SYG Shooter Found Guilty of Manslaughter

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Michael Drejka was found guilty of manslaughter. We discussed it here:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=597517

This article discusses the verdict: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/cl...-manslaughter/

Just a reminder that “Stand Your Ground” doesn’t mean you are free to make bad use of force decisions.

[Aguila Blanca]

At the time of the incident, I watched and rewatched the video numerous times -- at normal speed and at reduced speed. Having experienced both temporal distortion and spatial distortion ("tunnel vision") in more than one crisis situation in my life, I remain of the opinion that Drejka (the shooter) was not guilty of anything more than trying too hard to be a defender of handicapped parking spaces. Having seen discussions of the case on TFL and on other forums, a hung jury would not have surprised me at all. That every single member of the jury voted to convict I find absolutely astonishing.

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

[zincwarrior]

He took five steps back and started to turn before the BG shot him.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/23/us/fl...jka/index.html

BG had threatened to shoot someone before at the same location.

Nothing about this is self defense.

[manta49]

No matter what way i look at the incident, it was murder and he has got what he deserves i hope years in jail. One more loose cannon of the streets.

[spacemanspiff]

Everyone was losers in this story.

[MTT TL]

I think he serves as a poster child for everything bad that the opponents to SYG Laws said would happen. Last I checked I think we are talking less than five of these type cases over the last decade.

Some people are just arrogant, uncaring, borderline sadistic, selfish, apathetic, mean, spiteful, dishonorable (for lack of a singular more concise word). Sometimes these same type people bump in to each other on the bumpy road of life and the results are catastrophic for both. This is one such example.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zincwarrior

He took five steps back and started to turn before the BG shot him.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/23/us/fl...jka/index.html

I'll give you three. 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.

Originally Posted by Mata49

No matter what way i look at the incident, it was murder

How do you get to murder?

Originally Posted by TheLegalDictionary

The precise definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the Common Law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that he or she felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or recklessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment.

Drejka wasn't even charged with murder. He was charged with and convicted of manslaughter. There certainly wasn't any element of premeditation involved.

[Aguila Blanca]

Rather than rely on a dictionary definition, it would be more appropriate to review the actual laws in effect at the place where the incident took place. Florida law recognizes three degrees of murder ...

First degree murder:

Originally Posted by (1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;
2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:[indent

a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
b. Arson,
c. Sexual battery,
d. Robbery,
e. Burglary,
f. Kidnapping,
g. Escape,
h. Aggravated child abuse,
i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
j. Aircraft piracy,
k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
l. Carjacking,
m. Home-invasion robbery,
n. Aggravated stalking,
o. Murder of another human being,
p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,
q. Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,
r. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
s. Human trafficking; or[/indent]3. Which resulted from the unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium, or methadone by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,

is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.FL statutes Title XLVI, Chapter 782, Section 04]

Second degree murder:

(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) When a human being is killed during the perpetration of, or during the attempt to perpetrate, any:

(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,
(q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(r) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,

by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony commits murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082,

Third degree murder:

(4) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated without any design to effect death, by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any felony other than any:

(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., or opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,
(m) Carjacking,
(n) Home-invasion robbery,
(o) Aggravated stalking,
(p) Murder of another human being,
(q) Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,
(r) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(s) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,

is murder in the third degree and constitutes a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

So the prosecutor had three different levels of murder to choose from, but he/she didn't charge Drejka with any of them. The charge was manslaughter, which under Florida law is:

Originally Posted by FL Statutes 782.07

Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(2)(b) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) A person who causes the death, through culpable negligence, of an officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), a firefighter as defined in s. 112.191, an emergency medical technician as defined in s. 401.23, or a paramedic as defined in s. 401.23, while the officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or paramedic is performing duties that are within the course of his or her employment, commits aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

I don't see the circumstances of this case fitting any of the criteria for murder of any degree under the applicable law.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2016/Chapter782

[Ruga Booga]

Yeah, he should be locked up. Be great if he got 20-30

[zxcvbob]

I think he serves as a poster child for everything bad that the opponents to SYG Laws said would happen. Last I checked I think we are talking less than five of these type cases over the last decade.

What does "stand your ground" have to do with this case? The shooter was on the ground after having been sucker-punched (okay, shoved) by the shootee. He couldn't retreat if he wanted to. Much like another infamous self-defense shooting in Florida, where people were getting all "SYG!" and it didn't apply there either.

[raimius]

Someone shoving you is generally not lethal force, the shover also did not appear to be continuing his attack after the defendant was on the ground. No use of lethal force or continued attack means he did not have the right to defend with lethal force. At that point, it appears he shot out of anger or revenge, not from a (reasonable) fear of death or grievous bodily injury.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by raimius

Someone shoving you is generally not lethal force, the shover also did not appear to be continuing his attack after the defendant was on the ground. No use of lethal force or continued attack means he did not have the right to defend with lethal force. At that point, it appears he shot out of anger or revenge, not from a (reasonable) fear of death or grievous bodily injury.

