Florida Man Charged in Stand Your Ground Shooting
This one seems to be a puzzler. Several factors are involved here, so before you post something emotionally charged, consider this:
1 – Florida has a ‘stand your ground’ statute on the books, in place since 2005, prior to the Zimmerman (Latino?) shooting of Trayvon Martin (Black) and everything that followed.
2 – Unless otherwise informed, I believe almost all states do have a self-defense statute on the books. Even Illinois, with its tight-assed gun regulations, has that on the books.
3 – In this case, Drejka is white and McGlockton, the deceased, is black. Both of them have/had volatile tempers and were/are quick to pick a quarrel.
4 – Elections come up in a few months.
5 – CNN appears to be attempting to influence a court procedure, a very bad thing to do. How can a jury be impartial if media source like CNN has prejudiced potential jurors against accused persons? Article 8 of the US Constitution, 5th and 6th Amendments are all impinged by such an attempt.
The original decision was to not arrest Drejka, based on the self-defense “stand your ground” statute, after McGlockton shoved him to the ground.
CNN has published an article in which it says that Drejka has a history of making threats toward other people. https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/14/us/florida-stand-your-ground-previous-incidents/index.html
Apparently, the busybodies at CNN are determined to create a major incident, possibly including racist stuff, out of something that was a squabble which turned into a shoving match and someone got killed.
CNN’s attempts to try Drejka and fry him in the media, instead of letting the justice system do its job, are obviously based on their agenda to promote antagonism and magnify reactionary behavior to events, with no consideration for the real outcome.
Would they have spent so much time on this if McGlockton had been a white man, and/or if Drejka used a knife instead of a gun?
This is Reuter’s report on this incident: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-shooting/florida-man-charged-in-stand-your-ground-shooting-officials-idUSKBN1KY1VG
Reuters is simply reporting the facts of this event, not attempting to promote an opinion in you, the reader. So this brings up an important subject: freedom of the press.
Is it more important to let CNN run with its attempts to stir up controversy and trouble, a clear indicator that they have a hidden agenda, instead of shutting them up? Is their obvious bias toward causing trouble going to show not just overt prejudice, but also a very obvious attempt to influence the judicial system and the outcome of real-world trials?
If CNN, and others of their ilk, try someone in the press – nothing new, by the way, it has happened for a long time – who will be able to get a fair trial? And should CNN, et al., be held responsible for such interference when/if evidence is found to show that an accused person was, in fact, NOT the guilty party, despite their attempts to hang him high? This, also, is not something new.
Since it appears to me that CNN is doing everything possible to hang Drejka to keep him from getting a fair trial, what is the solution to their miscreance?
Category: Crime
I think CNN ranks below Dog the Bounty Hunter as far as ratings go, probably because of their agenda. My problem with CNN is that I’m given no other choice when traveling through our airports. How can this be?
I’ve heard about that. It may be a violation of the Sherman AntiTrust Act, but not sure.
The thing is, if the various airports offer only one station for news it really does not force you into a corner. You can pick up other news on your own ED, or just not watch any of it at all.
There is a restaurant I sometimes go to that will not run anything except the local Fox channel, which is fine with me. But I’m under no obligation to watch anything presented on those screens.
For a long time some air bases would only permit CNN on base common area TV’s. Barksdale and Little Rock are examples. How could that have been?
Who had control of that concession?
Does that mean that no local channels were allowed on TVs at all? How were people supposed to get accurate weather forecasts if only CNN was allowed?
At Camp Victory Baghdad DFAC news was the only thing allowed on the TVs during duty hours, 9-1700 hrs.
One of the news networks was prohibited, which one escapes me, because of some report about something or other, maybe a General.
The military is sometimes the twilight zone.
Wasn’t Fox News banned because Geraldo Rivera posted some OPSEC-violating maps of current operations? This would have been during the initial Iraq invasion in 2003.
CNN was staple fare at the DFAC during every deployment I was on starting in 1997 when we went to Hungary and Croatia for Operation Joint Guard.
CNN was more or less middle-of-the-road politically up until the mid 2000’s. I think the rise of Fox News pushed them over to the left end of the political spectrum. Now it’s all Trump-hate, all the time on CNN.
I visited a Soviet sub base at Liepāja, Latvia, just before the breakup of the Soviet Union. I reported to the base commander on arrival. He was watching CNN on a TV in his office. I spent three days at the Officers Quarters, and they only received the TV version of Pravda.
