SYG Shooter Found Guilty of Manslaughter

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zincwarrior

That does not mean you get to shoot them as the court confirmed. Juries also don't look kindly when you start the initial confrontation, someone reacts and then you blow them away.

I don't see any "assault" against which McGlockton was "defending" his girlfriend (NOT wife). Drejka was standing more than an arm's length away from the car, as can be seen at 1:30 and 1:40 of the version of the video that's on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6eZCh4iP6U). There was nothing going on that required McGlockton to initiate an unprovoked, violent physical assault on Drejka. McGlockton didn't make any attempt to find out what was happening -- he came out of the store and went immediately into attack mode.

McGlockton's attack was not a continuation of the discussion between Drejka and the female. McGlockton was not at any time a party to that discussion. He launched a violent, unprovoked, physical attack. The laws of every state DO allow you to use deadly force to defend against just such physical attacks. The only question here, as I see it, is whether it's reasonable that Drejka could/should have seen that McGlockton had definitely broken off the attack after seeing that Drejka had a gun.

[jmr40]

I still believe that temporal and spatial disorientation as a result of the adrenaline rush that would follow McGlockton's attack need to be taken into account.

We see exactly the same thing in hunting related accidents. Hunters, in an adrenaline rush convince themselves they actually see a deer or other big game animal. I've had it happen to me. I spent over an hour stalking a bear, that turned out being a stump.

But that isn't accepted as an acceptable defense if the hunter shoots another hunter. His brain literally saw a deer because that is what he expected to see, but his brain lied. Happens all the time. The law in GA says if you point your rifle at another hunter and pull the trigger you're guilty of a crime.

If you're going to carry a gun in a SD mode or as a hunter you have to train yourself to not allow that to happen.

The guy caught a break as far as I'm concerned. He was guilty.

[manta49]

jmr40
Senior Member He launched a violent, unprovoked, physical attack.

I suppose it depends what you see as a violent unprovoked physical attack. What i saw a push, if some see that as violent physical attack they have lived a very sheltered life.

[zincwarrior]

So what is the expected event when someone, with a history of threatening to shoot others, starts yelling at someone's girlfriend? Thats starting a confrontation.

The victim over reacted according to the law.

The BG then kills him.

[zincwarrior]

Originally Posted by manta49

I suppose it depends what you see as a violent unprovoked physical attack. What i saw a push, if some see that as violent physical attack they have lived a very sheltered life.

Exactly. If thats a violent physical attack then our elementary schools are about to become legal slaughterhouses.
So here's the crux of the situation.

BG gets pushed. This is misdemeanor battery.
Does it matter...meh.

What matters is the standard is a reasonable fear of attack to a level of harm to a level required by the local jurisdiction.

When the person doing the harm backs off, the essential question, which was answered in the negative is, is it a reasonable belief that this person is continuing to attack and commit that harm?

If a person knocks you down you can't shoot them. If you reasonably believe the person is going to continue to harm you to X (whatever loval minimum level required by the jurisdiction) then you may employ self defense. However it not reasonable in this circumstance.

[MTT TL]

That does not mean you get to shoot them as the court confirmed. Juries also don't look kindly when you start the initial confrontation, someone reacts and then you blow them away.

My point was the shooters actions were legal right up to where he pulled the trigger. The victims actions maybe less so. We will never know for sure the answer to that one.

Yes, but i can't think of any that where someone was shot dead, and the shooter would not be immediately arrested / detained so the police could investigate what happened.

He was immediately detained and questioned.

I can think of lots of cases where the shooter was not arrested the day of the shooting or even till much later. We had case in our town not long ago where the shooter shot his wife in the chest and killed her "accidentally". He was never arrested but his case was presented to the Grand Jury who had a difference of opinion on this matter being an accident.

Merely because you believe there was probable cause does not believe the police believed there was probable cause.

[MTT TL]

I don't see any "assault" against which McGlockton was "defending" his girlfriend (NOT wife).

This point is kind of moot since his three minor children were in the vehicle under her care.

McGlockton's attack was not a continuation of the discussion between Drejka and the female. McGlockton was not at any time a party to that discussion.

Sort of, not really. She was texting him in the store. I think an examination of those texts would provide a fascinating input to state of mind. There is no telling what she communicated to him about what was going on outside (short of reading the texts).

So what is the expected event when someone, with a history of threatening to shoot others, starts yelling at someone's girlfriend? Thats starting a confrontation.

The baby mama had no clue that the shooter had a history of threatening to shoot others. This also is a point that was never validated. A "confrontation" is not illegal. If so there could never be discussion anywhere, including here. It is also a highly subjective term.

I suppose it depends what you see as a violent unprovoked physical attack. What i saw a push, if some see that as violent physical attack they have lived a very sheltered life.

This is patenetly untrue. People with health issues can be seriously injured or even die from a fall or being pushed to the ground. Even in a healthy person a simple fall can break bones and seriously injure a person.

[manta49]

If a person knocks you down you can't shoot them. If you reasonably believe the person is going to continue to harm you to X (whatever loval minimum level required by the jurisdiction) then you may employ self defense. However it not reasonable in this circumstance.

Is it not what a reasonable person would think not what he thought. I like to think that i am a reasonable person, and IMO that was unjustified and it seems the jury agreed.

What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable person” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm.

This is patenetly untrue. People with health issues can be seriously injured or even die from a fall or being pushed to the ground. Even in a healthy person a simple fall can break bones and seriously injure a person.

If it was just the push and the police were called by the guy that was pushed who had no injuries, what was the guy doing the pushing likely to have being charged with. ?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by manta49

I suppose it depends what you see as a violent unprovoked physical attack. What i saw a push, if some see that as violent physical attack they have lived a very sheltered life.

