Clearwater Parking Lot ‘Stand Your Ground’ Shooter Convicted of Manslaughter

Drejka McGlockton shooting stand your ground manslaughter

Courtesy WFLA and YouTube

You may remember the July, 2018 shooting of Markeis McGlockton in the parking lot of a convenience store in Clearwater, Florida. The shooting was caught by a security camera.

McGlockton had just come out of the store and found Michael Drejka confronting his girlfriend who was in his car at the time.

McGlockton pushed Drejka to the ground and Drejka then shot McGlockton to death with a .40 caliber GLOCK pistol.

Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gaultieri had initially decided not to charge Drejka on the basis of Florida’s “stand your ground” law, claiming that the law prevented him from charing Drejka in the shooting. That brought national attention to the case.

Pinellas county prosecutors, however, later issued a warrant for Drejka’s arrest and charged him with manslaughter.

Tonight, after a week-long trial, a jury found Drejka guilty of manslaughter in the shooting death of McGlockton.

As the Tampa Bay Times reports . . .

A jury found Michael Drejka guilty of manslaughter late Friday in the 2018 shooting death of Markeis McGlockton in a convenience store parking lot.

The conviction came after 6 ½ hours of deliberations by the jury of five men and one woman.

It was read aloud at 10:41 p.m. Drejka stared straight ahead, standing beside his lawyers. He could face up to 30 years in prison. …

The verdict concludes a week-long trial that wound through the argument, the shove and the shot on July 19, 2018, at the Circle A Food Store near Clearwater. Jurors heard from witnesses ranging from experts in toxicology and use-of-force to a man whom Drejka confronted five months earlier in the same parking lot. They also heard from McGlockton’s girlfriend, whom Drejka first approached the day of the shooting.

Drejka’s defense team argued that their client was in reasonable fear for his life and acted accordingly.

“He did what he thought he had to do, in the moment, in the split-second time, given that he was attacked,” Drejka attorney John Trevena said during his closing argument.

“You may not agree with the law. But you took an oath as a juror to uphold the law.”

That obviously wasn’t the way the jury saw it.

 

 

comments

  1. avatar Sam I Am says:

    We have a quaint legal notion that a jury must make judgement based not on what a juror might think reasonable, but what the defender reasonably believed about the imminence of death or grievous bodily harm. Take note, this tension between beliefs of a juror, and beliefs of a defender is an impossible standard. Who really expects that a jury, sitting in the quiet safety of the jury box, will truly put aside their prejudice regarding what they would do, and put on the mindset of the defender at the moment of decision.?

    What you and I believe is completely irrelevant. The jury will use its own individual concepts of “reasonable”. Since most people (thus jurors) do not own guns, much less carry one, just the presence of a gun will seem “unreasonable”. That is likely the end, not the beginning of deliberation.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Sounds like you’re channeling your old 2asux persona Sam when you make that ‘most folks don’t own a gun’ statement. Or do you honestly believe that 4-600 million guns and metric shit tons of ammo are owned by a handful of OFWG’s?

      Even if you accept that conservative estimate of 100 million gun owners that still means that roughly 1 out of every 3 people own a gun.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Sounds like you’re channeling your old 2asux persona Sam when you make that ‘most folks don’t own a gun’ statement”.

        Based on what I read, 2Asux would have argued that the gun should not have been present/permitted at all.

        “…roughly 1 out of every 3 people own a gun.”

        That means 2 of 3 don’t; “most”

        That 1 of 3 claim also discounts that gun owners may not make up much of the jury pool, having been dismissed because of owning a gun, or being smart enough to not be selected for the trial.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Knowing the way you love to argue and how you get with a few drinks in you I thought about not engaging you at all. Next time I’ll listen to that little warning voice in my head.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Knowing the way you love to argue and how you get with a few drinks in you I thought about not engaging you at all.”

          Now, this is interesting. You challenged one of my sentences with an approximated calculation. I countered with the reciprocal. Why are you dissatisfied with that? Why would you avoid counter-post in the future?

        3. avatar California Richard says:

          “…roughly 1 out of every 3 people own a gun.”

          That means 2 of 3 don’t; “most”

          I live in a household with six people and only one of them (me) is a gun owner. Oddly enough, my wife and kids all have guns despite not being gun owners. I don’t think those terms and statistics are accurate representations of reality.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I don’t think those terms and statistics are accurate representations of reality.”

          The number of legal gun owners, and the number of guns in private hands legally are both rough estimates, but for discussions, the data are useful.

        5. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          Sam that line about being smart enough not to be selected reminds me of a sating a lawyer once told me:

          You will be judged by 12 people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You will be judged by 12 people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty.”

          No one is judged by their peers. They are judged by a random, though filtered, selection of people in your jurisdiction. The idea of the jury being made up of peers was that the state had an advantage of huge proportions, and the counter was a jury favorable to the defendant. This put pressure on the state to convince not “impartial” jurors, but jurors skeptical of the state. Your peers would even include people who knew you personally, by reputation, or association with your friends. An “impartial” jury preserves the unfair advantage owned by the state.

        7. avatar rt66paul says:

          It isn’t that 1 out of 3 people are a gun owner, but how many actually carry on their person all the time(and are not LE?). There is a large prejudice against people that have a gun on their person all the time, ready for anything. Many people(especially those that do NOT know people that carry, think that these guys are criminal or just waiting to kill someone(because that is how the movies portray them). If you carry a gun, there must be a slimy reason – like you are a slumlord rent collector, a collector for bookies, or maybe a slimy private investigator who peeks in windows.
          The DA will sure make it seem slimy, so that he will try to make the jury believe that the gun carrier belongs in jail because he is a bad person. There are many places in this country where the juries will find the person guilty just because the police arrested him.

        8. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          Sam, I don’t know about these statistics, but I’ve been through hundreds of trials. If you tried to seat no one but non-gun owners in this judicial circuit you wouldn’t have a jury.

        9. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If you tried to seat no one but non-gun owners in this judicial circuit you wouldn’t have a jury.”

          Good circuit to live in. Bless you.

          The rest of us may not be so fortunate, and that is the risk.

          I live in a “circuit” where the local school board decried armed security for schools literally because we are better people than that. GFZ means GFZ, we must set an example for other school districts in the state. If we take a zero tolerance stance for guns, our reputation will spread far and wide, preventing even illegal guns from endangering our children. And if our children are slaughtered in classrooms, we will still have our honor and reputation for holding the moral high ground.

        10. avatar Ceefour says:

          The victim,Michael Drejka, was doing nothing but flapping his lips about illegal parking in a handicap zone. The attacking thug came up behind the victim and slammed him into the ground. It looked like the thug was going to step in for a stomp/kick but stopped when he saw the gun and it looked like he did step back,although the victim,who may have been dazed when he was thrown to the ground, may have perceived the thug lurking over him as a threat…this is quite plausible. The attacker was struck by a bullet from a gun used in self defense. The defense is going to appeal and will need funds.

        11. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The defense is going to appeal and will need funds.”

          Can’t make a judgement about the wisdom of that. Appeals courts review the process(es) used, rather than re-try facts. The SC already ruled that proof of actual innocence after conviction is not grounds for release from prison (Herrera v. Collins, 1993).

        12. avatar Anonymous says:

          You may not agree with the law. But you took an oath as a juror to uphold the law.”

          The purpose of the jury is a final check on the law itself. Just like two thirds of all juries ruled “acquit” during prohibition days when the defendant was charged in an alcohol related crime. So I disagree with the defense’s statement above. If the purpose was to simply agree with the law – they wouldn’t need a jury.

      2. avatar Dennis says:

        Actually he is correct. In fact the standard is called the “Reasonable Man” doctrine. You are asking the jury to “channel” the personal response and reaction of the shooter. It’s not the jury I’d be worried about but the ability of my attorney to articulate my position.

        On another point, no one knows what “Reasonable” means. I use the correct etymology of the word, which is entirely different from what the general population understands. Our educational system has set us up to be cattle. A few emotional appeals and ad Hominem attacks and most will jump on board although they are logical fallacy.

        Remember, they don’t even teach Constitutional Law at Harvard anymore. I’ve represented myself in 9 trial courts and 2 appellate courts, I’m not an attorney. I am educated but self taught in all the areas we are intentionally made deficient in. I have confronted judges on the law in open court on their reading of simple texts. The cards are stacked against us in the outset. If, you cannot educate the jury in a manner that they can accept, and, explain in detail your objection or position contrary to the prosecutor, you are pretty well sunk. People assume that you are there because you have done something wrong. You must overcome that prejudice in every step of the proceeding. I know, been there done that!

        1. avatar Ceefour says:

          And…don’t let the term “UNARMED” throw you off. More peeps are killed by assault with nothing but hands and feet than are shot with rifle/shotgun.

        2. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

          “They don’t even teach constitutional law at Harvard anymore”

          Are you excluding:
          Constitutional Law 1
          Constitutional Law 2
          Constitutional Law 3
          Constitutional Law 4
          Constitutional Law 5
          Constitutional Law 6
          Constitutional Law 7
          Constitutional History 1
          Comparative Constitutional Law
          Constitutional Law: First Amendment
          Constitutional Law: Separation of Powers, Federalism, and Fourteenth Amendment

          If you’re excluding all of those, then sure.

      3. avatar Larry Rodriguez says:

        one in three? That means, most people do not own a gun.

    2. avatar No One Special says:

      While you are more than likely right in your surmise that isn’t the way it is supposed to be which I also believe you know. As a juror a person should mentally put themselves in the position of the defendant and consider for themselves what is the reasonable course of action to them. In this case I think the jury got it right though.

      The shooter was said to be harassing the victims girlfriend before he was shoved and the shooting cominced. This is a clear case of actions have consequences. Had he not been a knucklehead to begin with he wouldn’t have gotten shoved and wouldn’t have felt compelled to shoot the victim. There is no clause in a stand your ground law that protects someone if they are the initial aggressor. Which in this case by the way it sounds the shooter was the initial aggressor.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        We agree on what a jury should do. It is the “what they most likely will do” that is the wrinkle.

        Not sure arguing with someone, even a heated argument constitutes “aggression” requiring a “shoving” of the trash talker. Now, if the defendant had the woman by the hair, dragging her out through the window, that probably would qualify as “aggression”, justifying a “shoving”. The ballistic response to that shoving is likely a case of “actions have consequences”, negating the claim of self-defense caused by an initial aggression on part of the shooter.

