Taurus Firearm Forum banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,594 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
35,534 Posts
Probably a fair sentence. He might find that he won't be able to be a bully in there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,594 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Just like Amber Guyger, the jury decided and now it'll play out as it should.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICUKev

·
Registered
Joined
·
677 Posts
Some questionable things in the article. "Mitigating Circumstances", NO, is that the best argument your lawyer could make? Go to Jail, go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Is the activist saying that 'Stand Your Ground' is bad for blacks? Seems worse than the Martin case to me, pretty clear-cut. Is the Martin reference just used by the activists? Stand your ground does not apply here. So it is not in question. The prosecutor decided it didn't apply when they decided to prosecute?

We all ignore people parked in Handicapped spots just like we ignore people that have conned their doctors into giving them Handicapped stickers.

You created the problem, you didn't deescalate, here's your sign.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,677 Posts
If that had been a police officer that was violently shoved to the ground and had a large man hovering over him in a threatening manner, no one would be questioning this man.

Sad that a mere citizen can be violently attacked and then punished when he defends himself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,785 Posts
If that had been a police officer that was violently shoved to the ground and had a large man hovering over him in a threatening manner, no one would be questioning this man.

Sad that a mere citizen can be violently attacked and then punished when he defends himself.
When You initiate the confrontation You are the aggressor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rotorflyr

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,427 Posts
When You initiate the confrontation You are the aggressor.
Chewing someone out over a parking spot makes someone a jerk, but not an aggressor.

Words are not violent acts. Words are not physical assaults. Words are words.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RScottie

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,427 Posts
If that had been a police officer that was violently shoved to the ground and had a large man hovering over him in a threatening manner, no one would be questioning this man.

Sad that a mere citizen can be violently attacked and then punished when he defends himself.
Sad that someone has to appoint themselves as parking lot czar. Sad that someone carries a gun but lets their self-control be usurped by a self-centered parking violator.

When Drejka pulled the trigger, McGlockton wasn’t hovering, he was pulling back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,594 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Chewing someone out over a parking spot makes someone a jerk, but not an aggressor.

Words are not violent acts. Words are not physical assaults. Words are words.
actually, it DOES make you the aggressor.
Wife pulls into handicap spot to let husband escort son to the bathroom.
Drejka gets bent out of shape and starts yelling at the woman in the car.
Husband comes out with son and sees stranger yelling at his wife.
Husband not knowing the psychological makeup of guy screaming at his wife or if the guy isn't strung out on something sees him as an immediate.. THREAT.
Husband removes the immediate threat by shoving him to the ground.
Drejka pulls a gun and shoots the husband.
This is exactly how it played out.
Are you now trying to claim that Drejka is the victim here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,427 Posts
actually, it DOES make you the aggressor.
Wife pulls into handicap spot to let husband escort son to the bathroom.
Drejka gets bent out of shape and starts yelling at the woman in the car.
Husband comes out with son and sees stranger yelling at his wife.
Husband not knowing the psychological makeup of guy screaming at his wife or if the guy isn't strung out on something sees him as an immediate.. THREAT.
Husband removes the immediate threat by shoving him to the ground.
Drejka pulls a gun and shoots the husband.
This is exactly how it played out.
Are you now trying to claim that Drejka is the victim here?
I'm just looking at the video, listening to the testimony. It would help if people would (OBTW -- the son did not come out of the store with McGlockton).

I'll repeat -- yelling is not grounds for a physical assault. And you don't have to take my word for it -- go to a local WalMart, do something inconsiderate that gets a person to yell at you, then wait for the opportunity, cold-cock that person, and put them on the ground. Which of the two of you is likely to take a ride in the backseat of an LEO's car? (When you're arrested, be sure to tell the officer you had to get physical because you were being yelled at). For reference: https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/elements-of-assault.html

Or the Florida statue:

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.


It might be useful to project into McGlockton's mind what he was thinking, but again -- watch the video. If McGlockton's worried about a threat to his girlfriend (Jacobs), where's the urgency in his stride as he stalks toward Drejka? Why wouldn't he shout to distract or warn Drejka away from his girlfriend?

And the threat? Where in the video does Drejka attempt to breach the barrier of the car? Never. He never touches the car, always leaves distance between himself and the car, makes no move that could be reasonably interpreted as an effort to threaten Jacobs. In her own testimony, Jacobs never mentioned feeling unsafe or in fear of Drejka. She never said that Drejka threatened her. She even voluntarily left the safety of the car to confront Drejka AFTER she saw her boyfriend coming towards the incident. Is that the behavior of someone who feels threatened?

McGlockton had plenty of time in his slow walk towards Drejka (c. 6 seconds) to assess the threat Drejka posed. Which was --- wait for it -- NONE. There is nothing in Drejka's demeanor or stance that indicates he is prepared or intending to commit a violent act.

