Clearwater stand your ground shooting

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

From a legal perspective, McGlockton’s past criminal history is irrelevant unless you can show the shooter was aware of it.

From the same perspective, aren't the prior reports/complaints about Drejka threatening to shoot people also inadmissible? From what I've read, none of those alleged incidents even resulted in an arrest, let alone a trial and a conviction.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

From the same perspective, aren't the prior reports/complaints about Drejka threatening to shoot people also inadmissible? From what I've read, none of those alleged incidents even resulted in an arrest, let alone a trial and a conviction.

Generally yes... say however that the defense chose to have Drejka’s neighbor testify about how Drejka taught Sunday School and was a wonderful neighbor. They then argue such a gentle man could not possibly have the anger to shoot a man unless in dire need. They’ve now opened the door for the prosecution to introduce other evidence about Drejka’s character. Naturally, that’s a trickier problem for the defense than the prosecution.

FYI: My professional experience with the laws of evidence is dated and basic to begin with. I’m sure we have members who can correct any errors I make.

[briandg]

Even with all of this floating around, a sweater vest and a nice haircut are what the jurors will see, and if Mister rogers is on trial, that will be a powerful image that can negate a whole lot of history.

Yes,the guy who looks like mister rogers was in therapy, had quit drinking and found the lord, and completely renounced all sin.

Sometimes that will make a difference in how jurors will feel about the guy who is on trial. Even if it doesn't bring an acquittal, it may complicate things. I've read about people using makeup on their tattoos.

[Mainah]

Maybe we could agree that confronting strangers about parking violations could quickly put you into the middle of a violent confrontation with a guy who has a rap sheet as long as your arm. But minding your own business makes that less likely.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by AB

From the same perspective, aren't the prior reports/complaints about Drejka threatening to shoot people also inadmissible?

Originally Posted by BR

Generally yes... say however that the defense chose to have Drejka’s neighbor testify about how Drejka taught Sunday School and was a wonderful neighbor. They then argue such a gentle man could not possibly have the anger to shoot a man unless in dire need. They’ve now opened the door for the prosecution to introduce other evidence about Drejka’s character. Naturally, that’s a trickier problem for the defense than the prosecution.

We could also probably agree that once you're worrying about the jurors at your trial, you've already lost something.

Yes, Mainah, berating a stranger isn't generally prudent. That's a problem for the fellow on the tape if he is charged with mere imprudence. Whether he had the state of mind that allows him to escape conviction in FL is another matter. As to whether someone can fear that he will be the target of further felonius assault from someone who has turned away, I am reminded the video of a traffic stop in which the driver get out of his pick up, yells at the police, dances, yells some more, then turns away to pull the rifle out of his cab with which he shoots both POs.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If he can afford it (doubtful), a good defense lawyer might run some focus groups to see what story works and what juror characteristics would believe what presentation.

$$$$$

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It is a borderline; but “winnable” case. Winnable meaning he doesn’t go to prison. I can pretty well guarantee he isn’t going to feel like a winner.

[briandg]

Do you think that he should just plead alford? to a lesser charge? I'm not certain that fighting it out in court would get him anywhere.

He's probably going to want to leave town, abandon home and job, etc, so avoiding prison isn't going to be a bed of roses. It might wind up getting even worse.

I really would love to know what has been on his mind since then. Did he have any serious regrets, or did he doubt that he had done the right thing?

A sociopath wouldn't have lost any sleep over it.

[44 AMP]

As I see it, what the jury will have to decide is if the shooter commit a very bad mistake, or a crime.

The video shows the attack had ceased, BUT it video wasn't taken through the eyes of the guy on the ground, who just got knocked down, and cracked his head on the pavement.

It is possible that the shooter did not recognize that the attacker had backed off,. It also possible that the shooter did recognize and shot him anyway.

Another point, and one which could change all our speculation is what was said before and during the attack. We don't know what that was, and without knowing, about anything is possible. Suppose the woman had been telling him that "her boyfriend will kill you when he gets here", or something like that. Then the guy gets blindsided. Might that create a perception of a real, serious, and imminent threat?