        Did the jury actually get this one right? Only if there were clear evidence the defendant did not believe the threat was imminent. It is what the defender believed in the moment, not “what if” something else. There is a classic court case about the unreasonableness of a defender taking time to contemplate the true intent of the attacker in the moment between the raised knife, and the actual penetration of the blade into the victim. I may know about that case, you may know about it. Jurors are highly unlikely to know of that case.

        1. avatar No One Special says:

          Again we agree but what would you do if someone were giving your significant other/wife an abusive tongue lashing? Granted I would have verbally confronted the guy first and not resorted to physical confrontation immediately. That would be my training overriding my testosterone though. I don’t know what your training is but it sounds like you have had some from somewhere. Dare I say that there are quite a number of males that don’t have such training that would help them overcome that initial testosterone response. All of that aside though. Looking at the video the victim took a step back when the gun was drawn. Given that I think we probably also agree that getting knocked on your ass literally doesn’t constitute deadly force for defense. Using your example of the knife case had the victim pushed the shooter and kept coming forward for more after the gun was pulled that would atleast to me signify further aggression. The victim didn’t do that though. He took a step back. That signifies retreat in my opinion.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Yeah, I would try to deploy my devastating wit to draw the “aggressor” away, hoping that would be the end of it (especially if i cower convincingly enough).

          The video of the “retreat” looks to me like someone prepping to “do the dance”, and continue the attack from a more advantageous position, preparing for another strike. Speculating that stepping back is not the “retreat” signal that turning away would be.

        3. avatar No One Special says:

          “Speculating that stepping back is not the “retreat” signal that turning away would be.”

          I can’t argue that or the possibility of a more advantageous approach of attack. Both are certainly possible. I was thinking the shove was the presentation of the “knife” and the backing away was the better thinking of not bringing a knife to a gunfight. Unfortunately in this case we really need to know what was going on in the mind of the shootee. Which under the circumstance isn’t possible.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Knowing what was in the minds of the two persons is the entire problem. We expect a jury understands the law, and can enter the mind of the defender, using that person’s perspective of the moment.

          As a research project, it is possible to contemplate a situation where the jurors would not know that a shot had been fired, and then attempt to apply “reasonableness” to the defenders possible next actions. Already knowing the bullet was fired, jurors are actually starting from a “guilty until proven…” stance. This framework is very difficult, requiring a juror to set aside knowledge of the outcome, and “reasoning”, from the defender’s perspective.

          Underscoring the episode, do not blithely presume what you perceive as “reasonable” will be so obvious to the jury. At best, the outcome is determined by people who do not enter with a hidden, but firm anti-gun mindset. At worst….well, no one can analyze and ponder the possibilities when faced with an attack. Right (correct) isn’t always right, even when it is right.

        5. avatar Sam says:

          Not from Florida, so I don’t know the law there. What I do know is that in many places if you are the initial aggressor of an altercation, you cannot claim self defense. The aggression doesn’t have to be physical. So the shooter, it seems from the information we have, was the initial aggressor by verbally “attacking” the girlfriend. This very possibly could have eliminated his ability to claim any sort of self defense simply because in many areas you must be blameless to the altercation that is occurring as would be the case in a robbery/mugging or sudden assault. It appears, basically, that he started the argument that led to the other participant’s death, hence the charge of manslaughter rather than murder. If the law was written in that area so that the initial aggressor can make no self defense claim, then it would seem the jury made the right decision by the law. This is, of course, all dependent on how the law is written regarding self defense in that area.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “This is, of course, all dependent on how the law is written regarding self defense in that area.”

          Agree.

          Without regard to jurisdiction and law, does a verbal “attack” (harsh words?) really justify a physical attack? If we are at the bar, and I call you an unmitigated idiot (in a loud, harsh tone), and you shove me down, would I be able to file an assault complaint? An injury claim? Could you seriously claim that your action was justified by an insult?

        7. avatar KenW says:

          Most people when facing a weapon and retreating are not going to turn their back on it.
          I know the time a muscle dude in full roid rage thought he was going to beat my ass in traffic that his reaction to seeing the weapon was to hold his arms up palms out and back away. Mine would be similar.
          Which is probably what the jury was lead to believe too. The man saw the weapon and was stepping back.

          Mr. parking lot enforcer should have bought a condo somewhere or belonged to a home association..

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Most people when facing a weapon and retreating are not going to turn their back on it.

          That’s one of the things that makes this event so interesting and instructive: reaction time. We often read about the disadvantage the defender has against an aggressor because the defender has to go through the OODA loop in reaction to movement.

          Several cases of self-defense were accompanied by bullet wounds in the side or back of the attacker. This is due to the bullet recipient flinching/turning away a literal split second before the defender pulls the trigger. The defender cannot process the flinch (turning away), and stop the already launched signal to pull the trigger. Given the lack of a camera viewing the front of the person shot, we cannot be certain of what that “retreat” actually was, and if we have an OODA loop matter regarding the defender. We also do not have the transcript to learn if the defense attorney tried to introduce reaction time as a mitigating factor: the defender first believed a deadly threat was imminent, and launched the reaction. The timing difference between the flinch reaction, and the inability to process the flinch might have been a heavy influence on the jury.

        9. avatar Tom says:

          “Now, if the defendant had the woman by the hair, dragging her out through the window, that probably would qualify as “aggression”, justifying a “shoving”.” ………… Which brings up another question. What ids the shooter had been female? My bet is that the jury reaches a not guilty verdict.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “What ids the shooter had been female?”

          Interesting question, that.

        11. avatar Carlton Mc Clung says:

          No doubt, this was a tough call however the man shoved the shooter so hard he fell off the curb and completely down and defenseless for a time, He had only split seconds to respond. The shooter was confronting a woman who was illegally parked in a handicap parking which angered the shooter. Her boyfriend or husband over-reacted and attact the shooter when the shooter never saw what was coming. I think that under the strict sense of the law, the jury got it wrong. I hope there is an appeal.

        12. avatar SoBe says:

          Sam
          I live in Florida.
          My understanding of Florida law is that two or three confrontations were involved in this case. The shooter v. girlfriend, #1, (not deadly force by any understanding) and boyfriend v. shooter, #2. What makes the case hard to define is shooter used deadly force v. boyfriend in the second fight where the boyfriend was the initial aggressor. The question is not whether the shooter was the initial aggressor but whether he was facing an IMMINENT threat of DEATH OR SERIOUS injury.
          I think that the fact that the boyfriend was unarmed and that the shoving was in the immediate past was interpreted as him not being a deadly threat and the stepping back/turning back/flinching was seen as his no longer being an imminent threat. That is why it was so important for the prosecutor to play the surveillance video in slow motion; to emphasize a retreat of the boyfriend and thus an unwarranted use of deadly force in fight number three, shooter v. boyfriend, #3.
          In Florida, one is not justified in drawing a weapon except in circumstances identical to when one would be justified in actually using it (pulling the trigger), deadly force can only be used against deadly force. (Also, quite unlike what the media represents, Florida Stand Your Ground, has nothing to do with the shooter’s case. The only one who had a duty to retreat was the boyfriend, and whether he did or did not was one of the sticking points).
          In any case, for whatever their own reasons, the jury found that this shooting was not self defense and (unless overruled), that is the law…

        13. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The question is not whether the shooter was the initial aggressor but whether he was facing an IMMINENT threat of DEATH OR SERIOUS injury.”

          No argument there. The complication is who determines whether the threat was imminent? It all depends on the local laws (local meaning not federal). In some states, the jury must assess whether the defender reasonably believed the threat was imminent, which is quite and completely different from states where the jury applies the “reasonable person” (meaning the jurors) would have acted in such a manner. Seems like a difference without a distinction, but it is not. Determining if the defender was reasonable in his/her/its mind is an impossibility, leaving juries to rely on their own notions of what a “reasonable” person would think.

          The requirement to evaluate the defenders thoughts is probably the essence of “innocent until proven guilty”. That is, the jurors must begin with the idea that the defender acted reasonably, then apply the testimony to determine of the evidence negates the assumption of innocence. That whole concept disrupts the natural thought process where a juror begins with the principle that they (the juror) are “reasonable” and would never be in the situation in the first place.

        14. avatar SoBe says:

          Replying to my own comment. The boyfriend would have had a duty to retreat if as the shooter assessed he was proceeding with another attack and that were deemed likely to cause death or serious injury.

      2. avatar R says:

        The fact that morons and thugs find it acceptable to respond to words they don’t like with violence, is just one of the many reasons that this shooter needs to be found NOT GUILTY.
        He better appeal and a sensible jury should exonerate this man.
        HE DID NOTHING WRONG. He should have NEVER been charged in the first place.
        Don’t want to get shot? Don’t physically attack anyone.

        1. avatar No One Special says:

          Don’t use words in a manner and tone that is provoking and there would be no reason for physical contact therefore would no need for shooting.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Don’t want to get shot? Don’t physically attack anyone.”

          Couldn’t agree more. As it is, we life in an era where people believe themselves masters of the universe, immune to any constraints. And justified to teach the world a lesson whenever constrained.

          As a teenager, I was interested in cars. While stopped at a traffic signal, I would look over to the cars next to me, to see who had what. Were there Lake Pipes, was the other car a three-hole, or four-hole Buick. Fast forward, and I trained my boys that while in traffic, except for clearing the area prior to a turn, do not look at another driver unless you want to eat a bullet.

      3. avatar Just me. says:

        Yeah. He is a hot head, but also a coward. He was scared so bad when he was shoved to the ground, that he probably was blind to everything but trying to pull the gun. And the big guy was so scared when he saw Drejka reach, that he took a step back. Drejka was blind with panic and when he shot, he probably only saw the lump of McGlockton.
        The unfortunate case is that MG died and wasn’t able to testify or be charged with assault. I don’t think the jurors minds were impartial either. With the latest mass shootings so fresh, with the differences of race and the emotionality of a girl and her child left alone, I don’t know who could. And I myself question if people like Drejka should be walking the streets with a gun to their waist. What I know is that Drejka was very afraid of bodily harm, he was at a disadvantage, and he shot. All very consistent to self defence. And as it happens to those not experienced in combat, he had tunnel vision and very likely didn’t see MG stepping back. But that’s me thinking and drawing from my life. I wondered how the jury selection went? I would say it was pivotal for the case due to a state of mind’s subjectivity.