So, no. McGlockton was not justified in attacking Drejka. At the point in time that McGlockton attacked Drejka, Drejka WAS the victim, up until the point where he draws his gun. Again, refer to the video. McGlockton is moving AWAY from Drejka when he is shot.

I believe the conviction is fair, based on the observation that McGlockton was retreating. But I don't believe that McGlockton was justified in initiating the physical violence.

But let's take your chronology and make one little change:

Husband comes out with son and sees stranger yelling at his wife.
Husband not knowing the psychological makeup of guy screaming at his wife or if the guy isn't strung out on something sees
DISRESPECT

There. Now McGlockton's behavior during the incident makes sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,677 Posts
When You initiate the confrontation You are the aggressor.
There was no assault until the man was thrown to the ground violently.

That was physical assault and could have been deadly if the man had hit his head or broken his hip.

In the same way you cannot shoot someone for yelling at you, you cannot shove them to the ground either.

If this had been a policeman having a discussion with the woman in the car and the boyfriend would have done the same thing, the officer likely would have shot him and the public would have said it was justified.

The only reason people are saying this was not justified was because this man was a "mere" citizen.

It is sad that people think it is OK to violently throw someone to the ground over a verbal discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,677 Posts
Sad that someone has to appoint themselves as parking lot czar. Sad that someone carries a gun but lets their self-control be usurped by a self-centered parking violator.

When Drejka pulled the trigger, McGlockton wasn’t hovering, he was pulling back.
I saw no one losing control during the discussion over the parking place.

The person that lost control was the guy that decided he was going to violently throw a man to the ground for pointing out that his girlfriend was in a handicapped space without being handicapped.

The person that lost control was shot because he physically assaulted another person.

The person that was assaulted was thrown to the ground and was in fear of further attack. The person that shoved him to the ground was also threatening to further attack the guy on the ground although that is not heard on the silent video.

The police have a 21 foot rule that states an aggressor is a threat if they are within 21 feet. They keep this in mind when they are attacked because it has been shown that an attacker can get to you and do serious harm if they are within 21 feet BEFORE you can draw your gun and defend yourself.

The aggressor was within 21 feet (about 6 actually) and indicating he was going to attack again when the man on the ground pulled his gun. This caused the aggressor to take a step back but it was too late as the guy drew and shot.

I have asked many people how many kicks to the head should the guy on the ground have had to endure before he would have been permitted to draw his gun and fire?

When you are on the ground, you are extremely vulnerable to kicks to the head and it does not take but one well landed kick to disable a person.

Y'all are letting the circumstances of the verbal dispute cloud your judgement on the physical assault. The physical assault was initiated by the man that was ultimately shot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,594 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I saw no one losing control during the discussion over the parking place.

The person that lost control was the guy that decided he was going to violently throw a man to the ground for pointing out that his girlfriend was in a handicapped space without being handicapped.

The person that lost control was shot because he physically assaulted another person.

The person that was assaulted was thrown to the ground and was in fear of further attack. The person that shoved him to the ground was also threatening to further attack the guy on the ground although that is not heard on the silent video.

The police have a 21 foot rule that states an aggressor is a threat if they are within 21 feet. They keep this in mind when they are attacked because it has been shown that an attacker can get to you and do serious harm if they are within 21 feet BEFORE you can draw your gun and defend yourself.

The aggressor was within 21 feet (about 6 actually) and indicating he was going to attack again when the man on the ground pulled his gun. This caused the aggressor to take a step back but it was too late as the guy drew and shot.

I have asked many people how many kicks to the head should the guy on the ground have had to endure before he would have been permitted to draw his gun and fire?

When you are on the ground, you are extremely vulnerable to kicks to the head and it does not take but one well landed kick to disable a person.

Y'all are letting the circumstances of the verbal dispute cloud your judgement on the physical assault. The physical assault was initiated by the man that was ultimately shot.
It seems the jury disagrees with your assessment. One of the first things they teach you when going for the CCW/CHL is to go out of your way to avoid altercations. Drejka started the altercation. That's why he was convicted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rotorflyr

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,677 Posts
It seems the jury disagrees with your assessment. One of the first things they teach you when going for the CCW/CHL is to go out of your way to avoid altercations. Drejka started the altercation. That's why he was convicted.
He started a discussion.

The altercation began with the violent assault of being thrown to the ground.

The first is not illegal, the second is.

The Jury got it wrong. Would love to hear the Judges instructions. An appeal may be warranted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,785 Posts
There was no assault until the man was thrown to the ground violently.

That was physical assault and could have been deadly if the man had hit his head or broken his hip.

In the same way you cannot shoot someone for yelling at you, you cannot shove them to the ground either.

If this had been a policeman having a discussion with the woman in the car and the boyfriend would have done the same thing, the officer likely would have shot him and the public would have said it was justified.

The only reason people are saying this was not justified was because this man was a "mere" citizen.