Whether it was nothing, or the deadliest threat imaginable, anything could have been said, and we simply don't know what, but it could have been a factor, one we cannot account for at this time, if ever.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but if I had just been knocked down, maybe wacked my head, my vision might not be as perfect as usual for a second or two maybe a little blurry, and I might "see" the guy who just assaulted me "looming" over me, or moving toward me (and therefore a threat) when a view from a camera at a different angle shows something else. We're talking about a very short period of time, what the shooter perceived as reality, and what reality actually was. It's not as simple as it seems at a glance.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by briandg

Do you think that he should just plead alford? to a lesser charge? I'm not certain that fighting it out in court would get him anywhere.

What lesser charge? He's only charged with manslaughter, not murder like Zimmerman.

Warrant: https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...nt-081318.html

Not to downplay the seriousness of being arrested for manslaughter, but what lesser charge could he plead to that would keep the wolves at bay? There are a whole bunch of people who won't be happy unless Drejka is convicted of something serious, as much because they want to use him as a scapegoat for Zimmerman's having been acquitted as for the circumstances of this case.

[JohnKSa]

Just playing devil's advocate here, but if I had just been knocked down, maybe wacked my head, my vision might not be as perfect as usual for a second or two maybe a little blurry, and I might "see" the guy who just assaulted me "looming" over me, or moving toward me (and therefore a threat) when a view from a camera at a different angle shows something else. We're talking about a very short period of time, what the shooter perceived as reality, and what reality actually was.

That's what I mean when I say a good lawyer may be able to keep him out of prison. I think that's also what B.R. means when he says the case is winnable.

Making the charge manslaughter is actually worse for the defendant as the standard for convicting someone of manslaughter is a lot lower than it would be if they charged him with a more serious crime.

A good example of this was the bail officer who was charged with premeditated murder after shooting a fugitive who fled from her office. She was acquitted--but had the charge been manslaughter, or even second degree murder, the outcome could have been much different.

[WyMark]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Another point, and one which could change all our speculation is what was said before and during the attack. We don't know what that was, and without knowing, about anything is possible. Suppose the woman had been telling him that "her boyfriend will kill you when he gets here", or something like that. Then the guy gets blindsided. Might that create a perception of a real, serious, and imminent threat?

The other side of that same point: We don't know what the boyfriend heard the cretin saying to the woman as he approached. If I walked out of a store and heard some jackass verbally abusing my wife for parking in the wrong spot I might not react well either.

Hypothetical: What if the victim had a handicap tag on his car, but was riding with the girlfriend this time? There's no way to know that, and it's really none of anyone else's business. If it was a one-time thing due to the circumstances then let it go. If the person makes a habit of it they'll eventually get a ticket, from someone who's job it actually is to do so. That's not me, and it's not Drejka's either.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by WyMark

Hypothetical: What if the victim had a handicap tag on his car, but was riding with the girlfriend this time? There's no way to know that, and it's really none of anyone else's business. If it was a one-time thing due to the circumstances then let it go.

It might not be your choice to do anything about it, but what you describe here is still illegal. That said, if that were indeed the circumstance, the driver could explain to the person taking her to task for breaking the law by illegally parking in a space reserved for the handicapped without the required sticker or placard. There are numerous excuses anyone can put forth to try to minimize or justify Brittany's decision to park illegally but, in the end, she parked illegally. When called out for it, she could have just apologized and moved her car.

[briandg]

Not to downplay the seriousness of being arrested for manslaughter, but what lesser charge could he plead to that would keep the wolves at bay?

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you saying that the prosecutor should choose what a citizen is charged with and tried for based on public opinion? Are you saying that there should be no plea deals because the citizens won't like it?

There are many charges that could be placed. One shot was fired. If he did hit his head, the charges could be reduced to involuntary manslaughter because of his diminished capacity. Would they try him on this charge? of course not, but if the DA felt that he could get a guilty plea and avoid a public trial, maybe something like that would be floated.

