The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 29, 2019, 09:26 AM   #51
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
Quote:
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.
I think you are confusing prior convictions with patterns of behavior. Since he was never convicted of anything in the previous instances it certainly can be brought in. Also the behavior relevant to the matter at hand. Even if he had been convicted his lawyer would have to work overtime to keep it out. Evidence rules vary a lot from state to state but most states it would be admissible.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 09:34 AM   #52
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
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.
IF they get to hear the evidence. You may recall that Harold Fish’s appeal came down to a similar issue. His attacker in that case had a history of aggression; however because Fish couldn’t have been aware of that history, the trial court ruled the prior examples were inadmissible and the jury convicted Fish.

On appeal, the defense argued that they weren’t trying to show that Fish knew of the prior aggression, they were just trying to show that the behavior Fish described was consistent with his attacker’s character. The appeals court agreed the evidence was admissible and sent the case back for retrial; however the prosecutor declined to pursue the case again.

I’m not aware of whether the past behavior here was successfully excluded by the defense (not that it mattered much given the widespread publication); but it does go to show an aspect of self-defense shootings I don’t think many people appreciate. The jury doesn’t hear “your side of the story.” They hear what your lawyer can get admitted as evidence (and they (mostly) don’t hear what your lawyer can block the other side from admitting as evidence).

I think in this case, admitting evidence of the previous conflicts was proper for the same reason it was proper in Fish’s case. I also think even if it had been excluded the jury could still reasonably conclude the attack had broken off before he fired.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 09:35 AM   #53
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
Quote:
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?
Because after seeing the video IMO it was murder. That's my opinion, what he was charged with and found guilty of is irrelevant to my view that it was murder. PS Have you never disagreed on what someone was charged with and the verdict. ? While i am at it i am surprised a staff member did not challenge the post that the jury was racist.

As i said i based that on seeing the video, my question still stands what does he base his opinion on.
( I agree. I think the jury was racist and reactionary) Does he know the jury, was he in court to form that view etc.

Last edited by manta49; August 29, 2019 at 09:43 AM.
manta49 is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 11:47 AM   #54
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by manta49
Quote:
What makes you think it was murder when the applicable law clearly establishes that it wasn't?
Because after seeing the video IMO it was murder. That's my opinion, what he was charged with and found guilty of is irrelevant to my view that it was murder. PS Have you never disagreed on what someone was charged with and the verdict. ?
Just to be clear then, your position is that your opinion overrides applicable law. Your opinion counts, and the applicable law is "irrelevant."

We'll keep that in mind when reading future posts from you.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 11:55 AM   #55
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca View Post
Just to be clear then, your position is that your opinion overrides applicable law. Your opinion counts, and the applicable law is "irrelevant."

We'll keep that in mind when reading future posts from you.
I believe Manta is using "murder" in the common usage and not the legal description of the actual crime charged.

Lets also remember, his view is in line with the jury's that found the shooter guilty. Your opinion is not. It is incumbent on you to support that your opinion is superior to the determination of the actual jury, guided by the actual judge, judge's instruction of the law and questions to the jury, and charging documents. Impugning his opinion, which again is in line with what happened in reality vs your opinion, is probably not the most supportable position to have.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 12:14 PM   #56
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
Quote:
Just to be clear then, your position is that your opinion overrides applicable law. Your opinion counts, and the applicable law is "irrelevant."

We'll keep that in mind when reading future posts from you.
No the law is the law, my opinion is just that my view on what happened. My or other peoples opinions override nothing, but we are still allowed to have them are we not.
manta49 is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 12:16 PM   #57
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
Manta are you saying, from your view the shooter is guilty as charged, guilty of shooting the victim, and that it was not self defense?
zincwarrior is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 12:26 PM   #58
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
Quote:
Manta are you saying, from your view the shooter is guilty as charged, guilty of shooting the victim, and that it was not self defense?
Yes guilty as charged, pushing him back would have being self defence in my book. But it doesn't really matter what i think, what matters is what the jury thought and they found him guilty. Personally i would be glad that someone that quick to use lethal force, after what i saw as a minor assault is off the streets.
manta49 is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 12:38 PM   #59
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by manta49 View Post
Yes guilty as charged, pushing him back would have being self defence in my book. But it doesn't really matter what i think, what matters is what the jury thought and they found him guilty. Personally i would be glad that someone that quick to use lethal force, after what i saw as a minor assault is off the streets.
Thats what I thought. Thanks. I think Aquila is discussing more of the legal definition of murder. In criminal law murder is often a higher level crime than manslaughter, which is what he was charged with.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 12:57 PM   #60
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by manta49 View Post
Yes guilty as charged, pushing him back would have being self defence in my book. But it doesn't really matter what i think, what matters is what the jury thought and they found him guilty. Personally i would be glad that someone that quick to use lethal force, after what i saw as a minor assault is off the streets.
Thats what I thought. Thanks. I think Aquila is discussing more of the legal definition of murder. In criminal law murder is often a higher level crime than manslaughter, which is what he was charged with.
Yes i could be wrong, but i assume they could have charged him with murder. What was more likely to get a convection would be part of the decisions making, when deciding what he was charged with i would think.
manta49 is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 01:51 PM   #61
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by manta49
Yes i could be wrong, but i assume they could have charged him with murder.
I don't now what you do in Northern Ireland but, in the U.S., we typically charge a suspect with the offense that most closely fits the circumstances of the incident. The Florida statute on murder is too long for me to attempt to quote it here, so here's the link:

