SYG Shooter Found Guilty of Manslaughter

[zincwarrior]

Again, please cite a legal example not involving LEO where the aggressor backed up, was shot while doing so, and the jury found the shooter not guilty.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by zincwarrior

Again, please cite a legal example not involving LEO where the aggressor backed up, was shot while doing so, and the jury found the shooter not guilty.

You mean a not guilty jury verdict in a case in which the defendant shot while an attacker was backing up.

Why?

In Florida, the current self defense statute, i.e. the law on the subject, in pertinent part reads:

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. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

You'll note that no part of that is "unless the threat takes a step back". That's because it isn't an element of the law.

The issue presented by the incredulity that anyone could disagree with the jury's conclusion is whether a jury could conclude that a defendant reasonably believed that using or threatening to use such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself where an attacker has increased the distance from his victim.

We already know that a grave physical threat can involve momentary retreat. It isn't unreasonable to believe that something that has happened in the past can happen again.

If you concede that fact finder could conclude that a defendant reasonably believed that using or threatening to use such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm where an attacker has increased the distance from his victim, then you cannot believe that simply increasing distance from a victim invalidates a self-defense claim.

[zincwarrior]

So...you can't.

[zukiphile]

Did you read and understand the post above?

Originally Posted by zincwarrior

So...you can't.

That's a poorly reasoned conclusion.

It's easier to explain what the law says than engage in review of fact patterns in jury cases. If you believe the explanation is false in some way, you should feel free to explain how. If you believe producing a case citation is required to support a point, then I invite you to produce the Florida case that holds that a successful self-defense claim requires a closing assailant.

[zincwarrior]

You are making a statement without stare decisis support.

[MTT TL]

I said a case where the defendant was attacked, the victim moved back and was shot, and it was successfully considered self defense.

Not yet, but soon. I'll wager ten internets that Rojanai Alston either gets the rest of her charges no billed or she is found not guilty. The PA system is a little different so it will take a while to wend through the courts though.

She was clearly shooting at her fleeing attackers who suffered a sudden lack of firmness of resolve when they went from hunting to being hunted.

I know the case didn't make big news because no one can virtue signal and call her a racist but it is still a pretty important case.

[USNRet93]

That an attack does not persist because the attacker is shot is the point of self defense rather than an unambiguous indicator that an attack has ended.

He was shot while moving away from the guy on the ground, not toward him..if he was standing still..yes, maybe the SYB would have legs but he was moving away, when shot.

Whether an attacker is moving away as a part of the attack or because he has discontinued the attack cannot be irrelevant to whether a defendant believes he is in continuing danger of grave injury or death at the hands of the attacker.

How can a 'reasonable man' feel that he is still in danger when the attacker is greater than arms length, is not armed and that distance is increasing?

If you believe that it is not possible for an attacker to move away from his target momentarily as a part of the attack itself, there are already examples of just that in this thread.

BUT, in THIS instance, he was moving away, the attack was over, and he was then shot. Sure there are a ton of 'what if's' but those are not pertinent to THIS case...guy thrown to ground, lotsa yelling and swearing, guy on ground pulls gun...guy moves backwards and is shot..at more than arms length from guy on ground...no need to tell the future(he's going to go get his own gun)..because the future ended for the guy standing.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by zincwarrior

You are making a statement without stare decisis support.

I am explaining the issue to you without professional argot that might confuse you, like stare decisis.

Stare decisis isn't a feature of jury verdicts. It mean that the decision of a court on a matter of law should be left to stand. So, if Buckley v. Valeo stands for the proposition that the 1st Am. protects campaign contributions as speech, but allows for some regulation, observing the same proposition the next time a campaign contribution is litigated would be an example of stare decisis in the area of campaign financing and free speech.

Jury verdicts don't do that because they aren't decisions about what the law is. If you really doubt that, consider whether the OJ jury verdict means as a matter of law that if you are an ex football player and actor, if the police find your bloody footprints near your ex-wife (killed with a knife) and your bloody gloves and have a photograph of your hand just after with a cut, and have your house guest as a witness, you are a free man. Of course, it doesn't.

Juries don't make laws to which other courts must adhere; they do determine facts on a specific case. That Drejka shot not while the attacker was advancing and was found to have killed without the benefit of legitimate self-defense is not a legal precedent to which subsequent fact finders in other case have any obligation to adhere.

I hope that makes that clearer.

The law in this case is Florida statute. It is explained to a jury in instructions, but the law itself isn't made by the jury.


I'd ask you to read post 127 and let me know if it was clear as well.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

How can a 'reasonable man' feel that he is still in danger when the attacker is greater than arms length, is not armed and that distance is increasing?

Foresight.

Originally Posted by USNRet93

BUT, in THIS instance, he was moving away, the attack was over, and he was then shot.

Here, if you were to conclude that the fight at that time had ended and not shot, you would also be exercising foresight. As suggested in the text you've already read, the point of foreseeing a terrible beating isn't to take the beating to validate the accuracy of the foresight, but to act so as to avoid the beating.

