His defense is going to come down to whether or not the Jury believes the threat was imminent and immediate when Drejka fired.
Please forget the racial aspects when discussing the case as they are absolutely not relevant and if we get bogged down in them no constructive discussion can be had.
Personally I fell like he should be convicted as he fired after the assailant had already retreated several steps back away from him.
No doubt it will be claimed he was making some sort of threatening statements making Drejka feel âfear for his lifeâ but there is as far as I know of no audio recording of the incident.
This may be a case where jury selection decides the outcome even more than the facts.
If there are crime victims on the jury they may tend to lean his way, if there are SJWâs on the jury theyâll likely go the other.
For myself I think it will be interesting to see both the demographics of the jury and the evidence as well of course as the outcome.
Even if he manages to be acquitted or get a mistrial morally as far as Iâm concerned heâs guilty.
Based on his conduct prior and on this day again, even if acquitted I expect to see him lose his carry license, his right to keep and bear and to be declared mentally incompetent in subsequent court actions following the trial. This is definitely someone who should not have access to firearms in the future and should not have had access to them that day based on his prior acts.
Hopefully his prior bad acts will not be admissible in this case but as they demonstrate a pattern of conduct the judge may well decide to allow them.
His prior conduct will play a major role. I believe the shooting itself was self-defense. The problem lies in the fact that he started the confrontation. McGlockton could have been backing up to get a step in to kick Djeka, and he could have been retreating all together.
Iâm not sure they will be allowed in, generally they are not. If they are, his odds of being acquitted go down substantially because as I recall once he was so abusive chewing out a prior driver that management had him removed and on another occasion police had to get involved for the same reason.
Itâs always up to the judge to decide what will be allowed so weâll see.
It sounds like he picked the fight, and while he didnât start the physical confrontation, he certainly started the incident by yelling at the woman with her kids. I havenât read the Florida law, but I donât think this:
â(The law says) that you can pick a confrontation. You can be the initial aggressor. You kill the unarmed black person. And then you say, âOh, it was self-defense. I was standing my ground.â And you get to go home and sleep in your bed at night,â he said.
I will be interested to see the outcome also. Iâve had my doubts about the situation from the start but I try not to second-guess without all the facts.To me, it appears as though Drejka fired as the subject was beginning to retreat.
I agree with @WildRose; this guy should not have been carrying.
The guy was backing away. Tough situation, but bad shoot in my opinion. If they guy had not shot him, good evidence of assault against the guy that was shot. Confusing wording, but the dead guy did assault the shooter.
I donât know if I would have drawn in that situation or not.
Iâm sorry but you canât FORGET the racial aspects of the case because thatâs EXACTLY what it was all about and as always nothing is going to happen to him and if it dis Iâd be surprised. Black men get killed in this country and if you feared for your life then itâs justified but someone doing a mass shooting gets taken in without a shot fired but you didnât fear for your life. REALLY
A big âwhat ifâ in the trial will be whether or not the boyfriend was retreating. Donât forget, during the original police press conference, the sheriff said it appeared McGlockton was âbladingâ as if he was going to attack again. That will most likely be brought up during trial. I donât believe McGlockton was retreating at all after watching the video. Disparity of force was there since McGlockton was physically stronger. Intent was also there since he shoved Drejka hard to the ground. It all will come down to jury selection and this case is a toss up. IMO, the one who initiates the physical altercation is the aggressor and no one has a right to lay hands on anyone regardless of the words spoken prior.
Hereâs where I have a problem seeing the shooter here as being in any way legally justified.
If you advance through the video to the 1:40 mark we see McGlockton approach, shove the man to the ground hard with no warning, the shooter then can be seen saying something as he rolls over and draws his weapon.
As soon as McGlockton sees this, he takes three steps back to the car and is turning away when shot.
How does one articulate an âimminent threat of death or grave bodily harmâ at that point to justify pulling the trigger?
