Michael Drejka’s decision to shoot was inconsistent with Florida’s self-defense law.
Markeis McGlockton and Michael Drejka both overreacted during their brief, fatal encounter in the parking lot of a Florida convenience store last week. McGlockton overreacted by pushing Drejka to the ground, and Drejka overreacted by drawing a pistol and shooting McGlockton in the chest.
Although it is hard to see how Drejka's use of lethal force could have been justified, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri declined to arrest him, claiming his hands were tied by Florida's Stand Your Ground law. But that is not true, and Gualtieri's misrepresentation of the law has renewed misguided criticism of Florida's approach to self-defense, which contrary to popular misconception does not give a free pass to armed hotheads who claim to have fired out of fear.
The incident that ended in McGlockton's death began when Drejka approached Britany Jacobs, McGlockton's girlfriend, as she sat in her car outside the Circle A Food Store in Clearwater. Drejka was upset that Jacobs had parked in a handicapped spot, and the ensuing argument attracted the attention of McGlockton, who was in the store buying candy for his 5-year-old son.
Video from a surveillance camera shows McGlockton emerging from the store, walking straight up to Drejka, and pushing him down. Within five seconds, Drejka, sitting on the ground, draws a gun and fires once. McGlockton staggers back into the store, grabbing his chest.
After collapsing in front of his son, McGlockton was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Drejka, who has a concealed carry permit, told police he fired because he was afraid McGlockton was about to attack him again.
"We're precluded from making an arrest in this type of a situation," Gualtieri claimed at a press conference the next day. "Stand Your Ground allows for a subjective belief by the person that they are in harm's way," the sheriff said, and "we don't get to substitute our judgment for Drejka's judgment."
To the contrary, the law requires police and prosecutors to assess the judgment of someone who uses deadly force, which he is allowed to do only if he "reasonably believes" it is "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." It is not enough to claim you shot someone because you believed he otherwise would have killed or maimed you; that belief has to be reasonable in the circumstances.
The video shows McGlockton backing away when Drejka draws his gun. Even assuming that McGlockton was not done with Drejka after the shove, Gualtieri conceded that Drejka "probably could have" fended McGlockton off simply by brandishing the pistol. The implication is that Drejka did not reasonably believe shooting McGlockton was necessary, which means there was probable cause to arrest him.
Gualtieri obscured that point by erroneously asserting that the Stand Your Ground law, which was enacted in 2005, established a "largely subjective standard" for the use of lethal force. The question, he said, is not "what I would do, what you would do, what the public would do, what someone else would do." What really matters, he suggested, is "the person's subjective determination of the circumstance they were in" and "the fear that they had."
Not so. Because a shooter's assessment of the situation has to be reasonable (even if it ultimately proves to have been mistaken), it does matter what other people would do in the same circumstances. In that respect, Florida's criteria for self-defense did not change in 2005, and they are similar to those that apply throughout the country.
The signature feature of Florida's Stand Your Ground law, as the moniker suggests, is that people attacked in public places do not have a duty to retreat. But that rule, which most states have adopted and Gualtieri said he supports, did not figure in the sheriff's decision.
Gualtieri emphasized that someone who legally uses force in self-defense is immune from arrest under Florida law. But he never satisfactorily explained why that description applies to Michael Drejka.
#1: Hondo68 To: Deckard (#0)
Case closed.
Hondo68 posted on 2018-07-27 05:43:41 Reply Private Reply
#2: Deckard To: hondo68 (#1)
I wonder if the shooter is a cop, an ex-cop or friends with one.
This is really no different than the case where the ex-cop shot and killed a guy for throwing popcorn at him.
Theater shooting Stand Your Ground appeal rejected
Deckard posted on 2018-07-27 06:55:19 Reply Private Reply
#3: GrandIsland To: hondo68 (#1)
And so it should be for anyone in a free society.
Never just bring BLACK to a gun fight. Had he been more evolved, he’d have acted less dysfunctional and wouldn’t have but fear of death into the gun carrier by knocking him to the ground.
GrandIsland posted on 2018-07-27 07:25:23 Reply Private Reply
#4: Deckard To: GrandIsland, hondo68 (#3)
HERE
Deckard posted on 2018-07-27 07:51:37 Reply Private Reply
#5: Gatlin To: Deckard (#2)
This “wondering” by you is definitely quite odd since you have strongly contended that your cop-hating vendetta is only directed towards “bad” cops.
EXPOSED.
Now everyone can see that is BULLSHIT and that you are a just another fuckin’ hypocrite asshole libertarian.
SAD.
Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 07:55:08 Reply Private Reply
#6: Deckard To: Gatlin (#5)
Cops have been known to protect those in their tribe.
Now, go away troll.
You didn't come here to comment on the article - you came to disrupt and distract, like always. So sod off wanker.
Deckard posted on 2018-07-27 08:10:50 Reply Private Reply
#7: Gatlin To: Deckard (#6)
And it was a MAGNIFICANT task I performed in doing that.
I came here to specifically address your point when you “[wondered] if the shooter is a cop, an ex-cop or friends with one”.
Nah, it was YOU who turned your thread into a pissing contest, hondo’s butt boy.Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 08:49:34 Reply Private Reply
#8: misterwhite To: Deckard (#0)
And that's all it means.
Without that law, a jury could conclude that Michael Drejka, after being pushed to the ground, could have avoided further harm by simply running away. Assuming he could do so, he had a duty to do that.
The sheriff misspoke, no different than the people who claimed Stand Your Ground in the Trayvon Martin case.
This was self-defense, pure and simple. Michael Drejkab had already been assaulted and pushed to the ground. He had every right to defend himself.