I’m referring to the ‘07-‘09 time frame. I do remember that Geraldo CF thought. Still in effect in early ‘04.
One spoon, bless his soul, whould put on CNBC for the stocks, he was a fellow trader.
What a glorious thing; being a young person, time zones away from Wall Street, with ample supply of tax free monies to throw at Mr. Market.
I owe that paper c**t can wearin’ SOB a lukewarm Rip It.
Would and paper c**t cap.
We need an edit, for serious.
And I need 6 less yuenglings in me.
CNN is down there with “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo” and “Jersey Shore”in the annals of TV history.
CNN loses in the ratings to “Dr. Pimple Popper” and “My 600lb Life” on TLC, and to anything on the History Channel or Cartoon Network.
The ”
Criminal Nerd Network”!
“Free Jorden’s fooo everybody”!
All Sharpton
CNN is ISIS.
That pesky Constitution though… Who here would want to give Government or jurisprudence power to censor?
Let the jury figure it out.
BTW, reminds me:
Would you let your future be decided by someone too stupid to get out of jury duty?
Easy way out of jury duty. Our courthouse recently decided they did not have enough security, so now anyone going into the courthouse has to empty their pockets and pass through a metal detector. IE, a warrant-less search. Got subpoenaed for jury duty. Refused to empty my pockets for the deputy at the courthouse door. Was told I couldn’t enter the courthouse. Showed my subpoena, deputy still would not let me in the building unless I submitted to a search. Went home, called the judge’s office, told him where I was and that I was more than ready to come serve on the jury, but I was not submitting to a reason-less search. Never heard from anyone – in spite of the deputies threat of a “warrant for my arrest.” The aggravating part was that I really wanted to serve on a jury.
There have been lots of cases that got more media attention than this, in which an impartial jury was still seated. If there is concern that media coverage may have affected potential jurors, the judge can ensure that counsel for both sides are given sufficient latitude in voir dire to examine potential jurors, and can liberally grant challenges for cause. A wordy way of saying that the Court can deal with it.
Not surprised- the video clearly shows McGlockton backing away from the shooter.
Well, you can’t just go outside and shoot that barking dog so your choices are to either ignore it or bark louder.
I remember during the Zimmerman fiasco that one of the network news channels aired a doctored version of the 911 call to make Zimmerman appear racist. Most journalists and news organizations no longer posses integrity. It’s about pushing the editor’s or owner’s personal agenda and damn the truth. I see no useful purpose for journalists except maybe as medical experimentation subjects in China. Oh yeah, some ass hat at CNN thinks we should thank journalists for their service the same as we thank Vets.
There is video of the deceased “baby’s momma” arguing with the white guy about her illegally parking in a disabled parking spot. The video clearly shows the deceased as the aggressor who pushed him to the ground. If the Black guy had left it at that rather than hover over the man on the ground in a threatening manner, it may be different. Add to the mix a Black mayor and all of the bleeding heart anti-gun liberals and this is what happens.
^^THIS^^
As for CNN; I was just reading about that boob Cuomo’s statements last night on air condoning, encouraging, and giving moral high ground to the rioting of a bunch of black masked terrorists from Antifa over the weekend. So since CNN wants to throw in with an actual terrorist organization, they are now openly terrorist propaganda.
Time to shut them down. They haven’t factually reported on the news in decades. They are at best a televised 24-hour tabloid.
Absolutely no question, CM.
The video clearly shows him backing away from the prone shooter prior to being shot. This resets the clock, and is why it is not a Stand Your Ground event.
Yes, because shooting someone is the best reaction to being shoved to the ground.
Also note EX-PH2’s point that both men were hotheads.
Yep. And never NEVER start an argument with someone, especially over a parking spot, if you are legally carrying a weapon.
As my License to Carry class instructor said…
“When you put on your weapon to go into public, take off your attitude and your middle finger.”
You are held to a higher standard of conduct. You ignore middle fingers, be nice and if you are not a police officer don’t tell people where to park. Not your job.
Yep. Don’t engage in any form of even perceived aggression driving either. Because if someone truly raged on you and attacked you at a stoplight, and you had to use deadly force, you would be likely screwed if you had brake checked the other person and “instigated” the confrontation.