Even if we account for the approximately .75 second delay between the brain saying, âstopâ after itâs given the âpress the triggerâ signal to the trigger finger I donât see how you successfully make that argument to an unbiased, dispassionate juror searching for the facts of the case to make a sound finding of guilt or not guilty.
I just donât see it myself.
Mind you, I admitted have a bias towards the self defender in these cases and try very hard to see the events taking place through their eyes.
The monday quarterbacking is one of the problems with the judicial system. Even well intentioned jurors are rarely able to understand the emotional aspects of fight or flight. We have the advantage of seeing the video and prior knowledge of events. If the defense attorney is successful at conveying these emotional reactions, he has a chance of acquittal. The shooter was blind sided by an extremely aggressive shove that knocked him to the ground violently. Also consider Adrenaline rush and tunnel vision so he probably wasnât even looking at his feet. A case can be made for self defense but juries all too often only focus on video while sitting in the juror box.
The evidence that it was racially motivated is plain and clear. This idiot decided to approach someoneâs car and bother them because of a parking spot. He knew he was carried and went looking for trouble. He had no reason to walk up to that car if someone parking in a handicapped stall was that much of a problem for him he could have taken a picture and called the police because thats law enforcements job not his so YES it was a racial issue. Thatâs the problem with this nation now to many people to see whatâs clear as day. The simple statement I feared for my life is not a reason to KILL a black man. The world is full or racist people and itâs getting any better. If you donât see this as a problem then you are part of the problem.
Fearing for your life is the reason for self-defense against a threat. The color of the threat is irrelevant. There are two different sides of this conversation - is it self-defense? and is this a racial issue?
@Wildrose is asking about the self-defense aspect of the situation. Without having been there or seeing all of the evidence, there is really no way for us to know what happened in that situation.
The description in this article makes me question the self-defense claim:
âWhile sitting on the ground, Drejka pulled out his gun and shot McGlockton, who had started to turn away, surveillance video shows. The entire incident lasted just a few seconds.â
It goes on to say:
And although he started the argument and escalated the encounter with a gun, he was not initially arrested in the killing because the Pinellas County Sheriff said the stateâs âstand your groundâ law appeared to give him immunity.
For self-defense, you have to be an innocent party in the interaction - no matter what your race, ethnicity, sex, or age.
Is this self-defense? Based on this article, it doesnât sound like it - but this article doesnât have all of the facts so I would not wager a guess to the outcome of this case.
Weâre not here to debate if someone is racist or not. We do not condone any sort of hate speech or hate - no matter what your race, ethnicity, sex, or age.
Please remember why we are here. We are people who believe in self-defense and trying to help each other be able to defend ourselves and our loved ones the best way possible - no matter our background.
No doubt it will be used by politicians, Bloomberg, the media and anti-gun groups. I hope it will also be used by pro 2A and CCW folks for training and discussion. Much to think about here and a good (bad) example of how fast things happen and can turn South. Carrying is a HUGE responsibility and, with it, comes risks to safety of all and the freedom of (s)he who carries.
McGlockton Had no right to physically attack Drejka. That is a discussion and criminal charge that stands apart perhaps. But the big issue here is did the later have sufficient justification to shoot the former? Was he going to be gravely or seriously harmed? When Drejka drew, it looked like McGlockton took a step back. That may be all the jury needs to say the shooting wasnât justified. As far as jury goes, those against guns and conceal carry are going to say he was guilty and some who are pro-gun may have a hard time not agreeing. I think he was guilty, sadly. No winners here.
Unfortunately the shooter shouldnât have started a argument over a parking spot, I get the women was in a handicapped spot, but if you practice good conflict avoidance. This whole situation could have been avoided. The victims came out and forcibly shoved the shooter to the ground and appeared to step back, as the shooter drew his firearm and fired. The video is going to play a huge role in this case, and I believe this man will be convicted. In my opinion this wasnât a case of self defense, and the whole situation could have been avoided if the shooter would have just let it go. Remember while armed you have a responsibly to yourself to know when to walk away and when it is the right time to draw your firearm.