In order to avoid harm, the time to show his weapon was before he was assaulted, right? But Florida Statute 790.10, Improper Exhibition of a Firearm, prohibits that under penalty of law.
How about this? Don't assault people just because you're bigger and badder than they are.
misterwhite posted on 2018-07-27 09:15:24 Reply Private Reply
#9: Gatlin To: Deckard (#2)
Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 09:31:34 Reply Private Reply
#10: Deckard To: Gatlin (#9)
It's similar circumstances. In the popcorn incident - stand your ground was rejected as a defense.
Now - Piss off clown.
Deckard posted on 2018-07-27 09:35:41 Reply Private Reply
#11: Gatlin To: Deckard (#10)
That you picked the one involving an ex-cop was are mere coincidence.
Eh?
Right?
Of course it was.
WINK....WINK.
It is so damned essy to see through your cop-hating agenda....even when you TRY to mask it.
Sad.
Now you eat your cop-hating agenda shit I just shoved down your throat.Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 09:59:03 Reply Private Reply
#12: Deckard To: Gatlin (#11)
It was the one that came to mind - there was some discussion at LP back in the day when it was current news.
...cop-hating agenda...
Whatever clown.
Deckard posted on 2018-07-27 10:09:51 Reply Private Reply
#13: Gatlin To: Deckard (#12)
Wink – Wink!
And the “link” magically appeared out of nowhere.
Eh?
Bullshit....just more of your libertarian bullshit.
You are so TRANSPARENT ...
Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 10:58:23 Reply Private Reply
#14: Deckard To: Gatlin (#13)
Yeah - I found the link and posted it as a comparison of the two incidents.
Like I said earlier in the thread - you are here solely to disrupt.
Deckard posted on 2018-07-27 11:04:03 Reply Private Reply
#15: Gatlin To: Deckard (#14)
Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 11:10:56 Reply Private Reply
#16: Gatlin To: Deckard (#12)
Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 11:14:10 Reply Private Reply
#17: Deckard To: Gatlin (#15)
Like I said Parsons - the two cases are related and are worthy of comparison.
If you don't like it, too bad.
Deckard posted on 2018-07-27 11:16:50 Reply Private Reply
#18: misterwhite To: Deckard (#2)
The 71-year-old ex-cop thought the throwing of popcorn by the 43-year-old was a prelude to a physical attack and shot in self-defense.
Had he waited until he was attacked before responding, he could have been severely injured or even killed. I say self-defense and not guilty.
Same thing here.
misterwhite posted on 2018-07-27 11:22:48 Reply Private Reply
#19: Gatlin To: Deckard (#17)
It was merely a springboard setup you gave me to once again point out your cop-hating agenda.
T thank you for doing that.
Send more my way ...
Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 11:32:23 Reply Private Reply
#20: Liberator To: Deckard (#2)
Your sense of reality and perspective is highly questionable.
So now you're on record given your "judgement" that the force of being hit with a kernel of popcorn is "no different" than the force of a blind-side shove to the pavement by an enraged 200 lb man?
The initial assault victim, Drejka, could have easily cracked his skull on the pavement and died. MOREOVER, the ASSAULTER McGlockton's body language indicated he was moving forward toward Drejka as the latter began lifting his head.
McGlockton was a coward.
Liberator posted on 2018-07-27 12:16:01 Reply Private Reply
#21: Hondo68 To: Gatlin, yukons canaries (#7)
Your fantasy will NEVER come true, not into the ghey canaries, you homo!
Hondo68 posted on 2018-07-27 13:27:53 Reply Private Reply
#22: sneakypete To: Deckard (#0)
I have no trouble at all seeing how it was justified. He was blindsided by a bigger,younger,and stronger man,and still on the ground and basically helpless.
I think it is disgusting his ho/wife/girfriend/babymama is all over tv crying about it and shouting racism,when the bitch was parked in a handicapped parking zone with no handicapped sticker and not being handicapped. The guy that did the shooting wasn't even threatening her and didn't get close enough to her car to even scare her. He was just telling her to get out of the handicapped parking zone so REAL handicapped people could park there,and then comes her male thug companion and gets physical.
sneakypete posted on 2018-07-28 12:39:11 Reply Private Reply
#23: sneakypete To: hondo68 (#1)
This is one of the rare times I am in complete agreement with you.
sneakypete posted on 2018-07-28 12:40:26 Reply Private Reply
#24: sneakypete To: Deckard (#10)
HORSEHILLARY!
In one incident a dumbass was throwing popcorn. In the other incident,a younger and stronger man blindsided the shooter and knocked him to the ground.
sneakypete posted on 2018-07-28 12:42:58 Reply Private Reply
#25: sneakypete To: misterwhite (#18)
That's a lot like claiming "I thought he was going to attack me physically,so I attacked him first.|
WHEN was the last time you ever heard of anyone being attacked with thrown pop corn being killed or disabled?
Being blindsided and shoved to the ground in a paved parking lot is a different story,though.
sneakypete posted on 2018-07-28 12:45:46 Reply Private Reply
#26: misterwhite To: Liberator (#20)
Not the point. It goes to intent.
You don't throw sand, or dirt (or popcorn) in a guy's face to hurt him. You do it as a distraction right before physically assaulting him.
The 71-year-old ex-cop was well aware of this technique, and felt he was about to be attacked by a 43-year-old guy looming over him in the dark theater.
In the case above, the guy was acting in self-defense after being physically assaulted. What if the other guy had a knife and slashed his arm (instead of pushing him to the ground) and just stood there? Can he shoot then? Isn't it possible that the guy will do it again, especially if he gets up?
misterwhite posted on 2018-07-28 13:04:15 Reply Private Reply