Michael Drejka, Who Supposedly Could Not Be Arrested for Killing Markeis McGlockton, Is Charged With Manslaughter

Source: Reason
Published: Aug 13, 2018
Author: Jacob Sullum
Post Date: 2018-08-14 05:26:00 by Deckard
Views: 1008

Michael Drejka, who shot and killed Markeis McGlockton in the parking lot of a Clearwater, Florida, convenience store on July 19, was charged with manslaughter today. The charge means that Bernie McCabe, the state attorney for Pinellas and Pasco counties, did not buy Drejka's claim that he shot McGlockton because he reasonably believed it was necessary to prevent serious injury or death.

That is the justification required by Florida's "stand your ground" self-defense law, notwithstanding much confused criticism implying that the state is especially permissive in situations like this. McCabe's decision makes Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri's failure to arrest Drejka seem all the more puzzling, since it indicates that the prosecutor not only thinks there is probable cause to believe Drejka's use of lethal force was unjustified (the requirement for an arrest) but also thinks the state can prove that by clear and convincing evidence at a pretrial hearing and beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

Under Florida law, manslaughter, a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison, is an unjustified homicide that does not qualify as murder, which requires premeditation. The charge seems appropriate given what we know about the facts of the case.

Surveillance video shows McGlockton, responding to an argument between his girlfriend and Drejka over her decision to park in a handicapped spot, pushing Drejka to the pavement. Drejka, still sitting on the ground, draws a pistol, prompting McGlockton to back away, at which point Drejka shoots him in the chest. While McGlockton broke the law by assaulting Drejka, Drejka's response was disproportionate. He acted out of fear (and/or anger) in the heat of the moment, so the killing was not premeditated. But that does not mean it was justified.

Gualtieri conceded that Drejka "probably could have" defended himself by brandishing the gun without firing it. He has also said that he himself would not have fired in that situation. Yet he erroneously insisted that Florida law barred him from arresting Drejka. He has asserted that police are not supposed to second-guess the subjective judgment of people who use lethal force, which is wrong, and that police are not supposed to make an arrest unless it is "absolutely clear" that a shooting was illegal, which is also wrong.

Journalists, many of whom were already biased against Florida's self-defense law, followed Gualtieri's lead. The Tampa Bay Times, for instance, claims Drejka "avoided arrest...because of the controversial self-defense law that eliminated one's duty to retreat before resorting to force." Yet nothing in the law prevents police from arresting someone when they have probable cause to believe he killed someone without justification.

Post Comment   Private Reply

#1: misterwhite    To: Deckard (#0)

Is Charged With Manslaughter

Whenever one person dies at the the hands of another, the minimum charge is manslaughter. That charge doesn't indicate fault, intent, or guilt.

misterwhite posted on 2018-08-14 08:43:43   Reply   Private Reply


#2: misterwhite    To: Deckard (#0)

Drejka, still sitting on the ground, draws a pistol, prompting McGlockton to back away, at which point Drejka shoots him in the chest.

Not in the back. So McGlockton didn't turn and run away with a gun pointed at his chest. I would have. I would have felt a strong duty to retreat.

But McGlockton didn't. Yeah, he took a step or two back, but he continued to face the shooter. Why? No audio, so we don't know what was said.

Since McGlockton didn't retreat, perhaps he too had a gun? Or a knife? What did he say to Drejka making him believe he was still a threat? What was going through Drejka's mind? Did he feel threatened because he was violently and for no reason pushed to the ground? Did he think he was dealing with some crazy?

THAT'S what's relevant to the law. Not what we would have done.

misterwhite posted on 2018-08-14 09:02:37   Reply   Private Reply


#3: Deckard    To: misterwhite (#2)

No audio, so we don't know what was said.

Wow, seriously?

I mean, I've heard of "fighting words" - now you say that there are some words so vile that uttering them gives a gun-wielding jerk the right to kill you.

Deckard posted on 2018-08-14 10:18:35   Reply   Private Reply


#4: misterwhite    To: Deckard (#3)

now you say that there are some words so vile that uttering them gives a gun-wielding jerk the right to kill you.

"I'm gonna kill you!"

BLAM!

misterwhite posted on 2018-08-14 10:46:28   Reply   Private Reply