I do not know what to think on this one based on the facts as I see them. Seems to me there was political pressure placed on the powers that be to make a scapegoat out of Dejka. On the other hand, McGlockton had a larger size differential and started the incident by blindsiding Dejka.
I’m not quite sure which side of the fence I’m on but I will respectfully disagree with you. Dejka initiated this whole scene while he was armed. People parking in handicapped spots is an issue for the police to deal with. Not armed citizens. McGlockton had no business pushing him either, since he wasn’t doing anything other than talking/arguing with his woman.. I don’t know, just another stupid stupid stupid episode that should have never occurred. Actually I do know which side of the fence I’m on now… This is what happens when two dummies interact with each other and one has a gun..
+10.
Indeed. Having to use deadly force with your legally carried personal weapon should basically be a complete surprise to you that you barely saw coming. Not the result of being the parking lot know it all.
If you include CNN’s “discovery” of Drejka’s history of confrontational behavior, which he engaged in at inappropriate times, e.g., driving a car and yelling at someone, it’s easier to understand why the police chief changed his mind and decided to go to trial over this incident.
Unfortunately, CNN’s scumbag habits of digging for dirt may very likely prejudice the case so that he gets out of the charges and the ‘stand your ground’ rule is deemed sufficient to dismiss charges against him.
This is my objection to CNN’s sticking their noses into this. If McGlockton had been a white man instead of black, would CNN have been as likely to make a nuisance of itself this way? I’d say “No”, but now we’ll never know because of their interference.
WRT the case at hand you are correct that all states allows self-defense to be raised as an absolute defense to a charge of murder.
However, in the legal world, there is “perfect” and “imperfect” self defense. In “perfect” self defense, the person using deadly force is innocent of all wrongdoing, and can then raise the absolute defense (i.e. be relieved of all criminal culpability.)
“Imperfect” self defense means that the person using deadly force for his defense doesn’t have ‘clean hands.’ Most commonly, this happens when you have two people who engage in a fight voluntarily (the term often used is a “mutual affray”) and during the course of the fight, one of them fears for his life and uses a gun, knife or other deadly force against the other person.
Yes, in the strictest sense of the term, he was “acting in self defense” because at that point he legitimately feared for his life.
But the circumstance in which he made that determination was one that he either initiated (i.e. he started the fight) or was a willing participant in, one that he had the opportunity to avoid but chose not to, and that means he was not “totally innocent” at the point where he used deadly force.
“Perfect” self defense is an absolute defense and if the jury finds he acted in self defense, he is acquitted. But in a case of “imperfect” self defense, all the finding of self-defense does is that it reduces what would otherwise be a murder charge down to voluntary manslaughter, which I believe is what has happened here.
The shooter is charged with manslaughter because his “self defense” arose out of a confrontation that he either initiated or was a willing participant in.
A few thoughts:
1) The girlfriend was getting out of the car to continue the conversation with Drejka. While I have no idea what was being said or how it was being said, Drejka wasn’t making any movements with his body to indicate he was going to attack her.
2) McGlockton walks up and without any hesitation or apparent warning, he shoves Drejka HARD. Drejka goes right on his ass. Regardless of dialogue, I have a hard time seeing how that was justified.
3) McGlockton does take a step back once Drejka draws and aims. Should this alone have saved him?
Not sure where I stand on this one. Drejka had a reputation for being a nosy busybody who often confronted people over stupid shit like parking spots, including displaying weapons previously, IIRC. But that’s not what matters here.
Did McGlockton present a reasonable threat to Drejka’s safety right then and there? Was that threat ameliorated by stepping back at the sight of a weapon? Really not sure.
Key word in bold. The law usually requires that before deadly force can be used, the user must reasonably believe they are at risk of death or serious bodily injury.
If the belief was genuine but not reasonable, then that could be another example of “imperfect self defense” that reduces what would be a murder charge to manslaughter.
People get pushed all the time. Is merely being pushed to the ground enough to cause a reasonable person to believe they are going to be killed? I think it would be tough to make that argument, but that is exactly the argument that Drejka’s lawyers will be free to make in court.
The lack of reasonableness of Drjeka’s belief that he was going to be killed, combined with the role he played in initiating the confrontation in the first place, seem to be the main factors in the prosecutors decision to charge him.
Yeah, it all comes down to that push. For whatever reason, when I first heard of this, I imagined the push was a one-handed, light thing, more wrist-motion than anything else. I mean, if some guy was angrily talking to my wife but not assaulting her, that’s probably how my intervention would start. If he wanted to escalate it, fine, let’s do this shit, but I definitely wouldn’t start the way McGlockton did.