Whether or not the initial aggressor uses lethal force is not the determining factor in whether the defender can legally use lethal force. The determining factor is whether the defender has reason to fear that he is in imminent danger of suffering death or serious bodily harm. The attacker was younger, bigger, and probably stronger. Judging from how far he shoved the defandant, he very certainly was violent.

After the defendant was on the ground, the attacker clearly started toward him. Also, the security video doesn't have audio, and I haven't seen any reports of what the attacker may or may not have been saying while the defendant was on the ground and the attacker started toward him. The attacker didn't break off his advance until after he saw the gun. By that time, due to temporal and spatial disorientation (tunnel vision), the defendant was already in shoot to defend mode and IMHO it's entirely reasonable that things unfolded too fast for him to flip the mental switch from SHOOT to DON'T SHOOT.

You think he shot out of anger. I think he shot out of fear.

[MTT TL]

The determining factor is whether the defender has reason to fear that he is in imminent danger of suffering death or serious bodily harm.

Unless you area cop in California. Because that isn't enough there any more. I think we will see more of that happening other places to gut SYG laws.

What does "stand your ground" have to do with this case?

You will have to talk to his lawyer and the county sheriff about that. What I find interesting is that the shooter is blamed for instigating the incident.

In closing for the state, Scott Rosenwasser urged jurors to ask themselves whether the defendant was justified in shooting an unarmed man who was, he said, trying to protect his family and retreating when he was killed.

Protect his family from what exactly? Being hassled by a random stranger for parking in a handicapped spot? By assaulting the shooter he elevated the level of conflict unnecessarily.

Rosenwasser reminded jurors that Drejka admitted to police that he would have no reason to shoot if the victim was retreating.

While this seems to make sense it is not necessarily true. Someone can still be a serious threat even if they are retreating. I don't think that was the case here but such general statements are fraught with inaccuracy.

"What happens if I told you that I looked at the video and at no time and point does he come running up toward you? He actually takes a step back," Det. Richard Redman asks Drejka the day of the shooting.

This is not true. The victim came at the shooter running a few steps, shoved him down, advanced a few steps, the shooter displays the gun, the victim took several half steps backwards and the shooter shot him.

By that time, due to temporal and spatial disorientation (tunnel vision), the defendant was already in shoot to defend mode and IMHO it's entirely reasonable that things unfolded too fast for him to flip the mental switch from SHOOT to DON'T SHOOT.

Probably true. But guess what? Something that is always discussed in meaningful conversations about self defense carry is owning every bullet that comes out the barrel.

Something that is never given enough consideration in CHL Classes is de-escalation techniques.

With the benefit of perfect rear optics and given a do-over; with the weapon unholstered and the victim retreating a solid next step would have been to call the police and adjust his line on the target so he is not covering a car full of kids. If the attacker runs off or flees in the vehicle, more the better. The manslaughter charge goes away and maybe the pusher/ stay at home dad gets arrested again or a warrant for his arrest. Good CHL classes train in such things. Good classes are rare.

[USNRet93]

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.

Was it by the shooter's lawyer?

Also, the security video doesn't have audio, and I haven't seen any reports of what the attacker may or may not have been saying while the defendant was on the ground and the attacker started toward him.

Was that part of the evidence?

By that time, due to temporal and spatial disorientation (tunnel vision), the defendant was already in shoot to defend mode and IMHO it's entirely reasonable that things unfolded too fast for him to flip the mental switch from SHOOT to DON'T SHOOT.

He was stepping away from the victim...I only saw the video..'seemed' it was essentially over..until he got his gun out...I agree with the verdict.

What I find interesting is that the shooter is blamed for instigating the incident.

[zincwarrior]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Whether or not the initial aggressor uses lethal force is not the determining factor in whether the defender can legally use lethal force. The determining factor is whether the defender has reason to fear that he is in imminent danger of suffering death or serious bodily harm. The attacker was younger, bigger, and probably stronger. Judging from how far he shoved the defandant, he very certainly was violent.

After the defendant was on the ground, the attacker clearly started toward him. Also, the security video doesn't have audio, and I haven't seen any reports of what the attacker may or may not have been saying while the defendant was on the ground and the attacker started toward him. The attacker didn't break off his advance until after he saw the gun. By that time, due to temporal and spatial disorientation (tunnel vision), the defendant was already in shoot to defend mode and IMHO it's entirely reasonable that things unfolded too fast for him to flip the mental switch from SHOOT to DON'T SHOOT.

You think he shot out of anger. I think he shot out of fear.

Evidently the jury disagreed with you.

The shooter instigated the situation.
The shooter killed a a man after he was pushed down and by the victim defending his wife.
The shooter killed a man who had retreated and was literally turning and walking away.

