- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Verdict: FLA July '18 'Stand Your Ground' - M. Drejka guilty in death of M. McGlockton
Posted on 8/23/19 at 10:59 pm
Posted on 8/23/19 at 10:59 pm
I am glad I wasn't on this jury. I think the jury ultimately, barely made the right decision. But it is a close one, and again, I am glad I wasn't asked to decide the defendant's fate. Here's what I see on the video:
1) Michael Drejka (shooter) tries to personally enforce handicapped parking rules vs. girlfriend of the deceased (McGlockton); the wisdom in this plan-of-action (chastising parking violators) is debatable, and one can argue both sides of it
2) Markeis McGlockton exits the store and quickly and violently confronts Drejka. McGlockton pushes Drejka VERY violently onto pavement.
3) McGlockton takes two small steps TOWARD Drejka during his roll on pavement.
4) McGlockton sees Drejka reaching for something near his waist and ceases his approach.
5) McGlockton begins a "minimal retreat" and takes on a passive/defenseless stance a fraction of a second before Drejka shoots him.
If this was a civil trial, I'd find the shooter (Drejka) 59% at fault and the deceased (McGlockton) 41% to blame. But as it is a criminal trial; it is so difficult.
The violence of McGlockton's push was VERY startling to Drejka and surely put him in a 'fight or flight' mindset. The dead guy was quite wrong to be so violent.
But if you are carrying a weapon, and personally enforcing parking lot rules, you need to be more aware of your surroundings, approaching dangers, and appropriate responses.
All in all, the jury barely got it right. Or maybe I am mistaken. I am glad I wasn't on that jury.
Michael Drejka found guilty of manslaughter in shooting death of Markeis McGlockton
1) Michael Drejka (shooter) tries to personally enforce handicapped parking rules vs. girlfriend of the deceased (McGlockton); the wisdom in this plan-of-action (chastising parking violators) is debatable, and one can argue both sides of it
2) Markeis McGlockton exits the store and quickly and violently confronts Drejka. McGlockton pushes Drejka VERY violently onto pavement.
3) McGlockton takes two small steps TOWARD Drejka during his roll on pavement.
4) McGlockton sees Drejka reaching for something near his waist and ceases his approach.
5) McGlockton begins a "minimal retreat" and takes on a passive/defenseless stance a fraction of a second before Drejka shoots him.
If this was a civil trial, I'd find the shooter (Drejka) 59% at fault and the deceased (McGlockton) 41% to blame. But as it is a criminal trial; it is so difficult.
The violence of McGlockton's push was VERY startling to Drejka and surely put him in a 'fight or flight' mindset. The dead guy was quite wrong to be so violent.
But if you are carrying a weapon, and personally enforcing parking lot rules, you need to be more aware of your surroundings, approaching dangers, and appropriate responses.
All in all, the jury barely got it right. Or maybe I am mistaken. I am glad I wasn't on that jury.
Michael Drejka found guilty of manslaughter in shooting death of Markeis McGlockton
quote:
PINELLAS COUNTY, Fla. (WFLA) – A jury in Pinellas County has found Michael Drejka guilty of manslaughter in the shooting death of Markeis McGlockton.
Jurors came to a unanimous decision Friday night after more than six hours of deliberations. Crying could be heard in the courtroom as the verdict was announced.
Drejka will now be remanded into custody and will be held without bond until he is sentenced. Sentencing is scheduled to take place Oct. 10 at 10:30 a.m.
The manslaughter trial moved much more quickly than expected. The trial was expected to last two weeks, but ended up lasting just a few days.
A jury was seated in the trial on Tuesday. Opening statements and testimony began Wednesday. The prosecution and defense teams delivered closing arguments Friday.
Jurors then began to deliberate shortly after 4 p.m. The jury returned with a verdict in the controversial high-profile trial just after 10:30 p.m.
39
Posted on 8/23/19 at 11:03 pm to JPinLondon
This is absolute bullshite. Drejka was defending himself against a deranged TPOS that was looking to inflict great bodily injury against him.
It’ll be interesting to see what the jury makeup was.
It’ll be interesting to see what the jury makeup was.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 11:07 pm to Breauxsif
Did you see the video he was backing up when he got shot. Its a tough case but not bullshite.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 11:13 pm to Breauxsif
Just watched the video, doesn’t look like he was “looking to inflict great bodily injury” he was protecting his girlfriend from getting yelled at by some loon who takes it upon himself to enforce parking violations at a gas station by yelling at someone for a few minutes.
Also never looked like he kept going after him after the initial push
Also never looked like he kept going after him after the initial push
Posted on 8/23/19 at 11:14 pm to JPinLondon
Had the shoe been the other color..wonder how it would have turned out.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 11:23 pm to JPinLondon
Good. I'd convict him as well.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 11:24 pm to JPinLondon
what kind of sentence is he looking at?
Posted on 8/23/19 at 11:27 pm to JPinLondon
Guilty and rightly so.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 11:32 pm to Breauxsif
quote:He got pushed to the ground and pulled a gun on someone who backed up. Then he shot him.
Drejka was defending himself against a deranged TPOS that was looking to inflict great bodily injury against him.
The video didn't do Drejka ANY favors. Because it certainly looks like the deceased wasn't following up on attacking him.
For anyone curious, the Daily Mail has the video. Just by going by the video, I'd probably convict.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 11:37 pm to JPinLondon
quote:
the jury ultimately, barely made the right decision.
Wtf does this mean? Seems they either got it right or they didn’t. How can one “barely make the right decision?”
