  Don't wear shirts that say "kill them all and let God sort them out."  Don't create a history of drawing your weapon.  Avoid giving evidence to the other side if, God forbid, you end up in a shooting and are on the legal defense.

And for Heaven's sake, don't put Punisher grips on your Roscoe.

[Pb]

it seemed like a clear case of self defense to me, i hope it gets tossed out on an appeal.
I certainly don't want that idiot telling me how to park tho.

This.  It seems like horrible call by the jury.  A video of a man attacking someone from behind... the accused shoots the attacker while still on the ground a few seconds later?

Looked like clear cut self defense to me.

[T.O.M.]

This.  It seems like horrible call by the jury.  A video of a man attacking someone from behind... the accused shoots the attacker while still on the ground a few seconds later?

Looked like clear cut self defense to me.

My guess is that the defense did not present any evidence on the disparity of force issue, and the jurors found a gunshot in response to an unarmed shove was excessive, and an improper use of deadly force.   Assuming no legal errors along the course of the case, it will be extremely difficult to win an appeal.  Appellate courts pay great deference to jury decisions.

[Perd Hapley]

My guess is that the defense did not present any evidence on the disparity of force issue, and the jurors found a gunshot in response to an unarmed shove was excessive, and an improper use of deadly force.   Assuming no legal errors along the course of the case, it will be extremely difficult to win an appeal.  Appellate courts pay great deference to jury decisions.

"An unarmed shove"?! Are you blind? He shoved him with his ARMS! It's on the tape!

[MechAg94]

I also heard it pointed out the guy gave a full interview to the cops afterward without having a lawyer present.  Without other evidence, I suspect he was one of those people that can't bring themselves to shut up when they are agitated.  He may have said something that didn't go over well in court. 

Either way, the lesson for us is that we may not be able to control how events are viewed by others.  We may be certain our actions are justified, but the perception of others may be different.

[Ben]

I also heard it pointed out the guy gave a full interview to the cops afterward without having a lawyer present.  Without other evidence, I suspect he was one of those people that can't bring themselves to shut up when they are agitated.  He may have said something that didn't go over well in court. 

That wouldn't surprise me one little bit.

[gunsmith]

yep, the dude certainly is a dope.
can you imagine going thru all the trouble of getting a ccw, just so you can yell at parking violators?
iirc he was sort of well known for awhile as being the self appointed parking control officer.

if he had kept his mouth shut he might have skated, he was just so certain he was right.

[gunsmith]

this is the intial police interview i guess

[Chester32141]

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/09/drejka-case-analysis-when-the-tueller-drill-21-foot-defense-is-defined-out-of-existence/#more-293585

Applying that legal standard in this case, the core question in this case is this: Did Drejka, in the context of the circumstance that had been imposed on him, reasonably, even if mistakenly, perceive McGlockton to be an imminent threat when Drejka used defensive force against McGlockton?
If so, the shooting was lawfully justified. And that is precisely the question intended to be answered by the criminal trial of Michael Drejka in the shooting death of Markeis McGlockton.

 

[Hawkmoon]

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/09/drejka-case-analysis-when-the-tueller-drill-21-foot-defense-is-defined-out-of-existence/#more-293585

Very good analysis, and it confirms my supposition that Drejka had lousy lawyers.

[gunsmith]

he talked his way into prison.
i thought i posted his interview with the cops after his arrest.
its on youtube.
he basically says he didn't call the police on parking violators because the police didn't do anything.
in essence, he was telling people what to do, a parking vigilante.

I would not vote to convict if i was on the jury, but i also feel like sending him pictures in jail of me violating parking rules.

i guess its a florida thing, this jackwagon spends his days videotaping parking violators
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXis4ftoPVo&t=198s

[Hawkmoon]

he basically says he didn't call the police on parking violators because the police didn't do anything.

Are you suggesting that he's wrong, that the police will immediately dispatch a patrol unit to a report of someone parking in a handicapped space without a placard?

in essence, he was telling people what to do, a parking vigilante.

I don't regard it as "telling people what to do," I regard it as reminding people of what the law requires. He should not have to do that but, if the police won't enforce the law (and they don't, for handicapped parking spaces), then somebody has to step up. Reminding someone that they're breaking the law should not result in being ambushed in a violent physical attack. The reality is that legislators should not pass laws without making certain that those laws will be enforced.

[dogmush]

Are you suggesting that he's wrong, that the police will immediately dispatch a patrol unit to a report of someone parking in a handicapped space without a placard?

