Stand Your Ground / Murder / Other

[Reynolds]

Dysphemism drama much.

Saying the case closed doesn’t make it true any more than claiming to be in fear for your life for being pushed. Now the rest of the story:

Stand your ground is based on self-defense which does not apply when a person steps back and is turning away from you.

Prior facts reveal shooter’s patterns of an aggressive disposition and cowardly reliance on and history of intent to use deadly force while mischievously instigating conflicts. (Habitually yelled at people, showed his gun, threatened people.) (As per his personal references, no one from Drejka’s family even bothered to show up for his first appearance before a judge.)

“Self-defense” must be used in a “reasonable manner” and that and “obsessive force” are open to interpretation of the law by means of a video account.

The sheriff now says he supports the DA’s decision.

Precedence needs to be set and a trial could help accomplish defining the reasonable use of deadly force and reform the law.

If the action was determined to be reasonable he would be set free but if obsessive he should serve time. Currently he spends his first night in jail…

Anyone looking at the tape can see that the shooting victim was backing up and turning away so how can any reasonable minded person consider it self-defense at that point rather than retaliation of a cowardly instigator for being pushed?

The warrant clearly shows the State does not believe that this shooting was done in self-defense and neither do I.

Finally, if you want to play with technicalities he wasn’t standing his ground, he was sitting on the ground.

It was simply a cave in to political pressure. "Reasonableness" is evaluated in real time, not frame by frame. He was not turning away to retreat. You can not prove he was. He backed up a couple steps, which as I have explained to you before, means nothing. Would I have shot the man when he was shot? No, but that does not change the fact that the elements of stand your ground were met. I would not have been out enforcing handicap parking, but that does not change the fact the laws of our nation allow for citizen enforcement of the law.

 

[Benjamin]

Well, Drelka just now had the trial set to August 19.

So much for a right to a speedy trial but can be expected because he has no money at all. Which makes one wonder why, of all his adamant supporters no one has stepped up to help or even started a defense fund for him. Anyway, I had thought he was sitting jail all this time but apparently he has bonded out after 6 weeks. The sentence, my guess is probably less than 10 years and that won't make his foes very happy...

 

[Benjamin]

I believe at the best the "I was in fear for my life" plea should buy him is manslaughter rather than 1st degree murder.

In a case that brought national attention to Florida’s "Stand Your Ground" gun law, a jury on Friday night convicted a licensed gun owner on manslaughter charges after deliberating for six hours following a weeklong trial.

The defendant, Michael Drejka, was accused of killing Markeis McGlockton in the parking lot of a convenience store in Clearwater on July 19, 2018, after arguing with McGlockton's girlfriend over a handicapped parking space. Drejka claimed he fatally shot McGlockton in self-defense.

Florida gun owner who claimed self-defense convicted in 'Stand Your Ground' case

 

[Hollow Man]

I can’t call it murder. They guy assaulted the old man. Before that, nobody was in any danger. He shoved the old guy to the ground then stood over him.

Impossible to tell any intent without sound. But we can’t have people just shoving old men to the ground because of a parking space argument.

I tend to agree with you. Without sound, the attack appears unprovoked.

Stand your ground is only when your life is in danger and you have no opportunity to flee. How did he know the guy wasn't going to attack him again?

I'd like to know a little more before I can say definitively but, just based on the little I know, I have to side with the shooter.

 

[Reynolds]

I tend to agree with you. Without sound, the attack appears unprovoked.

Stand your ground is only when your life is in danger and you have no opportunity to flee. How did he know the guy wasn't going to attack him again?

I'd like to know a little more before I can say definitively but, just based on the little I know, I have to side with the shooter.

The point of stand your ground laws was to remove the requirement to retreat. This case should never have been prosecuted. It was an emotional response, not a strict interpretation of the law.

 

[777]

I really wonder about the composition of that particular jury, didn't follow the trial at all but Drejka didn't take the stand and he probably should have.

Michael Drejka chooses not to testify at his Stand Your Ground trial | Daily Mail Online

still have little sympathy for all involved but now at least he won't be playing parking cop and the thug he shot is still dead.