SYG Shooter Found Guilty of Manslaughter

[Colorado Redneck]

Not true. At least 3 that I recall clearly were flat out sucker punches. One, my brother had his hands in his pockets and was talking to a guy that hauled off and punched my brother in the nose, unprovoked. That guy got his plow cleaned, and finally got away from my brother by crawling under a truck and escaping out the other side.

[USNRet93]

It looks to me like the man was dazed after being violently attacked from out of nowhere. Once he cleared his thoughts after getting into the best defensive position his lizard brain could attain in bad circumstances he realized just how precarious his situation was and chose to act in self defense to save his life.

I would have done the same and I think any reasonable person in possession of the facts in the same situation would have done the same.

Unknown by you or me. It also wasn't 'out of nowhere', they were already in a big shouting match.

The jury was undoubtedly instructed to take in to account the defendant's condition

However, immediately after the incident, the defendant claimed to be uninjured and to not be dazed.

Speak for yourself sir..I may have gotten my handgun out but I would not have shot him if he was backing away..The idea of the gun was to stop the attack, the 'gun out' did that. If the victim then moved towards the guy on the ground, the SYG law here would have made more sense..he didn't move toward, but away..

[OldMarksman]

I may have gotten my handgun out but I would not have shot him if he was backing away..The idea of the gun was to stop the attack, the 'gun out' did that. If the victim then moved towards the guy on the ground, the SYG law here would have made more sense..he didn't move toward, but away..

Yep.

[Tom Servo]

So much of this comes down to the "reasonable man" standard. When Mr. McGlockton saw an irate stranger screaming at his wife, was it reasonable to assume Drejka was dangerous? Yes. Was pushing Drejka (who was standing between McGlockton and his car) a reasonable level of force? Yes.

Now, did Mr. Drejka have a reasonable fear for his life? That's where things get really murky. We can go around in circles (and we are) about that. The fact that he started the confrontation really puts him behind the ball in the eyes of the jury.

An easy way to avoid finding oneself in such a situation would be not to go haranguing strangers about minor things that aren't one's business.

[zincwarrior]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Unknown by you or me. It also wasn't 'out of nowhere', they were already in a big shouting match.



Speak for yourself sir..I may have gotten my handgun out but I would not have shot him if he was backing away..The idea of the gun was to stop the attack, the 'gun out' did that. If the victim then moved towards the guy on the ground, the SYG law here would have made more sense..he didn't move toward, but away..

I think thats the crux of the issue and where posters on the thread are splitting.

So much of this comes down to the "reasonable man" standard. When Mr. McGlockton saw an irate stranger screaming at his wife, was it reasonable to assume Drejka was dangerous? Yes. Was pushing Drejka (who was standing between McGlockton and his car) a reasonable level of force? Yes.

Now, did Mr. Drejka have a reasonable fear for his life? That's where things get really murky. We can go around in circles (and we are) about that. The fact that he started the confrontation really puts him behind the ball in the eyes of the jury.

An easy way to avoid finding oneself in such a situation would be not to go haranguing strangers about minor things that aren't one's business.

Exactly.
__________________

[davidsog]

Y'all are talking about mutual combat, not a sucker-punch.

Yes, he was blindsided and violently attacked. It was not a case of mutual combat and he just lost.

When Mr. McGlockton saw an irate stranger screaming at his wife, was it reasonable to assume Drejka was dangerous?

A man talking to someone about the law they just broke for their own selfish reasons does make a reasonable man think anyone is any danger.

Irregardless of whether you think he was correct in going about his civic responsibility in complying with handicapped signs.

Was pushing Drejka (who was standing between McGlockton and his car) a reasonable level of force?

No, to immediate escalate to level of violence to counter a verbal altercation he did not have time to absorb anything that was going on was not reasonable at all.

I find it shocking that so many can dismiss his behavior. Simply put, had he not done that, he would be alive today.

[thallub]

An easy way to avoid finding oneself in such a situation would be not to go haranguing strangers about minor things that aren't one's business.

Indeed.

[davidsog]

There is a thing called the Force Continuum. Police powers grant them the ability to stay one level above the public.

The public does not have that protection. When Mr Drejka was placed in a situation his life and deadly force was being used, he could defend himself.

He needs to quickly make friends with the Aryan Brotherhood bunch.

They guy is an azz hat I agree. That is not illegal. This situation is a festive of idiots all around and easily could have been avoided by all parties.

He has been tried in the court public opinion and it is obvious the jury was racist and reactionary.

[davidsog]

An easy way to avoid finding oneself in such a situation would be not to go haranguing strangers about minor things that aren't one's business.

How do you know he does not have realitives or friends that are handicapped? I have plenty of friends wounded in the GWOT who are missing both legs and a few that are missing all or parts of their arms as well.

Handicapped parking spots are there for the handicapped not for selfish pricks who can walk just fine.

[zukiphile]

What is the danger presented by a raised voice?

If the defendant were orally threatening violence, I could see the reasoning behind a demonstration that his violence would be opposed with force. It wouldn't excuse a violent reaction to words, but it would give it a more rational basis.

Drejka wasn't actually between the attacker and his car.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

An easy way to avoid finding oneself in such a situation would be not to go haranguing strangers about minor things that aren't one's business.

That's true and may have swayed the jury even if it shouldn't be part of the analysis of reasonable acts once the physical attack began. The Other element that was likely off putting was the divergence between Drejka's immediate statement and what appeared on the tape.