      4. avatar Viejo Torro says:

        This seems to be on point. The shooter wasn’t an innocent confronted by unexpected violence . A reasonable man could anticipate a violent action from others

      5. avatar Paul says:

        One morale to the story; don’t be a parking lot nanny.

        I use a handicap placard, I also have a CCW, so I just ignore the fact that I have to park farther away and struggle while the spots are abused. I ignore because the offending driver doesn’t care about anyone but themselves. And because you just called them out it will mostly likely lead to a confrontation with bad results. IMO both acted like thugs…….BOOM

        Second morale to the story; avoid trouble if possible try not to shoot anyone.

        I did like the comment above. You will be judged by 12 who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty. I would add or someone with an ax to grind.

        1. avatar cj says:

          dude probably could have used a better attorney, however with that said no one elected him to be parking lot monitor and he should have minded his own business.

    3. avatar MyPrettyAR15 says:

      My own personal experience sitting on juries is that a lot of gun owners tend to get called up for jury duty and make it past the initial screening because they more often than not lack criminal backgrounds which I would imagine most attorneys and judges will prefer in the jury box.

      Whether the jury did the right thing here is open for discussion, I’m just offering my own perspective of somehow getting perpetually picked for jury duty service.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “I’m just offering my own perspective of somehow getting perpetually picked for jury duty service.”

        Indeed. Had a five year span where I was summoned each year, sometimes twice. Ended up sitting on one municipal, one state, one federal; all three convictions. That experience is always listed on summonses or questionnaires. Not selected for about eight years. Even the summonses have been absent.

      2. avatar Geoff "Hurry-up and *die*, Ruthie" PR says:

        Does having a criminal conviction result in an instant disqualification for jury duty?

        To me, that would seem to go against the concept of ‘trial by peers’…

        1. avatar No One Special says:

          “To me, that would seem to go against the concept of ‘trial by peers’…”

          In some jurisdiction you are probably correct since the outlying concept is guilty until proven innocent. At that point a jury of peers would have to be people of previously convicted crimes. On the other hand using Chicago as an example everyone on the jury would have to be exonerated since the city is setting them free before they ever have a trial.

    4. avatar Chief Censor says:

      The standard was without a reasonable doubt.

      They were asked to judge whether the stepping back and turning away was considered a retreat, which would make the shooting unreasonable, thus unjustified use of deadly force.

      McGlockton was shot on his left side a few inches below his nipple. The .40 S&W bullet went through his left side, passed through his heart and almost made it out his right side. He was not facing Drejka straight on when he was fatally shot, he was moving away from him. He was not armed.

      Drejka admitted that it would be unjustified to shoot someone when they were retreating. He stated McGlockton was a threat to him because he was within the 21 foot “rule.” He said he never looked at McGlockton’s hands to see if he had a weapon, he looked at his feet. He claimed he shot McGlockton because he moved toward him 2 steps. He also claimed he was injured to the point he couldn’t support his gun with one hand.

      Drejka threatened to kill a black man for arguing with him about the parking spot. He didn’t have his gun on him at the time. The man’s boss said Drejka told him that he could have killed his worker with his gun. Both men were called in as witnesses.

      Drejka referred to his Glock as a force multiplier. He has been carrying for many years, but has not done additional training. His dad was a cop and didn’t want Drejka to follow in his footsteps. Drejka retired at 33 because his family has a lot of money.

      McGlockton was on ecstasy. The defense tried to argue the drug caused him to attack Drejka and made his behavior unreasonable. They had an expert argue that pushing Drejka to defend his pregnant girlfriend and 2 children was done because of a bad reaction to the drug. A clown show broke out during this expert’s testimony.

      They brought in trainers to talk about the Tueller drill, what is a force multiplier, training, stance, threat assessment, etc.

      The jury was told they should not base their decision off what Drejka thought or believed because he was unreasonable in his actions. They were told they have to go by what a reasonable person would have done in that scenario. What Drejka thought was reasonable, just and legal isn’t what the law is nor the proper perspective to judge that incident.

      In deciding whether he was justified you must consider the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time. The appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person, under the same circumstances, would have believed the danger could be avoided only through killing them.

      If you think Drejka was in the right to shoot McGlockton and you would do the same thing, you are going to find yourself in prison for unjustified homicide, if you are not a professional law man.

      By the way, the experts that testified for Drejka costed a lot of money. That alone was a huge bill. If you want experts at your trial make sure to sell your Mercedes. Seems like a great job to have.

      1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        “..A clown show broke out during this expert’s testimony….”

        Where did you get this from, do you have a link to the transcripts? Would love to read them.

        1. avatar Chief Censor says:

          I tired to link the Youtube videos, but it didn’t go through.

          Look up Michael Drejka trial, day 2, part 6 and 7. Scales of Justice is the name of the Youtube channel.

      2. avatar Mercury says:

        Your conclusion is incorrect. A different jury on a different day might well find fear for one’s life under the circumstances reasonable, especially if the defendant doesn’t have a habit of issuing death threats (aggravated assault in Florida.) You also incorrectly stated that the jury was instructed to take as a premise that his actions were unreasonable, which is not the case (and would be grounds for a mistrial if it were.) They were, as in all cases where self defense is used as a justification for homicide, instructed to determine whether a reasonable person would fear for his life under the circumstances. As a result of what they were presented in the courtroom, they found that this hypothetical reasonable person would not. Again, I strongly suspect they based this principally on the eyewitness accounts of prior aggravated assaults by the defendant which, when you think about it, has absolutely no bearing on the judgement they were asked to make — that is, whether or not a reasonable person would have feared for his life. A reasonable person doesn’t go around committing aggravated assault, but whether or not the defendant was a reasonable person was (or rather was supposed to be) irrelevant. Only whether a reasonable person would have feared for his life in those circumstances is.

        Either way though, the jury was wrong.

        The way I see it, there were no circumstances in which, after having been attacked, the use of deadly force was not justified. Humans are fragile. One punch from an average man can kill you if it hits your head in the wrong place. Punches are easy to deliver to the head of someone who has been knocked on the ground. The only factor I would ever consider as a juror in whether a defendant’s fear for his or her life was reasonable (and thus the use of deadly force was legally justified, at least when not in a state that requires you to attempt to get yourself killed by running away, even when your wife and kids are involved) is whether what they had experienced could reasonably be defined as violence. Nothing less. Anyone in a civilized society resorting to violence needs to have a good reason (a forty year old having been thrown to the ground by a 20 year old attacker, for example; arguing over a parking space as a counter example) and needs to be prepared to use enough violence to resolve the problem. The statement “I just roughed him up a bit to teach him a lesson” is equivalent to the statement “I used a small amount of violence which had a small chance of maiming or killing him.” If you didn’t need to incapacitate your target completely you didn’t need to use violence at all. Ergo, anyone responding to violence with violence can immediately conclude that their attacker is either not a civilized person and can therefore not be expected to not decide to finish you off once they’ve “just beat you up a little;” or that their attacker is a civilized person and believes that they must (potentially fatally) incapacitate you in order to protect themselves and, as you don’t see why and can’t remedy the situation, you must respond in kind. No matter how you look at it, the “reasonable person” test should be a slam dunk for a defendant who had already been physically harmed.

        The jury was wrong and decided on “evidence” that had no bearing on the legal criteria of the actual defense in question. Otherwise it would have been no more than token deliberation and a not guilty. Whether you will be subject to the same faulty judgement should you find yourself using violence in the defense of yourself and your family is probably a question of, as it was in this case, how much mud a prosecutor can smear on your name in the course of the trial. Because we’ve already established it is not necessarily sufficient to do as a reasonable person would have done, but also that the jury must believe that you are a reasonable person. This is where your argument has some merit, and I would like to point out that the doctrine in question is itself not without merit. As you and many others here have observed, understanding the totality of the circumstances — in the way that the defendant understood them — as a juror, is fundamentally impossible. Thus, the only way to apply the reasonable person test is to determine whether the person who was actually there and feared for his life was reasonable. A Q.E.D. sidestep to the solution of a logically impossible abstraction, sure, but not one in keeping with the spirit of the legal justification in question. However, even if we assume all juries will judge in this exact manner, it is clear from prior cases that juries will not judge all uses of deadly force in response to violence unjustified by kind, but rather by degree. There is nothing fundamentally different, so far as the hypothetical reasonable person and his fear for his life goes, between this case and the case in which George Zimmerman used deadly force (via firearm) to incapacitate an attacker who, for the reasons I laid out before, could only reasonably be assumed to be attempting to kill him. The difference here is how close to death the violence inflicted on the defendant had already brought him before he brought his own lethal force to bear. This is merely a difference of degree, not of kind.

        Ergo, I present to you an alternate conclusion which I find logically sound and that I think you’ll still agree with. A jury may acquit you for shooting anyone at any time for any reason so long as they think that YOU are a “reasonable person”. Factors that will play into this include everything from the degree to which you were already injured by your attacker by the time you responded in kind; to any prior criminal behavior the prosecution can associate you with, whether or not (as in this case) you’ve been tried, convicted or even arrested for it; to the way you dress when you come to court. My conclusion, then, may come off as banal generality, but if you’ve followed my logic through this post (rather than just tl;dr-ing your way here) I think you’ll agree with it. It goes “keep your nose clean and look pretty and you can get away with murder.” The reverse is also true, of course, as demonstrated by this case. Without a figurative clean nose, he would had to have been half dead (or his wife and/or kids in more immediate mortal danger than they already were — to justify that “already were” I refer you back to my “civilized person” dichotomy) in order to have been found reasonable by this jury (or any jury, if we accept the premise that all juries will operate on the same principle.) It is certainly true that to at least a portion of jurors will categoricallu place “owns and/or carries a firearm in the “unreasonable” column. But I believe I’ve illustrated that so much more can go in each figurative column that the one factor is ultimately of minimal or even negligible significance. What matters is how “reasonable” the jury thinks you are or aren’t, and there are a lot of things you can do (and not do) in and out of court that will sway them one way or the other. “Keep your nose clean” may not be a terribly satisfying conclusion, but I believe I’ve demonstrated it is the most accurate generalization we can hope for.