Frankly, I think in the end, the jury (or judge) will find that opening by McGlockton to be much too aggressive (in addition, he continued standing over him until the gun was shown, he was a bigger guy) and Drejka will be absolved of all charges.
Far more uncertain than Trayvon or Michael Brown, though.
And BTW this case has nothing to do with “stand your ground” laws (nor, for that matter, did the Zimmerman case have anything to do with the “stand your ground” law, even though it was erroneously reported to be so at the time.)
All “stand your ground” laws mean is that a person who is the victim of a violent attack has no “duty to retreat.”
“Stand your ground” laws don’t apply when a loud mouthed a-hole starts an argument (an argument he had no obligation or duty to start) and then thinks he’s going to get his ass kicked.
“Stand your ground” laws are written for law abiding non-a-hole citizens who are violently assaulted and have the legitimate right to use deadly force if they truly believe they are going to suffer death or serious bodily injury as a result.
The purpose of a “stand your ground” law is to prevent prosecutors from second-guessing and Monday-morning-quarterbacking people in situations where they legitimately use deadly force.
Absolutely correct.
One thing to note, too… we have no audio. The footage I have seen is silent, and we may be missing McGlockton saying something akin to “in 5 seconds I am going to kick your ass into next week” or whatever, which would certainly change the perception that he was deescalating. Based on the SILENT footage Drejka was not justified in shooting… but I’ll bet cash green money one or both of them were talking – and what was being said could be important.
+10
Exactly. Self defense is one thing. Not retreating is another.
This is being turned into a legal mess by CNN’s interference and presumption that they know anything at all (which I believe they don’t). But they will ding this to do, use it to stir up trouble where there should be none at all, and if nothing else, Drejka may get either a mistrial or a dismissal. And there is no reason at all for anyone to get their undies in a wad over it, but CNN will see to it that it happens.
I’m not defending what Drejka did at all. I am, however, appalled at the meddling going on with CNN.
Agreed. But are you surprised?
Surprised? No, not at all. It was only a matter of time.
The fact that the shooter is white and the other guy who knocked him down was black is more important than who started the quarrel and who punched whom.
Agree…
Concur. Dude went looking for a fight and found one.
It certainly doesn’t justify his shooting anyone in retaliation.
As Florida has so many seniors living there the stand your ground rule was a simple recognition of the reality regarding duty to retreat…
65-90 year olds aren’t winning a lot of foot races against 16-40 year old robbers (the age group most charged with robbery)…consequently it was deemed an appropriate response for someone unable to retreat for a variety of reasons to be protected from a prosecutor “following” the law by worrying about a dead shit bag.
Based on his history this guy seems like someone who was looking to get into a shooting someday, it’s just too bad the wife didn’t shoot him in the fucking face when we confronted her in the first place.
It also reinforces some simple concepts. Don’t start a fight with someone you aren’t intending to finish, once they’re down either disarm them or take them out so they don’t get back up. Someone who can sit up and draw a pistol is still a rather serious danger. Better to go to jail for assaulting an asshole than get buried for trying to back away after an assault…but that’s just me.
Surprised he was arrested? No! Politics all over this. Surprised CNN is stirring the pot? No! It’s what they do. Surprised two stupid people did stupid stuff? No! It’s Florida. Will he get off? Very good chance. Will there be rioting in the streets? Now THAT was a stupid question!
That’s what I’m anticipating, also.
Well there’s rioting when they win, when they lose, when they are for an event, and when they’re against an event. So yeah, there’ll be rioting. No matter what.
The stand your ground law in Florida is for responsible people which has a lot to be desired. If all the people who carry Concealed weapons were responsible, I would go for the law but down here, there are a lot of non responsible A Holes so I would like to see this law abolished for outside of your home and just make it a self defense law where one would have to retreat unless the person’s back was against the “wall” and there wasn’t anymore room to go. I carried a firearm for 37 years up in NYC and we didn’t have the stand your ground law and I never had a problem with that. A few years ago in Broward County, Florida, a used car salesman was taking a potential customer out for a spin when his car was rear ended by another car which backed up after hitting the dealer so the dealer has his clipboard in his hand with the insurance info and starts to walk towards the car that hit his car when the guy who rear ended him opens up with a hand gun killing the the car dealer. His defense was that he thought that his life was in danger. I never found out the outcome on this incident but if it was up to me, Life in prison or lethal injection. A responsible CCW owner dresses diferently, does not get involved in any incidents, eats crow when confronted and walks away without opening his/her mouth etc. I’ll probally get a lot of static over this but it is my own personel feeling.