It is sad that people think it is OK to violently throw someone to the ground over a verbal discussion.
There does not have to be a physical assault, when You are yelling and being confrontational You are the aggressor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,427 Posts
Drejka's actions and demeanor on the video demonstrated no actual threat to anything but an ego. Jacobs's (the girlfriend's) testimony during the trial supports that. Saying Drejka posed some kind of threat to Jacobs directly contradicts the facts at hand.

Florida law specifically states force short of deadly force (e.g., shoving someone to the ground) is only justified when a threat exists. I suspect most other states have similar statutes.

In the video, a man pulls up in front of the store in a white car while Drejka is confronting Jacobs. The man watches, then goes inside. Shortly after, McGlockton comes directly out, but not in a hurried manner as if he expected to have to defend Jacobs. Not to the door to see what's up, but directly out. It is reasonable to infer that in some way, the 'white car man' communicated to McGlockton that Jacobs was being yelled at.

At that point, McGlockton is on stage. He's got the people who know he's going out to handle it watching. He's got a son who's in the store who will know how his dad handled the situation. He has his girlfriend and other kids in the car who will witness how he handles someone disrespecting his woman.

McGlockton's decision was not to warn Drejka away. It was not to involve law enforcement. It was not to defuse the situation. It was not to just leave. It was to physically attack someone who most certainly was being a class A jerk, but just as certainly did not pose a physical threat. A smaller, less physically capable person. A person who was unaware of McGlockton's approach until he was violently knocked to the ground.

I understand the general animosity towards Drejka. From all accounts, he had a history of being a kind of low-level 'wound collector', going off on someone who had committed some sort of social or personal slight towards him. He's the kind of person most of us would prefer not to be associated with.

But disliking someone is not grounds for bending a narrative to accommodate that dislike and to satisfy a 'he deserved what he got' feeling.

Did Drejka initiate the entire event? Not really. The event was initiated by the first act that departed from the legal and social norm. Parking in a designated handicap spot. There's been some rationalization that it wasn't even a legally-marked handicap spot. Doesn't matter. Everyone involved believed it was a handicapped spot.

Did Drejka initiate the confrontation? Yes. By yelling. By using words. We'd call a millennial who was talking about it being okay to attack someone who was using hurtful words a snowflake. What term shall we use for people who believe it was okay or McGlockton to physically attack Drejka for using hurtful words? The fact that he instigated the confrontation worked against him overall, but if Drejka had not drawn his gun, the incident would more likely have ended with McGlockton being charged.

I'm beginning to believe the number of people who believe it's okay to physically attack someone who is using hurtful words might help explain the increasing incidence of road rage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,427 Posts
I saw no one losing control during the discussion over the parking place.
We all have different concepts of what being 'in control' looks like. My concept of 'in control' does not stretch to include berating strangers for their parking transgressions.


The person that lost control was the guy that decided he was going to violently throw a man to the ground for pointing out that his girlfriend was in a handicapped space without being handicapped.

(snip)

The aggressor was within 21 feet (about 6 actually) and indicating he was going to attack again when the man on the ground pulled his gun. This caused the aggressor to take a step back but it was too late as the guy drew and shot.
Not sure about the 'attack again' -- on the video, McGlockton doesn't appear to be following up his shove with an attack. He strolls in, hitches up his pants, but his demeanor isn't that of an attack.

But McGlockton does start backing away before Drejka even presents his gun, and is turning away before the shot. About two-three seconds of retreat before being shot. It doesn't sound like much, but I believe it should have been enough for Drejka to recognize he was no longer directly threatened. Your opinion might be otherwise.

Y'all are letting the circumstances of the verbal dispute cloud your judgement on the physical assault. The physical assault was initiated by the man that was ultimately shot.
THAT, I will agree with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,427 Posts
It seems the jury disagrees with your assessment. One of the first things they teach you when going for the CCW/CHL is to go out of your way to avoid altercations. Drejka started the altercation. That's why he was convicted.
A jury verdict might be something I'd point to as a result, but maybe not as representing an expert opinion on law.

Regarding Drejka losing legal justification for use of force, that becomes a dicey issue. The applicable parts of the statute bolded:


776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless

a) Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102; s. 7, ch. 2014-195.



So, yes -- Drejka initiated the overall confrontation. BUT where I think the jury got the basis for the conviction wrong was regarding section (2)(a) -- Immediately after he physically attacked Drejka, McGlockton did pose a threat of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm to Drejka, and Drejka had no reasonable means to escape that danger. At that point, Drejka was justified in drawing his gun.

But overall I agree with the verdict, because I believe Drejka had the opportunity to recognize that McGlockton had broken off the attack and was backing away before he took the shot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,677 Posts
There does not have to be a physical assault, when You are yelling and being confrontational You are the aggressor.
You are projecting your bias that the man was yelling and we have no evidence that he was yelling.

We have no audio of the encounter, we have video. That video appears to show him talking normally and not animated or being confrontational.

If anything, that video shows that the woman in the car is the one that is becoming confrontational as she does not like someone telling her she is in the wrong.

But, it still does not matter as the person that went physical was the one that broke the law first.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top