        1. avatar Chief Censor says:

          I watched the entire trial from beginning to verdict. I saw the evidence submitted. I heard the jury’s instructions.

        2. avatar David Bradford says:

          I disagree with your assessment. His guilt lies in the fact that he set into motion the chain of events that necessitated the use of deadly force to save himself from great bodily harm. He caused the death of another by essentially setting up the situation to make it necessary to kill him.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          TL;RIA

          The most important bit of information, caution, advisement you offered was/is that not all self-defense attorneys are competent firearm self-defense attorneys; choose carefully. A corollary might be that if one cannot afford a competent firearm self-defense attorney, reconsider a number of your life choices.

      3. avatar Dude says:

        Who could think Drejka was a reasonable person after the previous death threat? He should have been locked up for that. Do you know if he was reported for that and law enforcement gave their typical Zzzzz response?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Who could think Drejka was a reasonable person after the previous death threat?”

          In many courts, prior bad acts are inadmissible as evidence in a current trial.

        2. avatar Geoff "Hurry-up and *die*, Ruthie" PR says:

          “In many courts, prior bad acts are inadmissible as evidence in a current trial.”

          Huh…

          Then why did someone who had a prior experience with Mr. ‘Handicapped Parking Spot Cop’ be even allowed to be called and testify?

        3. avatar No One Special says:

          “Then why did someone who had a prior experience with Mr. handicapped parking spot cop was allowed to be called and testified?”

          I thought those were called character witnesses?

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Then why did someone who had a prior experience with Mr. handicapped parking spot cop was allowed to be called and testified?”

          Note that I wrote “many courts”. Second, in those places where prior bad acts are prohibited from testimony, during something said by the defendant, or the defendant’s lawyer might allow introduction of prior acts.

          There is no uniform code of criminal and civil law imposed upon every state (federal law is different). Some states/courts to this, and some do that. Know what the law in your case specifies. And don’t stop with the law where you live. As you travel between different jurisdictions, you may trip over different laws regarding the same circumstance.

      4. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The jury was told they should not base their decision off what Drejka thought or believed because he was unreasonable in his actions. They were told they have to go by what a reasonable person would have done in that scenario. What Drejka thought was reasonable, just and legal isn’t what the law is nor the proper perspective to judge that incident.”

        Precisely why a gun owner should know the law of self-defense in whichever jurisdiction an event might occur. Self-defense law is not circumscribed by “Stand your Ground, and Castle Doctrine.” In this case, if the applicable law states the jury must evaluate whether the defender had reason to believe imminent threat was upon him (regardless of what a “reasonable” person not under threat would do), the jury instructions just might be fruitful grounds for an appeal. The summary, given here, of the judge’s instructions appear to be substitution of the judge’s philosophy about using a firearm in self-defense.

        Such an interesting exercise in understanding the right of self-defense.

        1. avatar MajJohn says:

          The prior criminal records of the principles should not have been introduced thereby prejudicing the jury. I see a successful appeal on the near horizon.

    5. avatar pwrserge says:

      Which is why if you never served and don’t own a gun, you’re not a citizen and shouldn’t be allowed, to serve on juries.

      1. avatar No One Special says:

        You have a serious superiority complex that could very well put you in a similar situation outside of keyboard commando interwebs. Serving in any capacity, owning a gun or property, or having economical means doesn’t make you superior to anyone else. What it should do is instill humility and responsibility. Having a chip on your shoulder thinking that others must bow to your mental illness woes won’t go well with everyone and someone is bound to put you in your place eventually. Yes you can play the bad ass on here and act like no one can overcome you. However one of the first things that someone should consider before a confrontation is this person the one that is going to put me down possibly for good. That’s not admitting defeat that is just being smart before acting like Billy bad ass gets you something you most likely don’t want. I seriously hope you get the help you need sooner than later.

        1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

          Help me out Pswerge where in the Constitution does it 1. Define citizenship and two where does it say you have to be a Vet?
          How about Navy Guys and Air.Force prior service? Are they Citizens?
          Az .Guard
          2nd ID and 7th ID vet.

        2. avatar No One Special says:

          Served 11 years, 2 deployments, medically retired, own guns, property, and have economical means and I don’t share this line of thinking. This line of thinking does not constitute freedom but slavery to the government and property. Having to serve both to be worthy. It’s 100% grade A bullshit and anyone that really believes isn’t worthy of true freedom morally and ethically.

    6. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      Sam, I’m a gun owner. As a juror I wouldn’t buy any claim of defensive gun use from what clearly is the aggressor in this incident.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Sam, I’m a gun owner. As a juror I wouldn’t buy any claim of defensive gun use from what clearly is the aggressor in this incident.”

        Only in this day and age would a contest of words be considered and assault, an aggression. If I call out on the street, and scream you are the worst scum, and you decide to clock me with a fist or bottle, who is the “aggressor”, “initiator” in the confrontation?

        1. avatar Geoff "Hurry-up and *die*, Ruthie" PR says:

          “Only in this day and age would a contest of words be considered and assault, an aggression.”

          And yet, here we are, with the young ‘Woke’ folks telling us that words are the literal equivalent of violent physical battery.

          And should be prosecuted and sentenced the same way…

        2. avatar No One Special says:

          Since when is provoking words not a thing, for either side? It has been shown time and again that provoking words do have consequences. Case in point Michelle Carter that was charged and convicted for texting her then boyfriend and convincing him to kill himself. That is just one example. Personally I have seen people get their jaw jacked for running their mouth. Were charges pressed? No but this was a time when people got their ass kicked and knew they deserved it for running their mouth. One of the biggest problems with this country today is people need to realize if it isn’t affecting them directly then let go and keep moving. In this situation I still say both sides were wrong and good riddance. Two knuckleheads that either can’t ever or at least for a time hopefully won’t be able to inflict society with more bullshit.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “And yet, here we are, with the young ‘Woke’ folks telling us that words are the literal equivalent of violent physical battery.”

          Yep. Eagerly awaiting reports of a court case founded on “words” being equal to violent physical battery. I’m all prepared; converted a bedroom to a supply dump for popcorn.

    7. avatar Ceefour says:

      I think this victim of a gross miscarriage of justice will need financial help with his appeals….has anyone one started a “Fund Me” type action anywhere?

  2. avatar jwm says:

    Likely reason dude got convicted. 2 reasons actually. There was video that showed the dude that got shot was backing off when he got shot.

    And nobody likes a self appointed hall monitor.

    1. avatar R says:

      I’ll take a hall monitor that justifiably calls people out, over a violent thug any day.

      1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        Drejka is a violent thug. He has a history of thuggish behavior.

  3. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    Juries are often told ” if the law says this and the fellow violated it you must return a guilty verdict”. Wrong, the Jury can vote any way they want law or no law but seldom do so because they are either intimidated by the judge or just go along with the rest of the jury so they can get it over with and go home. In this case nothing was so clear cut and dry. I would say if Drejka had been walking through he parking lot minding his own business and the fellow he killed suddenly came at him just to bully him then the Jury would have returned a completely different verdict.

    I will say that Drejka was an real asshole and his actions swayed the jury’s decision for sure. When they Jury was made aware he was going around harassing people his ass was grassed before the trial was even half over. In other words he was playing a vigilante and looking for a fight and when one guy had enough of his big mouth he shoved him which in the jury’s viewpoint was not enough to justify Drejka getting mad and blowing the guy away.

    In my opinion he got what he deserved because getting a permit to carry a gun does not give you the right to start blasting people in every circumstance. The jury will take the entire incident into consideration.

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      holy shit Vlad is human… somewhat. Not because of his faith in random idiots too stupid to get out of jury duty, but because he knows that knowing when not to shoot makes an everyday carrier that much more responsible.

      1. avatar Geoff "Hurry-up and *die*, Ruthie" PR says:

        “holy shit Vlad is human… somewhat.”

        Yeah, my jaw hit the floor as well.

        But don’t worry, he’ll get right back to his standard bullshit shortly… 😉

        1. avatar B.D. says:

          He’s already there. Notice how he has no reply because tons of actual responsible people agree with knowing when not to shoot. He doesn’t know what to do, he can’t insult anyone.

    2. avatar Vlad's dad says:

      The boy has learned to tone down his nonsense when dad is watching.

    3. avatar Baldwin says:

      @Vlad…Thank you Vlad for finally (FINALLY!) bringing something of value to the table. Now, prove that it wasn’t by accident.

    4. avatar Chief Censor says:

      McGlockton’s girlfriend told Drejka if he wanted her to get her man. He responded with something like he wouldn’t mind getting into a fight. However, when her man came he went from loud mouth tough guy to an angry egotistical prideful gunman. He didn’t want any fight, he wanted to shoot a black guy, last time he had that chance he forgot his gun.

  4. avatar strych9 says:

    For both guys this was a case of “When keeping it real goes wrong”.

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      my thoughts exactly.

      “This fool poured morton salt on muh sneakers” – Earl “The Snake” White

      P.S. – Prrr Prrr

  5. avatar Thixotropic says:

    Miscarriage of Justice.

    Jury of Fools.

    Had he not fired, the Welfare Baboon Markeis McGlockton would have been convicted of Assault and battery based on the video.

    I would have shot the aggressive idiot too.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      And you would have gone to prison, too. Simply being a white supremacist doesn’t get you a pass in court.

    2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      quote—————-I would have shot the aggressive idiot too.————quote

      And like the asshole Drejka went to jail for years as well.

      Good God jwm and I actually agreed on something. Surely the end of the world is near. Good news, don’t worry about paying off your master card.

    3. avatar B.D. says:

      You’d fit right in with the Aryan Brotherhood, right after they fit into you.

    4. avatar enuf says:

      Unfiltered by white supremacist bullshit, the video was clear as a bell on the point that the shooter was in no danger. The guy that shoved him was backing away and turning away. Plenty of time to comprehend that there was no danger to defend against.

      Homicide cases tend to turn on the split second of the killing act. There was much too much time there for the shooter to fail to comprehend he was out of danger.

      There will be an appeal I am sure. I hope he loses that one too.

      1. avatar Dan W says:

        Someone’s fist is moving away from you during the windup.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        enuf,

        I can see this going either way.