I don't regard it as "telling people what to do," I regard it as reminding people of what the law requires. He should not have to do that but, if the police won't enforce the law (and they don't, for handicapped parking spaces), then somebody has to step up. Reminding someone that they're breaking the law should not result in being ambushed in a violent physical attack. The reality is that legislators should not pass laws without making certain that those laws will be enforced.

While not disagreeing with the basis of your statement, that's a *very* nerfed representation of what the shooter was doing, and had done in the past.

Were I forced to reflect on it, I would consider enforcing the laws on handicapped parking spots right about on a par with enforcing the laws on selling individual cigarettes.  That is to say, probably don't need the threat of force that comes with a Law Enforcement Officer's arrival on seen.

***

A very big takeaway from this case for the rest of us, is even if your are technically justified in the instant you pull a trigger, which I still think Drejka probably was, the totality of your behavior before and after will be considered by law enforcement, prosecutors, and a jury.  Both Zimmerman and this case should have firmly cemented that for all of us.

I refer again to my favorite quote.  "Be Polite, Be Professional, Have a plan to kill everyone you meet."  Had Drejka had a long history of politely requesting folks to move their cars, this would likely be a different thread.  Let us also not conflate what "should be" with what "is".

[Boomhauer]

If you are the type to confront people about essentially nothing stuff like parking in handicapped spaces, besides placing yourself in danger by initiating contact with someone who obviously doesn’t give a *expletive deleted*it about societal norms, it’s not going to convince somebody like that to not do wrong. It’s wasted breath on trash.

[MechAg94]

In general, just telling people they are parking violators is one thing.  Chewing them out for a few minutes and running your mouth about it is probably not the best way to go.  Had he just informed the woman, written down her license tag number, and walked away nothing further would have happened.  I take that as a lesson about being confrontational when carrying.  It just isn't worth the potential problems.

[Hawkmoon]

A very big takeaway from this case for the rest of us, is even if your are technically justified in the instant you pull a trigger, which I still think Drejka probably was, the totality of your behavior before and after will be considered by law enforcement, prosecutors, and a jury.  Both Zimmerman and this case should have firmly cemented that for all of us.

I refer again to my favorite quote.  "Be Polite, Be Professional, Have a plan to kill everyone you meet."  Had Drejka had a long history of politely requesting folks to move their cars, this would likely be a different thread.  Let us also not conflate what "should be" with what "is".

I don't disagree with any of this. I don't think I ever suggested that Drejka isn't a moron. I just think his lawyers dropped the ball hugely. He should have gotten an acquittal or, at worst, a hung jury.

[Hawkmoon]

If you are the type to confront people about essentially nothing stuff like parking in handicapped spaces, besides placing yourself in danger by initiating contact with someone who obviously doesn’t give a *expletive deleted*it about societal norms, it’s not going to convince somebody like that to not do wrong. It’s wasted breath on trash.

There's another wrinkle, too. The ADA requires providing and marking handicapped parking spaces, but there are no penalties under the ADA for an able-bodied person who parks in a handicapped space. In fact, I don't think the ADA even addresses that possibility. That falls to the states to cover it under state law. In my state, statute very specifically spells out the size of the handicapped spaces, the painting of the lines on the pavement, and the size, color, and language that must appear on the signs. That's all well and good -- except that if a property owner doesn't comply with any aspect of the statute when laying out and marking the handicapped spaces -- then under the law they AREN'T handicapped spaces, and the cops CAN'T issue a ticket for able-bodied people parking in them.

[De Selby]

The biggest take away is not to shoot someone while they are backing away from you.

The teuller drill thing won’t work because anyone in public will have multiple threats that *could* reach them, and the odds of having an APS-like juror to tell that story to are near zero. Rely on a credible, clear behaviour that shows a live threat and you’re as safe as you can be.

It’s heen interesting watching other gun forums on this shooting - most owners I’m seeing called this a bad shoot from day one.

[MechAg94]

The biggest take away is not to shoot someone while they are backing away from you.

The teuller drill thing won’t work because anyone in public will have multiple threats that *could* reach them, and the odds of having an APS-like juror to tell that story to are near zero. Rely on a credible, clear behaviour that shows a live threat and you’re as safe as you can be.

It’s heen interesting watching other gun forums on this shooting - most owners I’m seeing called this a bad shoot from day one.

That assumes you realized they are backing away rather than everyone looking at video and acting as Monday morning quarterbacks.  I agree that you need to continually judge the threat after you draw to the best of your ability.  If it happens on video, your actions will be picked apart by everyone.