The jury found him guilty of the crimes as charged.

[MTT TL]

The shooter instigated the situation.
The shooter killed a a man after he was pushed down and by the victim defending his wife.
The shooter killed a man who had retreated and was literally turning and walking away.

I'll agree on two points but don't understand what he was "defending" against that required elevating to a physical assault. Could you explain?

[spacemanspiff]

You think he shot out of anger. I think he shot out of fear

I would be inclined to agree, if this was the guys first time confronting people parked in handicap spots. But we know he has had confrontations in the past, that led to him contacting the employer of the person he confronted and telling him 'hes lucky I didn't blow his head off'. We also know he was accused of pointing a gun in, at least one road rage incident.

Bottom line, he has had enough confrontations that indicate he does not have the mental fortitude to make the decisions of 'shoot/don't shoot'.

[zincwarrior]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

I'll agree on two points but don't understand what he was "defending" against that required elevating to a physical assault. Could you explain?

BG was verbally assaulting victim's wife. Victim took the defense too far, but would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Had the victim continued to attack, then the BG would have had an argument, maybe.

BUT, the victim then withdrew and the BG shot him as he was walking away. There is nothing reasonable about that.

So lessons learned:
*Don't be Florida Man.
*Don't interact with Florida Man.
*If one is carrying for SD, one has given up the right to be a jerk, because any altercation can now lead to a life changing event.

[manta49]

Aguila Blanca
StaffHow do you get to murder?

For me it was murder, i know that was not what he was charged or found guilty of. Only in America could someone be gunned down in a argument after being pushed, and some see it as justified use of force. The police have questions to IMO for not immediately arresting him and investigating what happened. Again only in America could that happen, and IMO that is not a good thing.

[thallub]

The self appointed parking lot cop had previously threatened to shoot a driver who parked in a handicapped space.

i've watched the video. There's no self defense here.

[MTT TL]

BG was verbally assaulting victim's wife.

I don't recall any such charges being made. Unless he was communicating a threat Florida Law does not allow for such a "defense". The code reads:

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.

There were no such charges made nor was anything like this implied.

Victim took the defense too far, but would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

I have to disagree here as well.

If what you are saying were indeed correct and the shooter was threatening the baby mama then the victim's actions would actually have been correct within the law. Shoving someone away who is a clear threat would likely be seen as a very reasonable response. However; if the victim just decided to shove the shooter because the shooter was being a jerk than the victim was in the wrong to instigate a physical confrontation.

I assume the court really did not focus on that and instead looked at what happened after the shove.

Personally, I don't see how anyone can take the side of the shooter after the shove. To look at it another way supposed the shooter had been a police officer? The standard is supposed to be the same for self defense. I think the public would have looked at it quite differently.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by manta49

For me it was murder, i know that was not what he was charged or found guilty of. Only in America could someone be gunned down in a argument after being pushed, and some see it as justified use of force.

Sometimes it is a justified use of force. Being pushed to the ground can be the first step in a fatal beating. In the Zimmerman case he had been pushed to the ground as well. That was a justified shooting.

That a putative attacker turns away isn't an unambiguous signal that he is no longer a threat. If he is walking away to drive away, that's great. If he is walking back to his car for a shotgun, that could indicate a problem.

That a jury convicted in this case doesn't mean it was clear in the moment or that this was so clear that resolving this was easy for the jury.

Originally Posted by manta49

The police have questions to IMO for not immediately arresting him and investigating what happened. Again only in America could that happen, and IMO that is not a good thing.

Clearly, this was investigated and prosecuted.

[MTT TL]

The police have questions to IMO for not immediately arresting him and investigating what happened. Again only in America could that happen, and IMO that is not a good thing.

Why should the police immediately arrest him? Should they not investigate first? Clearly you are incorrect about the police not investigating because that is exactly what happened. Very seldom do the police arrest someone right away when a homicide takes place. Often times it is days, weeks, months, years later. It is much more important to be right in such cases than to be fast.

Why could it only happen in America? Are there no other countries in the world with a presumption of innocence? Why is protection of civil rights a bad thing? Your post seems a lot of rhetoric without being grounded in facts.

[zincwarrior]

victim was in the wrong to instigate a physical confrontation.

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.

Thats not self defense, thats gangsterism.

[manta49]

Why could it only happen in America? Are there no other countries in the world with a presumption of innocence? Why is protection of civil rights a bad thing? Your post seems a lot of rhetoric without being grounded in facts

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. And yes people are presumed innocent until found guilty, that does not mean that they should be on some occasions arrested and questioned. That's sort of how police investigations work.

Probable cause generally refers to the requirement in criminal law that police have adequate reason to arrest someone, conduct a search, ... This requirement comes from the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that: ... person to believe criminal activity was at hand and further investigation was required.