        McGlockton may not have been backing up at all: rather he may have been turning to a “bladed stance” to really launch into Drejka whom he just shoved onto the ground.

        Also significant: a younger, fit, really muscular man (McGlockton) had a significant physical advantage over Drejka, had just knocked him onto the ground (putting Drejka at further disadvantage), and was advancing on him. If that lead Drejka to a reasonable belief that McGlockton was going to cause his death or great bodily harm — and it very well could have — that would have justified Drejka using deadly force. And once Drejka decided to act, he was committed and his brain was not able to process the fact that McGlockton started to back off (upon seeing Drejka drawing and aiming a handgun) until after he had already pulled the trigger.

      3. avatar Ceefour says:

        All Drejka was doing was flapping his jaws about parking in a handicap parking zone. He was struck from behind,by the REAL THUG, and slammed to the ground. He was probably more than a little dazed and all he sees is this black dude standing over him. He is not looking at legs, he did not realize the dude was backing .(when he saw the weapon) If Drejka was actually in fear of ANOTHER assault, he is more than justified in defending himself although it would have more appropriate to use pepper spray….first.Chances are he will get this conviction reversed.

    5. avatar MLee says:

      In my view, because the dead guy was backing away and not being a threat, I don’t feel it was a good shoot. Had he had a weapon of some sort and was still threatening or still coming after him with no weapon, it would be different, but that’s not what happened here.
      He pushed the guy to the ground and backed away. In my opinion, the shot was nothing more than payback from a coward who was too much of a coward to stand up and deal with it like a man.
      Use of a firearm is when a person feels his life in in danger or they are facing physical harm or others in their immediate company. Getting pushed to the ground by someone who then backs away doesn’t seem to fit justifiable use of deadly force.
      I have to agree with the jury based on the video evidence.

  6. avatar Jeff In CO says:

    “…claiming that the law prevented him from charing Drejka in the shooting.”

    Not sure about anyone else, but I didn’t realize there were states that allowed Sheriff’s to “char” people in shootings?!?!

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Pretty sure that is only permitted in cases where the shooter was simultaneously convicted of Witchcraft. The whole burning a Witch at the stake process does tend to cause considerable charring.

    2. avatar Porridgeweasel says:

      Why else do you think “Dragon’s Breath” shotgun rounds were made?

      Certainly not for fun…

  7. avatar NJ2AZ says:

    having watched the video, i agree with the verdict. the guy who did the shoving clearly seems (to me anyways) that he was not going to follow up his initial shove.

    easy for me to say of course, but i believe if someone attacked me in a similar manner but then made it obvious there was no more coming, i would be satisfied pressing assault charges. Furthermore, if i shot the guy under similar circumstances i would expect to end up in the clink.

    1. avatar Adub says:

      That’s where I stand, too. The shove wasn’t preceded by any verbal communication, so while the shooter was surprised, there was no follow up attack that would lead me to believe he was in imminent danger of grievous bodily harm. McGlockton didn’t advance on him with fists raised or a weapon in his hands.

  8. avatar mtndewey says:

    Based on the comments above I will just say hi, sad for both sides, especially for the children of the dead man.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      Meh. The deceased was a thug. The convicted wasn’t perfect but is the real victim here.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        The video shows two hardasses. One had the good sense to back away and start to turn away. The other killed someone without justification.

        1. avatar AD says:

          Would you have drawn, enuf? Is one supposed to wait and see if they’ll be drawn on first? Maybe “the pusher” meant to retrieve a weapon from a nearby vehicle. Would you wait and see?
          Sending the lead flying is one thing but the draw itself was surely no crime. With so much grey here, I think I’d have to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. Any juror should do that as a rule. JMO

        2. avatar enuf says:

          Twice in my life my gun in my hand stopped an attack. Had my attackers not turned and fled I would have fired and I would have been justified. Both instances were many years ago but they are burned into memory. I know I was a second or two from shooting. No more time than is seen in the video of this incident.

        3. avatar Geoff "Hurry-up and *die*, Ruthie" PR says:

          “Sending the lead flying is one thing but the draw itself was surely no crime.”

          Better check your local laws on that, some areas consider the draw to be ‘brandishing’, and a felony crime all on its own…

      2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        Victim of his own stupidity.

  9. avatar Warlocc says:

    Murder would have been a tough sell. Personally I don’t think I would have convicted manslaughter, either. Asshole or not, he was still a victim of assault and in a very vulnerable position.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      But that basis is why he should have been convicted. You can draw in a threat of harm situation. But firing requires a clear and present threat of harm. Being vulnerable doesn’t matter… because you have a gun, that negates that.

      If the attacker had moved forward again, then yes, the shooting would be justified. It’s not murder, because of said vulnerability – and no apparent ill will.

      The jury made the right call here. Drejka should have drawn, stood up, and retreated. Had McGlockton moved forward, Drejka would then have been justified in shooting.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        The state said he would have been legally fine if he didn’t pull the trigger. So, taking out his gun and pointing it was within his right in that situation. Shooting a retreating unarmed man, who was defending his family, is what convicted him of manslaughter.

      2. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

        In every use of force and gun law class I have taken the layers, who are specifically gun and self defense lawyers, have said that you do not draw until you intend to shoot. They have said that, at least in Pennsylvania, drawing a gun is threat of deadly force and you don’t threaten deadly force until you are going to use deadly force.

        1. avatar Ed Earl says:

          I’m so sorry that it seems that you have wasted both time and money taking classes from people who didn’t know what they were talking about. Perhaps their student wasn’t listening as carefully as needed. Being prepared to shoot to defend yourself isn’t intent. It isn’t even very close.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…at least in Pennsylvania, drawing a gun is threat of deadly force and you don’t threaten deadly force until you are going to use deadly force.”

          Same in my little corner. Law effectively demands someone be shot if a gun comes out of the holster. Otherwise, dead bang brandishing, reckless endangerment. The idiocy is compounded…if you draw your weapon, and the perp disengages and runs away, you can count on a being charged for not shooting the perp. Say what? Yep. Charged for not “stopping the threat”. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

        3. avatar Some Guy says:

          But here’s the problem. If you delay your draw until the aggressor actually charges at you, you may not be fast enough to get the weapon into action before you’ve been incapacitated. The rules seem to be stacked against a concealed carrier. Draw in time to prevent being attacked – brandishing. Wait until the danger is obvious – dead. Although defending yourself from a brandishment charge is certainly preferable to being DEAD…

      3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Anonymous,

        But that basis is why he should have been convicted. You can draw in a threat of harm situation.

        That depends on your jurisdiction.

        In general drawing a gun and pointing it at someone is deadly force even if you don’t pull the trigger. And you are only justified to use deadly force if a reasonable person agrees that you were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. The problem is that pulling the trigger is also deadly force and would also be justified in the same situation.

        The real failure here is the fact that many, most, and quite possibly even all jurisdictions expect two men without obvious, visible weapons in hand to engage in hand-to-hand combat — and the defender is not legally justified to draw a weapon (even without applying it) until he is losing badly and on the verge of unconsciousness (or already unconscious at which point it is too late). This has two fundamental problems. First, the clenched hand (fists) of a fit 220 pound man are deadly weapons that could EASILY deliver a death blow with a single punch (or knock out the person making it easy to finish-off the unconscious person). Second, even if the other guy is less fit, a series of blows could steadily degrade your ability to fight back and then, before you realize it, you would be unable to bring your handgun to bear.

      4. avatar Warlocc says:

        In my state, drawing without shooting is brandishing- the argument being, if you don’t need to shoot, you don’t need to draw.

        I can’t say I disagree entirely. If you’re just waving your gun around but don’t actually need to defend yourself with it, you’re violating one of the 4 rules and you’re a bad gun owner.

  10. avatar D says:

    You will not be judged by a jury of your peers. You will be judged by 12 people too stupid to figure out how to get out of jury duty.

    1. avatar Bob Watson says:

      Not everyone views serving on a jury as a nuisance or an inconvenience. Some people consider their civic duty as a responsibility all citizens share. How much difference is there between a welfare cheat and someone who lies to get out of jury duty? It seems to me that both want to benefit from the system without putting anything back in.

      A citizen in a voting booth is one voice out of tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of other voters. A citizen on a jury is one voice out of 12, or one voice out of 7 on a grand jury (in Oregon). If you are truly concerned about unconstitutional laws, decisions made by District Attorneys, Judges or the Police, how could you pass up an opportunity to level up your influence?

      1. avatar AD says:

        They give a stipend of $12/ day to serve jury duty around here. It costs about $20 to park downtown. Getting fired for the opportunity of losing money doesn’t appeal to me. Jury duty would cause undue financial burden.

        1. avatar Chief Censor says:

          It’s illegal for an employer to fire you for having to do jury duty.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It’s illegal for an employer to fire you for having to do jury duty.”

          Depends on the state labor laws, and how the dismissal was done (the reason given). If you don’t know how to terminate an employee without violating labor laws, might be an interesting line of research.

        3. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          Financial burden is one of the legitimate reasons to get out of jury duty. The process for doing so is on the notification.

        4. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          “Financial burden is one of the legitimate reasons to get out of jury duty. The process for doing so is on the notification.”

          Not according to the lecture the judge gave the last jury pool I was in last summer.
          He would only allow medical reasons. If you had some other reason, he MIGHT postpone your service, but not release it.

        5. avatar Huntmaster says:

          It is illegal to knock someone to the ground too.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Getting fired for the opportunity of losing money doesn’t appeal to me.”

          Actually happened. After sitting on three juries in two years, I was “right sized” out of a job because I had proved the work got done without me.

      2. avatar No One Special says:

        Some people like a decent paycheck over their supposed civic duty. A paycheck generally speaking keeps most people off of welfare. Sitting in a courtroom listening to a bunch of BS to determine if someone is guilty or not all while getting chump change to do it. Yep I’d try my best to get out of it too.

      3. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “How much difference is there between a welfare cheat and someone who lies to get out of jury duty?”

        If one must lie to get off a jury, does that not make such person as dumb as the ones who didn’t think to lie? It is quite possible telling the truth on jury questionnaires will disqualify a person.