Jeff,
How is that an indictment of Stand Your Ground? That shooting was not justified as there was no reasonable fear from an insurance clipboard, unless the thing looked just like a gun.
SYG says if you are legally allowed to be somewhere, you do not have a duty to retreat. That is it. It does not mean you can make up new justifications for shooting people.
What if someone is drawing a gun on you in the middle of an open parking lot? If you try to run, he could just shoot you in the back. If that guy is from a protected class, you will be told that you had a duty to retreat and let him shoot you.
What about a defense of others scenario? You could be expected to run like a coward as opposed to defending your family.
“A responsible CCW owner dresses diferently, does not get involved in any incidents, eats crow when confronted and walks away without opening his/her mouth etc.” And a responsible driver doesn’t drink and drive, cause car accidents, and doesn’t get enraged when an incident happens on the road. My point? We don’t ban all driving because some people are aholes and irresponsible.
2/17 Air Cav; I Believe it’s too easy for a CCW holder to use the stand your ground law when a defense law would stop a lot of shootings because the CCW holder would have to used other options unless it was a life or death situation. As I mentioned, I carried a firearm for 37 years working for Brink’s and I do carry concealed down here, wear extra large shirts etc., like I mentioned above.
This asshole was looking for a reason to shoot someone. There are two separate police reports that he displayed his weapon in ‘road-rage’ incidents and a third at the same store involving a handicap parking place. With that history and that video, I hope the SOB is guilty and given whatever the max is.
There’s no argument there from me, Air Cav.
But the point was that CNN decided, in its stupidity and need to stir a pot, to interfere in something when they should have left it alone. They did this with Zimmerman/Martin, too, and created a firestorm that was unnecessary. They also did this in Ferguson, MO, and look at what happened.
CNN is as much the culprit here as Drejka, the shooter, because of their need to get involved. They are way out of line in this, but because they’ve interfered, Drejka may go unpunished for what he did.
“the point was that CNN decided, in its stupidity and need to stir a pot, to interfere in something when they should have left it alone. They did this with Zimmerman/Martin, too, and created a firestorm that was unnecessary. They also did this in Ferguson, MO, and look at what happened.”
CNN hoisted a narrative that led to the radicalization and/or actions of a black supremacist that killed 5 Dallas Police Officers?
CNN wants it’s viewers on the plantation and ignorant of the direction to the promised land.
OmegaPaladin;
Just saying that there are a lot of CCw’S that are not responsible when it comes to using escalation of force including deadly physical force when the person did not need to use it. Florida penal code says that one can use deadly physical force in the protection of a second, third party. One can still protect themselves and others with a non stand your ground law. What I’m trying to say is that there are a lot of irrisponsable CCW holders out there who shouldn’t be carrying a concealed weapon. You say one should not run like a coward, It’s not running like a coward, it’s about not getting involved in a confrontation unless your life is definitly in danger from a deadly force situation. The guy in the car could just have easily driven away and gone to a police station since he was a distance from the car salesman. I carry concealed down here and mind my P’s & q’s and use situation awareness and try and stay to the left of bang. And retreating is not turning your back but is distancing yourself away from a confrontation. A person displaying a weapon is a different story when protecting yourself and a second/third party.
Jeff,
You are worried about CCW people being irresponsible. I get that.
I am worried about irresponsible prosecutors who would interpret the self-defense law such that a duty to retreat means a duty to turn and run, even if the bad guy has the ability to shoot you or your family is in jeopardy. You might be exonerated, but only after you spent millions on lawyers. If you happen to shoot a black man, expect to tried and executed in the media.
That’s the reason behind strong defenses like the castle doctrine and SYG. If you can properly establish it, you can stop prosecutions before they get out of hand.
Drejka’s arrest warrent:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4755192-Michael-Drejka-Arrest-Warrant-081318.html
Read this to get a better understanding how this is NOT a “stand your ground” case.
Even though the uninformed are calling it one.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/08/manslaughter-charges-filed-in-florida-handicap-parking-spot-shooting/