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Speak for yourself sir..I may have gotten my handgun out but I would not have shot him if he was backing away..The idea of the gun was to stop the attack, the 'gun out' did that.

The language of the self defense code wouldn't afford the right to present the weapon unless there was a reasonable fear of grave injury.

A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

Emphasis added. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0776.012.html

Unless it would be reasonable for you to believe you were about to suffer " imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony", your threat would itself have been a crime. Presumably, you'd not get 25 years for that, so you'd have saved yourself some time.

Originally Posted by davidsog

Handicapped parking spots are there for the handicapped not for selfish pricks who can walk just fine.

I agree and am all for draconian fines for violators. Confronting people you don't know, even for a good reason, is a formula for problems. Of course, blindsiding someone you don't know appears to come with a price as well.

[MTT TL]

irate stranger screaming at his wife,

Baby mama, not wife, but still.

I find it shocking that so many can dismiss his behavior. Simply put, had he not done that, he would be alive today.

I find it odd that you can't put it into context of the totality of circumstances.

I can't recall who the instructor was but I do recall watching a video on CHL not long ago where the instructor brings up the "not my monkeys, not my circus" argument. If no one is hurt, no one in danger and you really feel like you have to do something; call the police. It's their job to try to make people behave less like selfish children and more like responsible adults. They have lots of tools to do it with other than harsh language and a CCW.

An easy way to avoid finding oneself in such a situation would be not to go haranguing strangers about minor things that aren't one's business.

I think that is pretty much the thread right there.

[MTT TL]

The language of the self defense code wouldn't afford the right to present the weapon unless there was a reasonable fear of grave injury.

There was. Then the threat dissipated when the gun started coming out.

How do you know he does not have realitives or friends that are handicapped? I have plenty of friends wounded in the GWOT who are missing both legs and a few that are missing all or parts of their arms as well

I know plenty. But the funny thing is most of them won't park in a disabled spot as a point of pride. Mostly I see thugs driving grandma's car to Walmart and taking the disabled spot because they have the plates on it.

[MTT TL]

There is a thing called the Force Continuum. Police powers grant them the ability to stay one level above the public.

The public does not have that protection.

You must have some odd state laws. I do find this curious. Can you cite a code where the police have a particular powers related to the use of force continuum?

[USNRet93]

I find it shocking that so many can dismiss his behavior. Simply put, had he not done that, he would be alive today.

If the shooter hadn't taken on the job of telling people they are parking in the wrong place(handicap space, not the first time, BTW), he wouldn't have had the need to take his gun out.

it is obvious the jury was racist and reactionary.

It's obvious the shooter was racist and reactionary..

How do you know he does not have relatives or friends that are handicapped?

How do you know he did? Did that come up in the trial?

The language of the self defense code wouldn't afford the right to present the weapon unless there was a reasonable fear of grave injury.

After he pushed the guy down and was standing over him, yelling, he DID have a reasonable fear..the facts say he then backed away...THEN was shot.

He SAYS he feared for his life but words that 'may' describe his state of mind at the time are cheap. Of COURSE he's going to say he feared for his life, even if he didn't as the victim was backing away...

[OldMarksman]

Most people would see shooting dead someone for pushing them as extreme excessive violence, including the jury in this case.

And it would constitute a serious crime.

No one can lawfully use force of any kind against anyone for what that person has done.

That wasn't the issue at all.

The defendant contended that he fired to prevent imminent serious harm.

The video and the timing made the validity of that contention questionable at best.

Evidence of the defendant's previous behavior, which could indicate state of mind, further weakened the self defense case.

[manta49]

davidsog
Senior Member
How do you know he does not have realitives or friends that are handicapped? I have plenty of friends wounded in the GWOT who are missing both legs and a few that are missing all or parts of their arms as well.

Handicapped parking spots are there for the handicapped not for selfish pricks who can walk just fine.

Its irrelevant if he has handicapped friends or not, its traffic wardens ( if you have them there) or the police who enforce parking violations. What is relevant is his past behaviour, brandishing a firearm at two teenagers because he did not like their driving. Causing a crash with a woman with her young children in the car, because he thought she was driving to slow in a school zone. What is your excuse for that behaviour, he had friends injured because people were driving to slow.

davidsog
Senior Member It's obvious the shooter was racist and reactionary..

You keep repeating that, have you anything to back up that comment.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Unknown by you or me. It also wasn't 'out of nowhere', they were already in a big shouting match.

No, no ... "they" meaning Drejka and McGlockton (the assailant) were absolutely NOT in a shouting match. From everything Drejka knew, right up until the moment he found himself rolling on the ground he was involved in a verbal (non-physical) dispute with a woman who was sitting in a car, protected by a closed door. He was beyond arm's reach from her car and from her. McGlockton was NOT part of the verbal interchange. McGlockton sauntered up an blindsided Drejka. The physical attack very definitely was "out of nowhere."

[Tom Servo]

I think we've said all that needs to be said here.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

I know plenty. But the funny thing is most of them won't park in a disabled spot as a point of pride.

No, not as a point of pride. More likely that they know they can make it to the entrance from farther away, so they choose to leave the designated handicapped spaces open for someone who might need it more. Maybe that's what you are calling a "point of pride" but, if so, I respectfully submit that your choice of words conveys a different implication.