[USNRet93]

Not foresight but observation of what was happening at the time of trigger squeeze..

the point of foreseeing a terrible beating isn't to take the beating to validate the accuracy of the foresight, but to act so as to avoid the beating.

Why was he convinced that he was going to take a beating when the guy was moving away and was already out past arms length and wasn't armed? He assumed a beating was imminent, but the actions of the guy shot showed that that possibility was reduced and was possibly non existent. Again, had the guy started moving TOWARD the guy on the ground, the SYG would have had more legs. I think the jury's decision was largely based on the video of the victim backing away. BUT the guy on the ground, went from not being beaten to shooting..as he had done in the past(brandish, not shoot, in past instances..part of the testimony)..shooter was a quick tempered hothead(evidence), he was spring loaded to gun out(evidence), he 'may' have been a racist...the victim was moving away(evidence)..the jury, IMHO, did the right thing

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNret93

Not foresight but observation of what was happening at the time of trigger squeeze..

Why was he convinced that he was going to take a beating when the guy was moving away and was already out past arms length and wasn't armed?

Yes, you are using your foresight to question his.

I don't know that he was convinced of anything, or if he was.

... the actions of the guy shot showed that that possibility was reduced and was possibly non existent.

None of which forecloses a conclusion that a defendant reasonably believed that using or threatening to use such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

I begrudge no one their agreement with the verdict. The ambiguity if the evidence shouldn't be impossible to see.

[USNRet93]

I don't know that he was convinced of anything, or if he was.

Of course he was, otherwise he wouldn't have shot the guy unless his motivations were revenge, racist views, anger or something else..but he 'feared for his life'...as he stated. BUT the jury saw that as unreasonable, since the victim was moving away, backwards, out of arm's length.

to use such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

Except when he squeezed the trigger he wasn't threatened with 'imminent death or great bodily harm'...

The ambiguity if the evidence shouldn't be impossible to see.

Jury deliberation was 5 hours..I suspect that the evidence wasn't impossible to see to those who were on the jury or those who actually observed the entire week long proceedings.
from Tampa Day Times.

The state emphasized that McGlockton moved back once Drejka pulled his gun, rendering the fear of further danger unreasonable.

“He took the life of another human being without any legal justification,” prosecutor Fred Schaub said during his opening statement.

What does this mean to ME? In CO(no SYG law)..if somebody pushes me down..then stands there yelling and screaming..I'm not going to shoot him(I may take my firearm out)..BUT if he takes one step forward..all bets are off.

BUT, I'm also not going to be silent..but yelling at guy who pushed me down to back off(did the SYG shooter say anything before shooting? Don't know)..hope there's video or witness'..or maybe not, if the guy ends up dead.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Of course he was, otherwise he wouldn't have shot the guy unless ...

In other words, your certainty that he was convinced of grave injury isn't certain at all.

Originally Posted by USNRet93

BUT the jury saw that as unreasonable, since the victim was moving away, backwards, out of arm's length.

Unless you have a transcript of interrogatories to the jury, you don't know that. A jury could as well believe that the defendant planned to kill the man who attacked him and convict. That the jury convicts doesn't in itself mean they've adopted this "backing away out of arm's length" test found nowhere in the code.

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Except when he squeezed the trigger he wasn't threatened with 'imminent death or great bodily harm'...

Above, you've omitted an element of the the test which actually is:

…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.

Emphasis added.

The statutory test doesn't require that you agree that death or GBI are imminent.

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Jury deliberation was 5 hours..I suspect that the evidence wasn't impossible to see...

Note the difference between the evidence and the ambiguity of the evidence.

Originally Posted by USNRet93

That's not the court or the jury. It's the prosecution. The prosecution is an advocate, not a trier of fact.

[zxcvbob]

What does this mean to ME? In CO(no SYG law)..if somebody pushes me down..then stands there yelling and screaming..I'm not going to shoot him(I may take my firearm out)..BUT if he takes one step forward..all bets are off.

I think for the shooter, drawing the weapon and firing were a single action. Drawing was definitely justified. (If he hadn't, we'd probably be discussing why he allowed himself to be stomped to death when he had the means to stop it) Firing, perhaps not; at least the jury didn't think so.

In his dazed condition and from the ground, could he tell that the threat was probably over and stop before he pulled the trigger? I don't know. Did the jury even consider that? Don't know that either.

[davidsog]

Distance. Each technique has a window of effectiveness based upon the amount of space between the two combatants. The fighter must control the distance between
himself and the enemy in order to control the fight.

https://sill-www.army.mil/428thfa/FM...ombatives).pdf


Backing up in a fight does not mean retreat. It very well could mean the last thing you see before death.

[davidsog]

In his dazed condition and from the ground,

How did he get in that dazed condition on the ground? Was he suddenly sick??

NO, he as attacked with extreme violence.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It is classic ability, opportunity, jeopardy, preclusion. You need to be able to demonstrate that a reasonable person, who knew what you knew, would have reached the same conclusion.

Is it is possible his retreat was to gain a better advantage for attack? Sure; but if you can’t explain why you believed that in a way that sounds reasonable to the average joe, you are probably going to be convicted.