  11. avatar B.D. says:

    Not sure about this one. Obviously, if someone pushes you to the ground and continues to stand over you, then you are probably going to have to defend yourself. BUT, this guy could have just gotten up and walked away. Plus, he was obviously standing there giving the GF the finger or doing whatever he was doing that he should not have been doing. IMHO, they are both wrong here, but to me, this is a clear example of when not to shoot. Had the guy approached again while on the ground, then yes, absolutely. But he was really just standing there, probably because he already pushed that idiot so hard his brain almost fell out. That said, don’t get into a verbal argument to where you feel like standing there flipping someone off is a good idea, especially not when the boyfriend is twice your size. All this idiot has to do was walk away. Both of them. People who carry should know better. Same with road ragers. If you carry, fucken ignore them unless they present an actual threat. Honking does no good, flipping them off makes you an aggressor, and riding their ass will get you brake checked. Same with verbal confrontation. Just walk that shit off and grow up.

  12. avatar Nanashi says:

    A miscarriage of justice. Should be overturned on appeal.

    1. avatar Mack The Knife says:

      Read my comment below. The problem with this story and video is that it does not include the back story leading up to this shooting. I’m from Florida and and we are happy this moron is off the streets. He abused the stand your ground defense and put all concealed carriers in jeopardy.

      1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        SYG wasn’t part of the defense. The MSM were the only ones spouting that nonsense.

  13. avatar Ton E says:

    Drejka and McGlockton both showed their asses in the situation. The moment I saw the video around the time the news of the shooting broke my first thought was Drejka was going to have a tough time defending his use of deadly force. McGlockton shouldn’t have shoved a complete stranger to the ground for simply arguing with his woman. If a guy shoved me to the ground in the same manner I would have drawn down on him too to deter him from further attack. It was him backing away that made the shooting questionablein that moment of time to me. I don’t believe it was a good shoot. Again both of them showed their asses and Drejka inserted himself into the situation over a handcap spot he probably wishes he was using.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      He actually parked outside of the outlined parking spots to yell at the people parked in the handicap spot. He wasn’t even parked properly yet he is complaining about other people.

      1. avatar Ton E says:

        I was making out he was retarded and should have been using the space.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        So the parking Nazi parked illegally to complain about people parking illegally?

        Gun owners like that will cause good, reasonable citizens to lose the right to carry a firearm.

        If POTG do not police their own ranks and remove loose cannons like this from the rolls of those who carry firearms, non-gunowner citizens will take the guns from all of us.

  14. avatar Ben Sherman says:

    Why can’t you solve the problems normally? necessarily physical strength and weapons.

  15. avatar Mack The Knife says:

    Obviously you guys commenting on this have forgotten how this incident went down. The shooter was a real moron that set up the scenario that led to the shooting. As a fact he had set up this trap using a handicapped parking spot a number of times prior to succeeding in killing someone.
    This is another scenario that may have been obverted by intervention. The author does the readers a disservice by not including background info.
    This was someone “using” the stand your ground defense to kill someone. A sick SOB that is now in prison

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      They didn’t use the stand your ground law and the argument about the parking space was irrelevant to the shooting.

      It wasn’t illegal to confront the woman and chastise her. Shooting an unarmed man who pushed him then retreated was the focus and the crime.

  16. avatar Mike Hawkizard says:

    This was a bad shoot. First off the shooter needlessly instigates the situation by confronting the guy’s girlfriend because he didn’t like that they parked in a handicapped spot.

    Add that to shooting him when it appears the victim was retreating and this guy got what he deserved as far as a conviction goes.

    Why anyone here is defending him is beyond me.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Why anyone here is defending him is beyond me.”

      Because we were not there, we were not the jury, we did not hear testimony, we are third-hand witnesses, at best. Because “reasonable belief” of the defender regarding a deadly threat is subjective, not objective, etc.

  17. avatar David Bradford says:

    McGlockton initiated the confrontation and knowingly put himself at risk of hostile retaliation. You don’t get to claim self defense if you start the fight. Was he truly in fear for his life? Probably, yes ! But the perceived treat to his life was of his own making and could/should have been expected.(but likely didn’t care because he was armed). Drejka’s death was the result of his personal aggressive action. Although there are explanations for both men’s actions, there is NO justification for those actions under the law. McGlockton was at the beginning and in the end in the wrong and should be found guilty of killing Drejka without justification. Let the a-hole rot in jail

    1. avatar Ton E says:

      Drejka pulled the trigger McGlockton was shot….

      1. avatar David Bradford says:

        Oops !
        I feel like a fool for juxtaposing the names of the combatants and letting that slip by without proof reading my post. And I do apologize for the error.
        That being said, my opinion that both men were in the wrong and there was no justification for lethal action stands.

        1. avatar Ton E says:

          Ithe happen’s dude I had to read your comment twice to make sure.

        2. avatar Ton E says:

          It* damn I hate my phone!

    2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      You got it right the first time, McGlockton instigated the confrontation.

  18. avatar Shire-man says:

    Two jerkoffs removed from society. Seems like a win.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Now you have 4 fatherless black kids. I wonder how that is going to turn out.

      The state argued that McGlockton was protecting his kids and his girlfriend from an angry man. That his shove was him coming to the aid of others. The government considers McGlockton’s action as reasonable and logical.

  19. avatar Grumpy Old Guy says:

    Personally, I think the Stand You Ground law is doing exactly what is was intended to do. I.E. it gives a legal gun owner a viable defense for a defensive gun use some situations where they might otherwise get railroaded. Its not intended as a permit to hunt thugs as tempting as some people might find it, and its not intended to provide near blanket immunity like castle doctrine or law enforcement personal have. Anyway, the shooting did not fit the SYG criteria. The media is merely using SYG as a headline to get attention to an otherwise meaningless shooting between a couple of thugs.

    1. avatar Ton E says:

      Drejka didn’t even use SYG in his own defense. The media kept parroting SYG as a way to demonize the law when it wasn’t even used at trial by the defense.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The media kept parroting SYG as a way to demonize the law…”

        Worked during and after the Martin affair.

        1. avatar Ton E says:

          Yet the law is still there.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Yet the law is still there.”

          Laws are funny things. Majority vote can change them overnight.

          Yes, SYG laws remain intact in many places. But, the constant drumbeat by MSM is more persuasive to the voters than the principles of the POTG. We laugh at the clueless members of the MSM who know nothing about guns. Yet, the Big Lie still works.

        3. avatar Ton E says:

          True but it’s still here.

  20. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    As I’ve said before, I’m a proponent of hand to hand training and overall fitness as another important aspect of self defense.

    When your only tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      Let us know how that works out when you’re a disabled 59 year old who just got blind sided and grounded.

  21. avatar Larry says:

    McGlockton, killed by a Glock , it was destiny.

    Personally ,I guess I’m stupid, I sat on a Grand Jury for a month , and a counterfeiting case for a couple days. Loved it , you learn a lot, and on the Grand Jury you can stop proceedings and ask questions , I caught one cop in a lie, and in self defense case, got it no billed as I was able to get the needed votes to turn it that way as it could have gone the other way easily.

    Any decent employer gives you your full pay, while serving.

  22. avatar Pete says:

    This seems correct to me.
    When you carry a firearm, one of your responsibilities is to NOT engage in a confrontation.
    This guy broke the cardinal rule of a “Polite Society” and should pay the price.

  23. avatar GS650G says:

    This was a fight between two people and the bigger guy lost because the smaller guy had a gun. Should the little guy have “started” it by arguing with the big guys girl? Probably not. But the bug guy shows up and engaged him and got zapped.

    I see this being appealed. The little guy wasn’t a stable genius and it’s been reported he was a hothead but big guy hit him to the ground first. I guess that didn’t mean much to the jury.
    Should one of them be assaulted they can ask themselves if they feel endangered or not. Because they decided he wasnt.

  24. avatar kap says:

    McGlockton and girlfriend park in the wrong zone, girlfriend gets yelled at by Drejka for parking in a handicap parking spot, McGlockton sees that and starts the violence, blindsides Drejka doing the bitching and pushes him forcefully too the concrete, Drejka on ground caps pusher McGlockton .
    Until he was attacked Drejka was only bitching about an illegal action! Seeing the size of McGlockton and size of Drejka it shows a disparity of force!
    So the gun grabbing and hating jury, condone illegal parking in handicap zones, and disparity of force! according too this jury Drejka should have been beat too shit.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Being short, fat or out of shape does not equate to disparity of force. Like it or not, if you’re a healthy male against another healthy male you’re expected to “duke it out.”

      1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        Citation?

  25. avatar former water walker says:

    BS “verdict”. White boy was ASSAULTED by any reasonable definition. Then again there’s a Chicago cop sitting in prison because he shot LaQuan©16 times(😫) while homeboy was on a crime spree and armed. SJW idiocy strikes again.Oh and his not being charged initially will play out ala George Zimmerman…

  26. avatar Huntmaster says:

    In the video I see a guy with his arms, at least one of them at his side arguing with someone. Another guy rapidly approaching his arms at side feigning non-aggression but getting ready to attack, , who then slams the first guy to the ground very violently. The attacker starts setting up for another assault when the first guy pulls a gun. The attacker does not turn and run but draws back, in an effort to create some distance while deciding what to do next. I did NOT see a retreat. The man with the gun, half sitting half lying on the ground shoots. That’s what I saw.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Huntmaster,

      Excellent synopsis of what actually happened.

      There are two really sticky wickets in this situation:
      (1) When McGlockton pivoted sideways, was he disengaging, deciding what to do next, or preparing to really launch into Drejka?
      (2) Was it reasonable to expect Drejka to NOT use deadly force when a significantly larger/stronger man just initiated a BLINDSIDE assault, with a LOT of force (a brutal shove), and therefore put Drejka in an extremely disadvantageous and vulnerable position on the ground?

      Rant:
      I wish the courts would recognize that the act of sending someone to the ground that forcefully constitutes a reasonable threat of great bodily harm or death, every bit as dangerous as swinging a solid wood baseball bat at someone’s arms or head. The person who goes to the ground could easily break a hip, break an arm, or hit their head on the ground/pavement and cause a fatal brain injury, just as could happen if you connect with someone’s hip, arm, or head with a baseball bat. And in my world, I have no obligation to let someone break major bones in my body or cause a fatal brain injury.