https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/0782.04

I don't see anything in the law that would fit the incident. If you disagree, feel free to explain exactly what part of the law applies to this case, and why.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 02:03 PM   #62
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
One could argue Murder in the Second Degree. (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.
I don't think evidence is sufficient to support a depraved mind absent a firm grasp of the adjudicated definition of that in Florida, and the DA didn't go for that.

Me personally, clearly its First degree. Clearly there was aircraft piracy involved. Never trust someone with an eyepatch and a parrot on their shoulder.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 02:55 PM   #63
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
Quote:
I don't now what you do in Northern Ireland but, in the U.S., we typically charge a suspect with the offense that most closely fits the circumstances of the incident. The Florida statute on murder is too long for me to attempt to quote it here, so here's the link:
Same here in the UK. As for self defence the force used has to be proportionate to the threat. It would then be up to the court if charged to decide if the force used in self defence was proportionate. Firearms are not allowed for self defence in most of the UK so in a similar situation, you would just have to deal with best you can.

Last edited by manta49; August 29, 2019 at 03:23 PM.
manta49 is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 03:21 PM   #64
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by manta49 View Post
Same here in the UK. As for self defence the force used has to be proportionate to the threat. It would then be up to the court if charged to decide if the force used in self defence was proportionate. As for self defence firearms are not allowed in most of the UK so in a similar situation, you would just have to deal with best you can.
Manta how does that work if the person being attacked is infirm, etc.?

For example in this instance, what if the shooter was the proverbial grandmother?
zincwarrior is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 03:22 PM   #65
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by manta49
Same here in the UK. As for self defence the force used has to be proportionate to the threat. It would then be up to the court if charged to decide if the force used in self defence was proportionate. As for self defence firearms are not allowed in most of the UK so in a similar situation, you would just have to deal with best you can.
But we're in the U.S., not the UK. In the U.S. the level of force does not have to be proportionate to the threat. Each state's laws spell out what constitutes deadly (or "lethal") force within that state, and each state spells out under what circumstances a person may use deadly (lethal) force in self defense. The general rule is that use of deadly force is allowed when in the view of the victim of the attack the victim is in imminent danger of death or serious ("grievous") bodily harm.

Once I have been attacked under circumstances in which I have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm, I am authorized to use deadly force. Period. I'm a senior citizen. I have a mechanically repaired heart, a bad back, a bad knee, and I'm facing the need to replace my hip. Being shoved to the ground by anyone, and certainly as hard as Drejka was in the case we're discussing, could very definitely cause me some very serious damage. So that attack is complete justification to draw a firearm.

Then we get to whether or not Drejka should have shot his attacker. Immediately after the shove, McGlockton began to advance toward Drejka as Drejka was rolling around on the ground and trying to orient himself to the reality of a sneak attack. McGlockton broke off his advance only when he saw that Drejka had a gun. That's where the question of temporal distortion and tunnel vision come in.

We have the luxury of watching the events unfold on a screen, in the comfort of our homes or offices. Drejka was lying on the ground, wondering what the heck just happened. He looks up, he sees a big, angry dude advancing on him, so he draws his gun to defend himself. Once that action had been set in motion, the question is how reasonable it is to think that -- in the heat and confusion of the moment -- he could have recognized that McGlockton had stopped advancing in time to arrest the firing of the gun.