[manta49]

[QUOTE]davidsog
Senior Member

Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 945
Quote:
In his dazed condition and from the ground,
How did he get in that dazed condition on the ground? Was he suddenly sick??

NO, he as attacked with extreme violence

You really need to stop exaggerating he was pushed, if that is your view of extreme violence you have lead a very sheltered life. This is a example of extreme violence.

The death toll in Saturday's mass shooting in Texas has risen to seven, police in the US state say. The shooting, Texas' second in August

.

What would he have being charged with probably as bellow.

Simple assault, usually charged as a misdemeanor, is the least serious form of assault. It involves minor injury or a limited threat of violence.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by manta49

You really need to stop exaggerating he was pushed, if that is your view of extreme violence you have lead a very sheltered life. This is a example of extreme violence.

That was no exaggeration. Drejka was pushed violently enough that he was displaced laterally at least six or eight feet, knocked off his feet, and rolled over due to the momentum of the shove. Frankly, if you DON'T think that was extreme violence, then I don't want to ever live in your world.

Originally Posted by manta49

What would he have being charged with probably as bellow.

I provided a link to the Florida statutes several posts above. Under Florida law, harsh words = assault. As soon as physical contact is made, it becomes battery.

[manta49]

That was no exaggeration. Drejka was pushed violently enough that he was displaced laterally at least six or eight feet, knocked off his feet, and rolled over due to the momentum of the shove. Frankly, if you DON'T think that was extreme violence, then I don't want to ever live in your world.

For me mass shootings stabbings rape murders are extreme violence, even in law that would not be seen as extreme violence. Most people would see shooting dead someone for pushing them as extreme excessive violence, including the jury in this case.

if you DON'T think that was extreme violence, then I don't want to ever live in your world.

I find that a bit ironic, i live in world were extreme violence was a normal every day event. But i think i feel safer here than i would in a country were pushing somewhere could get you a death sentience, and what i find more disturbing is the number of people that support the shooter.

The post-1968 violence dwarfs any previous conflict in scale, intensity and duration. More people have died in communal violence in the past quarter century in Northern Ireland — 3,289 by the end of 1999. In addition, over 40,000 people have been injured, representing almost 3 percent of the population. Further extrapolating the deaths to the United States, some 526,000 would have died, more than died during the Second World War (405,000) and nine times the American war dead in Vietnam.

[USNRet93]

That was no exaggeration. Drejka was pushed violently enough that he was displaced laterally at least six or eight feet, knocked off his feet, and rolled over due to the momentum of the shove. Frankly, if you DON'T think that was extreme violence, then I don't want to ever live in your world.

Watch the video again..he was pushed, he fell down. Extreme violence? Not IMHO..

But i think i feel safer here than i would in a country were pushing somewhere could get you a death sentience, and what i find more disturbing is the number of people that support the shooter

agree...

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Whether a push, or even this particular push, is “extreme violence” is irrelevant. One of the factors that must usually be met is the other person must use or threaten to use force likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.

Pushing someone, just by itself, has caused both death and serious bodily injury. Pushing someone in a parking lot with parking curbs to bounce your head off or passing vehicles to stumble in front of is a very dangerous thing for people to be doing.

Had the pusher kept advancing, I think a competent case can be made for self-defense under Florida law. Would it have succeeded? Maybe.

There are still lots of people (as demonstrated in this thread) who think themselves wise to the ways of the world and who are unaware of the regularity with which a grown adult male slamming his fist into your head or pushing a 200lb guy down onto concrete causes serious injury and sometimes death. Those people won’t think it was OK to shoot until the other guy seriously injures you, and then maybe. If they are on your jury, you’ve got a hard sell.

Here you’ve got a harder sell because with no apparent weapon and having created space, it is difficult to argue opportunity existed even before the problems with preclusion.

[ligonierbill]

And there are many people, as evidenced by this thread, that are already putting their case together for shooting someone. Jury? Folks like us, who carry pistols for self defense, are going to be questioned in detail during voir dire. Pretty good chance we won't make the cut. The jury pool here in the north end of Appalachia is pretty familiar with various forms of violent behavior. Most have known of, seen or participated in a parking lot shoving match. I personally know of two cases where someone was killed or injured (brain damage) by a single punch or hitting their head on the curb. It happens. But if you start the fight and then escalate it from empty hands to gunfire, your odds of acquittal are poor indeed.

[zincwarrior]

Originally Posted by ligonierbill

And there are many people, as evidenced by this thread, that are already putting their case together for shooting someone. Jury? Folks like us, who carry pistols for self defense, are going to be questioned in detail during voir dire. Pretty good chance we won't make the cut. The jury pool here in the north end of Appalachia is pretty familiar with various forms of violent behavior. Most have known of, seen or participated in a parking lot shoving match. I personally know of two cases where someone was killed or injured (brain damage) by a single punch or hitting their head on the curb. It happens. But if you start the fight and then escalate it from empty hands to gunfire, your odds of acquittal are poor indeed.

Exactly.

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by 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.

It was an emotional, not legal decision. What he did was clearly allowed by the stand your ground statute.