      If you tried to hit someone in the head with a baseball bat and missed, your action still constituted felony aggravated assault and carries with it a reasonable belief of imminent great bodily harm or death for the victim. And the victim would be justified for using deadly force while you were still standing over the victim with that baseball bat in hand. Shoving someone to the ground that forcefully should be the same.

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      He was convicted because the jury thought the step back was a retreat. The jury members were not being pushed to the ground and in that situation.

      Everyone agrees the little guy was someone who looked for trouble. Did he “ask” to get shoved to the ground? Maybe or probably. But you can’t do tht to someone and not expect them to defend themselves.
      He should have pulled the gun and waited a few more seconds. The big guy would most likely have kept his distance and allowed him to get back up. Both might have walked away.

  27. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    My take is that the shooter and his defense team did not do a very good job.

    Shooter talked and gave statements to police without legal representation present..which is never a good thing to do.

    Some of the media reports I’ve read state that the prosecutor made a big deal about the shooter knowing the Tueller concept and other cop/military jargon. Effective council (not every attorney out there can do self defense claims, most can’t or shouldn’t) should have had a ready answer to shut the prosecutors assertions down cold.

    Not only is jury selection hypercritical but educating the jury is job #1!!! What did the shooter know? By that I mean training attended, books read, videos seen….any ‘..credible..’ source of information that the shooter had regarding self defense and the use of force. This information can and should be presented to the jury. Just stating “I was afraid for my life” is not good enough when facing years in custody…You have to articulate why you were afraid. What were the indicators that led the shooter, based on HIS knowledge, to believe he/she should be in fear.

    Without getting too far into detail…..I noticed the black guy coming out of store ‘Hitched’ his pants up as he moved toward the shooter. After he shoved the guy down to the ground, he hitched his pants again, appeared to take a bladed stance to a degree. Pre-attack indicators? Just need to be presented in context correctly to the jury.

    Again, you have to have a experienced self defense team on your side, not just some general criminal defense attorney from down the street.

    I’m not a attorney, didn’t spend the night at holiday inn….also not going to prison because I was not prepared.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      They had a couple of trainers come in to talk about all the stuff related to shooting and fighting. They talked about a bladed stance, a fighting stance, etc. They educated the jury on the terms Drejka used. They displayed how a gun works and what you need to do to hit your target. They explained the Tueller drill and other things.

      Drejka appears to not have any training outside his 4 hour CCW class. His father was a cop though.

      I think the education given by the trainers actually made it harder for Drejka to claim self defense. Drejka said he shot McGlockton because he was still with 21 feet. The trainers mentioned that drill was for blade weapons, but one of them argued it could also be for unarmed persons. Since McGlockton was unarmed and retreating Drejka can’t really use the Tueller excuse.

      The more you know about guns, and fighting with them, the more guilty Drejka becomes. If you don’t know much about fighting and guns you would conclude Drejka’s shoot to be clean.

    2. avatar JR Pollock says:

      I’m glad I’m not the only one that noticed McGlockton hike up his shorts before the attack, and then while Drejka was down, did it again. My opinion, is McGlockton was getting ready to attack again, perhaps when Drejka tried to get to his feet, when he would have been most vulnerable.

      McGlockton was a violent convicted felon, who, in his scant decade of majority, had amassed a decently sized criminal record, which would have only grown with time. His death is a net positive to society, including the four illegitimate ghetto rats he sired.

      1. avatar MiamiC70 says:

        Completely agree

  28. avatar jwm says:

    It don’t matter if dude gets off on appeal. How much time, effort and money has he spent because of his own stupidity? He’s obviously unstable. I doubt he’s learned anything from this experience.

    If anything he’s likely to be even more emboldened or angry if he walks on appeal. This is a dangerous man that needs to be supervised.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Agreed.

      I think he got what he had coming.

    2. avatar HoundDogDave says:

      Ass hole ‘A’ (with no vested interest in the parking spot) starts an aggressive verbal attack on the companion (the apparent driver of the illegally parked car) of ass hole ‘B’. Ass hole ‘B’ (who does have a vested interest in protecting his companion) intervenes physically on the verbal attack of ass hole ‘A’ against his companion. Ass hole ‘A’ was looking for a fight and got one, just not the one he was looking for. Ass hole ‘B”s actions (although excessive) can easily be viewed as defensive in protection of his companion and children in the car. All parties are guilty of being ass holes and doing shit they shouldn’t have in the first place. A man is dead and his kids are fatherless (and now more likely to follow their fathers tragic end) all because some ass hole had a stick up his butt and couldn’t mind his own damned business.

  29. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    did find this..interesting reading but would rather have a go at the transcripts actual.

    https://www.tampabay.com/news/pinellas/2019/08/22/trial-in-the-clearwater-parking-lot-shooting-day-4-making-the-case/

  30. avatar Dan says:

    Justice was served.

  31. avatar daveinwyo says:

    A lot of very good comments above. Not all, but most.
    My take on this just re-confirms my belief in the “mind your own business” rule.
    Too many people seem to know what is best for you, or just can’t mind there own business.
    A physical confrontation, or violent argument is not a good reason to get involved.
    Watch to see if the situation escalates to life threatening, then, and only then, MAYBE get involved.
    Other wise MYOB.

  32. avatar 24and7 says:

    This case was decided on political correctness only.. the color of the so-called victim’s skin was the deciding factor in this case.. they were afraid of violence and reprisal if they didn’t find a Caucasian man guilty.. Florida continues to embolden thugs to assault innocent people..

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      So this case was judged entirely on the color of the victims skin?

      Do you have some sort of evidence or citation to back up your claim? Or is this baseless speculation, in direct contradiction with the video evidence?

      The evidence and testimony presented at trial were clear and convincing, you can watch the video for yourself and see the victim retreat.

      Most reasonable people would agree, the perpetrators past behavior and conduct at this episode clearly show he was an armed aggressor looking to provoke a fight. He had no problem approaching a woman, encumbered by two children, and verbally assaulting her without authority to enforce any law or regulation. Past testimony shows he was spoiling for a fight, had expressed death threats using firearms and was known for being the aggressor in many situations.

      Yet you believe this was decided on skin color alone. Fascinating.

      Of course, some people do see everything through the lens of racism.

      1. avatar 24and7 says:

        They were just salivating to convict a white man for shooting a black man.. they found their pigeon.. wouldn’t want riots and protests now would we..

  33. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

    Three idiots meet in a parking lot. One is dead. One is in jail. One lost “her man”. Please don’t be like these idiots!

    This case highlights several issues that repeatedly come up in the gun community. There are those idiots that want to know when they “can” shoot someone, not understanding that it is about when they “have to” shoot someone. There are those idiots who think talking to law enforcement without a lawyer is a good idea, not understanding that it hurts their case. There are those idiots who take shooting someone lightly, not understanding the emotional and financial cost for them. There are those idiots who do not understand what a jury of peers means. It ain’t us!

    Again, please don’t be like these idiots!

  34. avatar How_Terrible says:

    Honestly I have no sympathy for any of the three people that were involved in this confrontation. All of them made some truly stupid decisions. Mr. McGlockton’s girlfriend made a stupid decision when she chose to misuse a handicapped parking spot. Mr. Drejka made a stupid decision when he, for some unfathomable reason, chose to play parking lot police and started a confrontation with Mr. McGlockton’s girlfriend. Mr. McGlockton made a stupid decision when he chose to turn an already tense verbal confrontation into a physical confrontation.

    1. avatar Ton E says:

      BOOM! Well said!!

  35. avatar JOHN B THAYER says:

    You know that McGlockton was a jail bird (felon), don’t you?

    1. avatar How_Terrible says:

      How is that actually relevant to this situation though?

      1. avatar No One Special says:

        Just my experience but more times than not once a knucklehead always a knucklehead. He just ran across a more prepared knucklehead in this case. One knucklehead is dead and the other is going to prison. Dare I say that the world is possibly a better place? Possibly but I seriously doubt it.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Law of Nature. For every knucklehead that goes down two more rise to take his place. Now we have four more knuckleheads in an overcrowded field thanks to these two.

  36. avatar cheborneck says:

    Sorry, but Drejka got what he deserved. He was the initial instigator. McGlockton was in defense of that threat. Drejka didn’t back down and got pushed. He then used excessive force in his own defense.

  37. avatar LastOfTheOldOnes says:

    The woman, being part of an entitled and easily offended group, took the parking space of another entitled group (handicapped), since she (mostly correctly) thought that no one would say a word.

    Then a weird guy, not part of any entitled group, yet also easily offended, decided him being offended was more important than the woman’s triple whammy of entitlement1 (color) AND entitlement2 (sex) AND being easily offended. The net result was the easily offended and entitled guy friend was killed by the easily offended, but not entitled weird guy.

    Bottom line, (entitlement 1,2,3 + easily offended 1,2) totally beats (weird, non entitlement, easily offended 1).

    Why is anyone surprised??
    This will get a LOT worse, and it’s doubtful that it can ever revert to normalcy.

    My own thought is that no groups should be entitled for any reason, and if you’re easily offended, tough for you. As far as the shooting, the weird, non entitlement-easily offended guy was an idiot for taking the shot.

    1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      “another entitled group (handicapped”

      Yep, I am so entitled spending the last 20 years living with MS. It just makes me happy to have the days and weeks when I have to use the walker or even better the wheelchair. That parking spot makes the bladder problems worth it. And wow, losing the physical strength to use some firearms? That is A#1 in my book.

      Go do an unnatural sex act upon yourself.

  38. avatar tdiinva says:

    Drejka’s defenders want to isolate the incident to the shove and shoot portion of the incident but the incident starts when Dreyka decided to play cop. Everything that happened afterwards is a function of his aggression. Under no interpretation of SYG or the general law of self defense can this be considered justified. He owns it lock, stock and one smoking barrel.

    If you carry and see something illegal but not immediately life threatening call the police. That’s why we hire them. You can bet that the typical “we don’t need no stink’in cops” TTAG cop hater is the last person you want keeping the peace. They are a bunch of Dreyka clones.

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      “…Drejka’s defenders want to isolate the incident to the shove and shoot portion of the incident ..”

      Correct. That’s how our system is ‘supposed’ to work. Unless what the shooter was saying rises to “Fighting Words” (legal concept) or he was threatening in a direct manner (I will kill or harm you) then yes, what he was saying has no bearing on the battery.