You have heard of many ridiculous plea bargains, they are made for a number of reasons, but it all hinges on the plaintiff's belief that he will lose. If he is almost certain that he will be convicted of manslaughter he might plead to involuntary. all that he has to say was "i didn't mean to."

A guy here killed an entire family in a dui accident and he pled down to vehicular manslaughter from homicide.

I hope that the entire legal system won't let us down by giving up on a fair trial for him because there are people who want him to pay the worst possible penalty.

[Old 454]

To me...
It was justified.
You are having a discussion with someone that is safe in a car.

Next thing you are knocked to the ground... hard... that's what I see.. being knock down hard...

Quick... think... you have just been blind sided... your on the ground... confused.... someone is standing over you..... you draw...you shoot.

I believe that he thought he was in danger of his life...it matters not that he is an ignorant person. Prolly should have kept his mouth shut...
But he was within his right to defend himself

[Sharkbite]

someone is standing over you

And THAT is the crux of his legal problems. The video shows the “assailant” turning and taking a step away BEFORE the shot was fired. The video is all we have to go on at the moment, and its pretty clear the assailant was not continuing the assault but was retreating at the sight of the gun being drawn.

On the face of it...the shooter has problems ahead of him.

[Mainah]

You're pretty vulnerable if you're sitting in the passenger seat of a car without the keys while someone is standing over you. And walking out of a store and finding a loved one engaged in an argument with a stranger while that vulnerable could trigger a response.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by briandg

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you saying that the prosecutor should choose what a citizen is charged with and tried for based on public opinion? Are you saying that there should be no plea deals because the citizens won't like it?

You suggested that Drejka plead guilty to a lesser charge under the Alford doctrine (which means he doesn't admit to having committed the crime, but he acknowledges that the state would likely prevail at trial). What I'm saying is that the decedent's family and friends probably think Drejka should be convicted of murder, and there's probably a segment of the community at large who agree. But, unlike Zimmerman, Drejka isn't charged with murder, he's charged with manslaughter. I don't know what the next couple of levels below that might be in Florida -- I would guess that if they have a charge like Negligent Homicide it would be about the same level, so what's lower? Negligent discharge of a firearm?

I think the charge is political anyway, so I don't think there is any lesser charge available that wouldn't result in a riot if Drejka were allowed to plead out to avoid a trial.

[thallub]

Why did the shooter choose to engage the passenger?

[FITASC]

From a you tube I saw previously the female was the aggressive continuing agitator which led to escalation and then the boyfriend came back into the scene. IF that is the way it went down, (and I say again IF), then it seems the female is more the issue than either guy.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Mainah

You're pretty vulnerable if you're sitting in the passenger seat of a car without the keys while someone is standing over you. And walking out of a store and finding a loved one engaged in an argument with a stranger while that vulnerable could trigger a response.

You're referring to the girlfriend? She was the driver, so she had the keys. In fact, it's Florida -- she probably had the motor running and the a/c blasting. Car door locks work even if the key isn't in the ignition. She wasn't all that "vulnerable." All she had to do to disengage was to shut up, close the windows, and lock the door. Even when the "discussion" was at its peak, Drejka was four to six feet away from the car and didn't make any attempt to even touch it, let alone to get inside.

Did you notice that the girlfriend didn't get out of the car until McGlockton had almost reached Drejka? She knew she was safe in the car, so she didn't get out to get in Drejka's face until she knew McGlockton was there to back her play.

She wasn't "vulnerable."

All of which is irrelevant, because she didn't shoot anybody and Drejka didn't shoot her.

[Old 454]

The fact that you have just been knocked down... do you have the where with all to judge how far away your asalaunt is... 2 feet... 5 feet... you just were knocked to the ground... do you know what your attackers intent is... no... but self preservation kicks in... you protect yourself the best way you can.... unfortunately for the attacker the man he assaulted had a gun... he used it to protect himself...as would I...

In these situations ...laying there... on the ground.... blind sided... you do what you have to.

[JohnKSa]

I'm going to close this because it's starting to go in circles, we've dissected the video about as much as is possible with the information currently available, and because we're starting to get too many responses from people who obviously haven't bothered to watch the video or read the article.