What you saw was a shove that put the other fellow onto the ground. Whether the intent was to injure is disputable, but it's clearly a physical attack, as opposed to the verbal "attack" involved in telling someone they shouldn't be in a handicapped spot.

Originally Posted by zincwarrior

If you reasonably believe the person is going to continue to harm you to X (whatever loval minimum level required by the jurisdiction) ...

That's the pertinent issue. There are instances in which being pushed to the ground is part of an attack that gives rise to a reasonable fear of grave injury. This jury didn't believe this defendant had that.

[zincwarrior]

That's the pertinent issue. There are instances in which being pushed to the ground is part of an attack that gives rise to a reasonable fear of grave injury. This jury didn't believe this defendant had that.

Agreed. Exactly. The push had already happened. This issue is whether the attack had stopped or was continuing, and the jury found it had stopped.

[zukiphile]

Agreed. Exactly. The push had already happened. This issue is whether the attack had stopped or was continuing, and the jury found it had stopped.

Emphasis added.

Was the jury interrogated on that? A jury would not need to find that in order to convict.

The jury would only need to conclude that the defendant did not believe that he feared grave injury that would have entitled him to use deadly force. They may have concluded that he lacked that belief at any time.

[zincwarrior]

Fair point.

[MTT TL]

If it was just the push and the police were called by the guy that was pushed who had no injuries, what was the guy doing the pushing likely to have being charged with. ?

2nd Degree Misdemeanor Assault.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

2nd Degree Misdemeanor Assault.

Battery, not assault, under Florida law. In Florida, harsh words constitute assault. Physical contact rises to battery.

And, if the pusher had ever been previously convicted of battery, then the charge would be a felony offense, not a misdemeanor. McGlockton had a rap sheet with 23 arrests for a litany of charges, including domestic abuse. However, I couldn't find anything definitive on whether or not any of those charges had resulted in convictions.

[MTT TL]

I am going to say it was likely he was convicted.

The question was what would he "likely be charged with", not what he could be charged with.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

The question was what would he "likely be charged with", not what he could be charged with.

Understood. Since the language of the Florida statute is clear that misdemeanor assult does not involve physical contact, it's unlikely that he would have been charged with misdemeanor assault if the actual offense is a perfect fit for the charge of battery (be it misdemeanor or felony).

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...s/0784.03.html

784.03 Battery; felony battery.—
(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who commits battery commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(2) A person who has one prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery and who commits any second or subsequent battery commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For purposes of this subsection, “conviction” means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo contendere is entered.

By contrast, the Florida statute on Assault reads:

784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

In Florida, "assault" is a threat to commit harm. As soon as matters progress to actual physical contact, it crosses into "battery" territory. It doesn't have to be as violent as the shove in this case; it just has to be intentional physical touching that's against the will of the touchee.

[davidsog]

I think (and hope) the conviction will be overturned on appeal.

I agree. I think the jury was racist and reactionary.

[zxcvbob]

Does he have a basis for appeal?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zxcvbob

Does he have a basis for appeal?

Only someone who was in the courtroom for the entire trial can answer that. He could argue that he didn't have effective counsel; he could argue that the judge either overruled his attorney's objections on key points, or DIDN'T overrule the prosector's objections on points his attorney made; or he could argue that the judge misapplied the law and explained it incorrectly to the jury.

Or something else.

[manta49]

davidsog
Senior MemberI agree. I think the jury was racist and reactionary.

What makes you think that. ?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by manta49

What makes you think that. ?

What makes you think it was murder when the applicable law clearly establishes that it wasn't?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by manta49

I suppose it depends what you see as a violent unprovoked physical attack. What i saw a push, if some see that as violent physical attack they have lived a very sheltered life.

Healthy 40 year old man dies after being pushed to the ground. That’s unquestionably a violent physical attack that has the potential to cause serious bodily injury.

In this case it didn’t cause any serious injury and the attacker appears to have broken off the attack.

But I wouldn’t be so quick to discount the ol’ schoolyard push. Aside from the ever popular method of pushing someone down and stomping their head flat, people get pushed in front of vehicles with some regularity as well.

[Tom Servo]

A few things:

This wasn't Drejka's first rodeo. In 2018, he had a similar confrontation, at the same convenience store, in which he threatened to shoot a man for using the handicapped spot. Racial slurs were used. He was also investigated for a 2012 road rage incident in which he admitted to flashing a gun out the window of his car.

Is that relevant to the case at hand? Ehhh, yeah. A jury is going to take that into account.

Then there's the difference between a strict reading of statute and what a jury thinks. By the letter of the law, Drejka might have had a defense, but a person is dead, and attorneys start splitting some pretty fine hairs when that happens.

Thing is, this isn't a test of the SYG law. That law allows for a defendant to call a pre-trial motion to dismiss charges based on a preponderance of evidence. I'm not clear whether or not Drejka's attorney tried to invoke it, but it wasn't successful.

(It's also worth mentioning that George Zimmerman didn't invoke the SYG defense. For some reason, he chose a jury trial.)

Lastly, there's the question of how much danger Drejka was really in. At one point, his attorney tried to claim that Drejka's injuries had affected his ability to make snap decisions. That claim was rejected. SYG law or not, the jury is going to be asked if a person in Drejka's circumstances had a reasonable fear for his life. His attacker had not inflicted meaningful damage and had disengaged.

This isn't a test of the SYG laws. It's just another case of a hothead playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes.

[Doyle]

Is that relevant to the case at hand? Ehhh, yeah. A jury is going to take that into account.

I'm no lawyer (didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night) but I seem to recall that a jury is not allowed to consider that in the trial but that a judge can consider prior actions during sentencing.

[Tom Servo]

I seem to recall that a jury is not allowed to consider that in the trial

It varies. In this case, the state called two witnesses to testify on the prior incidents.