Posted on 8/23/19 at 11:49 pm to Breauxsif
quote:
It’ll be interesting to see what the jury makeup was.
quote:
After the two-day selection process, five men and a woman were selected to decide Drejka's fate. Two women and a man were chosen as alternates. Most of the jurors are white, none are black.
quote:
State prosecutors are up first. They focus on an encounter Michael Drejka had just months earlier with Rick Kelly in the same Circle A parking lot. Prosecutors explain how Kelly also parked in a handicapped parking spot and was approached by Drejka. Prosecutors tell the jury in that instance, Kelly told investigators Drejka told him, "I could blow your head off."
quote:
After just 5 minutes of cross examination, the state called their third witness: John Tyler. He is Kelly's boss, whom Drejka told he was going to send photos of Kelly parked in a handicapped spot to. Drejka left a voicemail for Tyler on February 14th, the day Kelly parked in a handicapped spot outside of the Circle A Food Store. Drejka told Tyler he took photos and would be turning them over to the authorities. Drejka told Tyler he was not handicapped nor was he with someone who was handicapped. Tyler says Drejka told him, "If I had a gun I would have shot him (Kelly)."
Trial blog
This post was edited on 8/24/19 at 1:58 am
Posted on 8/23/19 at 11:54 pm to castorinho
quote:
what kind of sentence is he looking at?
Up to 30y in FL for MS w/firearm. IIRC unless there is a downward departure sentence it will be a minimum of something like 11 years.
Posted on 8/24/19 at 12:07 am to JPinLondon
This post has been marked unreadable!
Posted on 8/24/19 at 12:26 am to Fat and Happy
You are rolling through threads and trying really really hard to be a troll it’s cute.
This post was edited on 8/24/19 at 12:27 am
Posted on 8/24/19 at 12:30 am to Breauxsif
quote:
It’ll be interesting to see what the jury makeup was.
This just didn't work out for you, did it?
Posted on 8/24/19 at 12:31 am to Fat and Happy
quote:
The guy who posted this is a little bitch arse pu$$y and yes, i would say it to his face and have zero issues with mud checking his bitch arse little phaggot self
Try harder, tough guy.
Posted on 8/24/19 at 12:34 am to Hermit Crab
quote:
Also never looked like he kept going after him after the initial push
He actually did, but he saw the guy pulling out a gun and then backed off. He was going to do more harm to him up until that or at least seemed like he would. If Drejka had fired immediately in same motion he pulled out his gun it would have been hard to not call it self defense, but he didn’t.
There also didn’t appear to be any witnesses stating that the moment he stopped backing up right before getting shot McGlockton had started back challenging him and threatening him verbally like he started to doubt Drejka would fire and might quickly reengage.
It seems like correct verdict, but I don’t doubt that having a gun saved Drejka. He just didn’t need to fire (especially when he did), and if he hadn’t cops would have been arresting McGlockton for assault.
This post was edited on 8/24/19 at 12:39 am
Posted on 8/24/19 at 12:41 am to Fat and Happy
quote:
The guy who posted this is a little bitch arse pu$$y and yes, i would say it to his face and have zero issues with mud checking his bitch arse little phaggot self
Roll Tide
Posted on 8/24/19 at 1:17 am to JPinLondon
Tough call for sure, but we have to be mindful of the state of mind the shooter was in after getting violently shoved to the ground. His fight or flight response kicked in and with little option of a flight and having a firearm, he chose fight. It’s plausible that he had tunnel vision and could only see the threat squared up to him, backing away or not. The only way the shooter might not have shot him is if the now deceased would’ve turn his back and ran. I’d like to have been a fly on the wall during deliberation.
Posted on 8/24/19 at 1:32 am to Hermit Crab
quote:
he was protecting his girlfriend from getting yelled at
Well, I'm not sure the shooting was completely warranted but that was a criminal act, NOT "protecting his girlfriend from getting yelled at".
In the U.S., the law intends for law abiding citizens to be protected by specific statutes. A simple motion towards another that has the mere appearance of the intent to shove, push, or the raising of a hand.. as if one may strike... is defined as an "assault". This is a crime.
If one completes the motion... and does shove, push, or strike another... this is defined as "assault and battery"... and that person becomes a criminal... he commits a crime punishable by law.
In majority of situations, yelling at someone is not a crime.. and there are no laws to protect a U.S. citizen from ever being yelled at (again, in majority of situations). So, McGlockton committed a crime, we clearly see criminal behavior.
Now, what we don't know.. is did Drejka shake his fist or verbally threaten the woman? If so, according to law, another crime was committed. But this still gives no legal right whatsoever for McG. to so much as even touch Drej., ...much less push him to the ground.
What we also don't know from the video... is did McG. make a verbal threat while assualting Drej.? If McG. said something like,"you yell at my girl?? M.F. I'll kill you", as his battery of Drej. took place, then I think you'll find the use of deadly force is well justified in a "stand your ground" state and many others.
In the U.S. there's simply no legal right for use of any type physical force for the action of Drej. yelling at the woman. If I shove someone to the ground, even if yelling at my wife... ..at that moment the law says I've become a criminal.. ..and I'd expect to be arrested and convicted for assault and battery. I'd also expect if I did this as a regular practice, I'd probanly end up shot and killed. If I verbally threaten that person while battering, I'd also know I've given that person legal right to shoot and kill me.
The bottom line here is simple. Abide by the law. If one abides by the law, chances of getting shot and killed decrease **significantly**. The selfish who take parking for the disabled do deserve reprimand. No apparent law was broken when Drej. confronted the woman. It may be questionable whether he had the right to shoot, but McG. did in fact show criminal behavior by shoving Drej. to the ground before the fact. The rest is history.... What is sad is that when any society begins to ignore its laws, no one is safe and there will be no real justice for anyone.
This post was edited on 8/24/19 at 1:44 am
Page 1 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News