There must be a few other people here who are old enough to remember the shooting of Amadou Diallo in 1999. Diallo was approached late at night by four plainclothes NYC cops who thought he matched the description of a rapist. He reached into his pocket to take out a wallet with his ID, and four cops opened fire. The fired 41 shots, with 19 of them striking Diallo. Needless to say, he died.

The cops were acquitted of murder. Shouldn't they have been able to stop themselves from shooting? Shouldn't they have been able to stop after one or two rounds each -- why did they all have to unload their magazines into the guy?

Stress alters anyone's perceptions of both time and space. If you don't accept that, you're living in a fantasy world.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 03:32 PM   #66
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
Quote:
Once I have been attacked under circumstances in which I have a reasonable fear of death [o]or serious bodily harm[/i], I am authorized to use deadly force. Period.
Yes that's what he thought he might be thinking diffidently now. You saying you had reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm might not be enough, if charged it would be the jury that decided if that was the case not you. I don't think its as clear cut as you are making it out to be, this case sort of shows that.
manta49 is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 03:42 PM   #67
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
Quote:
Manta how does that work if the person being attacked is infirm, etc.?

For example in this instance, what if the shooter was the proverbial grandmother?
They would not have a firearm, so If attacked and they were infirm or not, they can use any force including lethal force hit them with a brick whatever. But they would have still have to show they force they used was proportionate to the threat.

Quote:
UK law. What is the situation if the intruder dies?

It is still lawful to act in reasonable self-defence, even if the intruder dies as a result. However, prosecution could result from "very excessive and gratuitous force", such as attacking someone who is unconscious. For instance, the CPS decided not to prosecute one woman who snatched a baseball bat from an intruder and smashed him over the head. Had the woman continued to beat the man to a pulp, after he had already fallen and posed no threat, that would probably be considered as unlawful.
manta49 is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 03:42 PM   #68
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
Quote:
Amadou Diallo
There is too much false equivalency there.

The police department backed the officers. Stated that their actions were reasonable for police officers. This makes it much easier to create reasonable doubt in a few jurors. The officer WERE charged with murder 2nd, not manslaughter. They might have lost a manslaughter case in Florida.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 03:44 PM   #69
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by manta49
I don't think its as clear cut as you are making it out to be, this case sort of shows that.
This case also shows that it's not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. You're the guy who still says it was murder, not manslaughter. You haven't answered my question as to how you justify calling it murder based on the Florida statute.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 03:46 PM   #70
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT TL
There is too much false equivalency there.
No, because I'm only citing the Diallo case to illustrate the fallacy of being able to stop the act of shooting once the brain has said "SHOOT!"
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 04:06 PM   #71
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by manta49
I don't think its as clear cut as you are making it out to be, this case sort of shows that.
This case also shows that it's not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. You're the guy who still says it was murder, not manslaughter. You haven't answered my question as to how you justify calling it murder based on the Florida statute.
__________________
My earlier answer bellow post 56 that's as good as it gets. I did not say it was murder under Florida statute, i said it was murder IMO.

Quote:
Aguila Blanca Just to be clear then, your position is that your opinion overrides applicable law. Your opinion counts, and the applicable law is "irrelevant."
We'll keep that in mind when reading future posts from you.

Manta. No the law is the law, my opinion is just that my view on what happened. I or other peoples opinions override nothing, but we are still allowed to have them are we not.

Last edited by manta49; August 29, 2019 at 04:23 PM.
manta49 is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 04:07 PM   #72
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
I don't think the police were actually interested in stopping. There is no way they could have made out what was in his hands and they heard word "gun". In that day and age firing to slide lock was kind of the rule.

I will say in this case the shooter was pretty slow (probably due to just being knocked down). I wonder if had been faster and the pusher had not yet retreated when he started throwing lead if the outcome would have been different?
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 04:09 PM   #73
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
I would leave out examples involving LEOs for obvious reasons. The Diallo case is particularly notorious.

IN this instance I am with you on the fact pattern until he is on the ground. At that point the victim disengages. You'll have to site case law where a non LEO is given the benefit of temporal distortion / tunnel vision etc. This case certainly does not support that.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 07:09 PM   #74
Ruga Booga
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 2, 2017
Location: SE Kansas
Posts: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca View Post
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.
He was already angry about the parking space. He definitely fired in anger.
Ruga Booga is offline  
Old August 29, 2019, 09:46 PM   #75
Ruga Booga
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 2, 2017
Location: SE Kansas
Posts: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmr40 View Post
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.
An hour stalking a stump? Do you have glasses or at least binoculars?
Ruga Booga is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.08192 seconds with 8 queries