      For example, I can yell at you on the street and exclaim to the world that you stink, wear ugly clothes and to stop parking in a handicap spots. I can yell all kinds of things and you have no recourse except maybe call the cops. You can not attack me, you can’t teach me a lesson, and you can’t whup my a$$…In the real world fights happen over things like this and unfortunately people get hurt or dead over silly things that are best avoided.

      Did the jury get it right? Dunno. But I know that the shooter was indigent and as such was limited by Public Defender funds available to him.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        False. The system looks at the totality of the event. Drejka started the ball rolling by harassing someone. Using your logic, McGlockton came out of the store and saw someone threatening his pregnant girlfriend. How did he know that he wasn’t going to physically assault her? He was rushing to her defense so he was the defender not the attacker. See how that works. My guess is that Drejka’s defenders would take the McGlockton as defender view if the races were reversed. Yeah, I’m going there.

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          “…False. The system looks at the totality of the event. Drejka started the ball rolling by harassing someone…””

          Harassing is a legal term that has a definitive definition. Didn’t happen and the shooter was not charged with harassing.

          “..Using your logic, McGlockton came out of the store and saw someone threatening his pregnant girlfriend…”

          Threatening how exactly? By using words? I’ve already explained this.

          “…How did he know that he wasn’t going to physically assault her? He was rushing to her defense so he was the defender not the attacker. ..”

          He was on drugs, had drugs in his system (documented in trial) so I highly doubt there was a coherent thought in his head. He left his child in the store with strangers, not very thoughtful or safe, on the other hand it does show the dead guy could have been going outside looking to fight no matter what. Would a reasonable person leave their child in the hands of strangers in a stop and rob?

          “…See how that works. My guess is that Drejka’s defenders would take the McGlockton as defender view if the races were reversed. Yeah, I’m going there….”

          Maybe, but I’m pretty color blind when it comes to our legal system. I work around it every day including Public Defenders….nice people but no way they will be on my defense team…I’ll sell everything and take out huge loans before that happens…

          See the defense team only has to successfully place doubt into the jury’s heads. Doubt as to what the Solicitor is charging. Self Defense is a bit different as its usually a ‘affirmative defense’. “Yeah I shot him but here’s why” Convincing a jury and trials in general under our system is the greatest head game ever played…and just as addicting as any drug for those attorneys who play it.

          If the defense team can show enough doubt to the jury, defendant walks. To get the really smart defense attorneys takes money, see OJ and Zimmerman.

          Again, I’m not really defending the shooter. Just putting some non-emotional statements out there.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Manse. I heard that Drejyka had money. He hired expert witnesses to testify. It doesn’t sound like he had to use the public defenders office.

          And he had a track record of mouthing off and threatening and hiding behind his gun.

          What it sounds to me like is this: Dude had money. He had a cop daddy. He was at the very least emotionally unstable. And he believed that because of money and his connection to the leo’s that he could get away with shit mere mortals cannot.

        3. avatar tdiinva says:

          Whether McGlockton was impaired does not negate the fact that he rushed Drejka in what he thought was defense of his pregnant girlfriend and had the presence of mind to retreat at the sight of a gun.

          For many drugs all the test shows is that you used them recently and cannot be used to determine your current physical and mental state.

          This is nothing like the Martin-Zimmerman confrontation where Zimmerman was attacked after disengaged from the situation. The police and the Grand Jury both rejected charges based on the evidence. Dreyka was looking for a fight and this wasn’t his first rodeo. A reasonable person knows that he responsible for McGlockton’s death. We don’t rush to the defense of every DGU where the letter of law appears to support the use of deadly force.

        4. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          “…..Whether McGlockton was impaired does not negate the fact that he rushed Drejka in what he thought was defense of his pregnant girlfriend and had the presence of mind to retreat at the sight of a gun……”

          Defense from what exactly? Harsh words? As far as retreat goes, what some saw was an individual showing pre-attack signs, including winding up for a kick to a guy on the ground he had already attacked.

          “….For many drugs all the test shows is that you used them recently and cannot be used to determine your current physical and mental state…..”

          His mental state was altered by the drugs, science states this quite clearly in any medical text you wish to pursue.

          “…This is nothing like the Martin-Zimmerman confrontation where Zimmerman was attacked after disengaged from the situation. The police and the Grand Jury both rejected charges based on the evidence….”

          I only mentioned OJ and Zimmerman in the context of big money buys a better defense team. I believe I read recent reporting that stated that Dreyka was only allowed to spend $7500 on one expert, although I could be wrong on that. I’m also thinking I read that he was declared indigent and used Public Defenders, I’m not at work so have no access to lexus and didn’t really follow much of the exact details of this case.

          Pretty sure the Police/Sheriff refused to arrest Dreyka at first because of SYG and the evidence. I’ll have to go back and look, but I hate paywalls on news sites.

          “…Dreyka was looking for a fight and this wasn’t his first rodeo. A reasonable person knows that he responsible for McGlockton’s death….”

          He carried a pistol for 20 years according to trial records and his interviews with detectives. CCW records indicate. How hard exactly was he looking for a fight? Evidently not that hard!

          “….We don’t rush to the defense of every DGU where the letter of law appears to support the use of deadly force….”

          wait..what? Are you French or have a mouse in your pocket? What is this ‘we’ business? If the law supports a finding of justification and is decided by a jury as well, I’m not seeing the issue.

          Again, I’m not defending this guy. Simply pointing out that with the right defense team he would have walked, no question in my mind this could have been beat. Many factors involved from expert witnesses that are above reproach at the national level, expert jury selection, Attorneys whose stock- in-trade is pure criminal and self-defense, maybe one or two that have argued at the appellate level or higher and won..the list of factors is never exhausting.

          Takes big money though and you have to be prepared legally for the aftermath if you pull the trigger.

          Dreyka was not.

          Ok, that’s my last statement, I promise..lol

  39. avatar Tom Claridge says:

    All the comments here are valid but. Watch the video and you will see that following pushing the “shooter” away from the “GF” the “pusher” then retreats BEFORE the “shooter” fires his weapon. I think this is very key. Here in CA a key issue in any confrontation or shooting is whether the person who was injured, shot or killed was advancing or retreating in respect to the attacker. Few people who have retreated from the attacker are ever charged with a crime. The FL law is “stand your ground” meaning you do not have to “retreat” but the afore mentioned “reasonable man” would be wise to back away from the confrontation to preserve his legal position if the incident escalates! I think in this case the jury saw the “pusher” back up in essence saying OK this is over but the “shooter” asserts his attack and shoots the “pusher” anyway and thus deserves to go to prison for an extended term. The jury clearly saw it that way as well! Rest my case!

  40. avatar Sian says:

    Branca has a pretty good overview of this case over on Legalinsurrection. Go read it.

  41. avatar StandMyGround says:

    I would of shot the man also. You can’t go around putting your hands on folks and not expect to be shot. Plain and simple the man should of never put his on on the guy and he wouldn’t of got shot.

    1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

      There’s also wisdom in minding your own business and not starting shit with people. If you’re not the parking police don’t act like it.

      1. avatar Randy in Waco says:

        “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”

          Getting needlessly jailed or killed (didn’t think about that, huh?) dissuades evil in what manner?

  42. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    Michael Drejka’s life is about to get very interesting for 20+ years, I wonder if he will learn to keep his mouth shut and stay out of other people’s business?

  43. avatar anon says:

    I did not follow the case–I could not read all the comments—-but if I remember correctly the ‘parking spot monitor’ approached the male first, and was directed to the female—–and using previously stated words that male blindsided the ‘monitor’. could this also be interpreted as a ‘set-up’. —— as for pulling out a weapon from lying on the ground, even without getting knocked on my butt, well I guess if was me, the camera would have ran out of film.———–was it a correct verdict—-I can not speak for anyone—–I remember a saying—there are three stories for every incident——–I bet there is a lot more then that

  44. avatar Tom says:

    As a juror I’d have freed him. Any juror who didn’t deserves death themselves. What cowards. We can’t have men standing up for themselves in this PC coward culture. Police are the biggest cowards though. Look at that parkland porker. What a disgrace and behind the blue line snot wiping the us judicial system is.

  45. avatar Docduracoat says:

    Everyone needs to go law of self defense where lawyer Andrew Branca has another excellent analysis of this case ( and many others)

    Now that the jury has determined that he is the aggressor, appeals courts cannot try the facts again.
    Everyone who conceal carries needs conceal carry insurance. Mine is $1 per day from USCCA, Andrew Branca uses Carry Guard. There are others.
    He says that a $350,000 defense is miles better than a $35,000 defense.
    This man might have been acquitted with a better, more expensive defense.

  46. avatar Charlie says:

    What I see on the video is that McGlockton assaulted Drejka, who then quite reasonably pulled his weapon. But at that point McGlockton backed up, and it appears that he wished to disengage. And at that point Drejka was not in “imminent danger of death or great bodily harm”, and should have likewise disengaged.

    Did I miss something?

    Charlie

    1. avatar Randy in Waco says:

      Okay , Charlie … I don’t know what size you are, but I’m 6’2 and a solid 185. Let me knock you to the pavement in a blindsided attack, take two steps toward you as my moll gets out of the car to assist me … then ask you to add 7+8+3+11. Quick now, give me the correct answer, you have but a second. Oh, wait … didn’t you see me take a step back during that second? Or do you think you just might be just a wee bit more worried I was going to further kick your behind than doing the math problem.

      I don’t know if you’ve ever been violently assaulted. I have … while carrying a weapon (as a plainclothes LEO) You should try it sometime …. it ain’t like sittin’ back in your Barcalounger at home going over some video frame-by-frame.

      1. avatar HoundDogDave says:

        “Let me knock you to the pavement in a blindsided attack, take two steps toward you as my moll gets out of the car to assist me …”

        I doubt that situation would ever come about. You see, I’m not a friggin’ idiot getting the your wife’s face screaming about her parking THAT IS NONE OF MY GOD DAMN business in the first place. And I don’t care How friggin’ big you think you are, I’m 61 year old 5′!0″ 220 lbs old fat white guy. If you had been threatening my wife like that I would have knocked you on your ass AND YOU WOULD HAVE DESERVED IT !

        1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

          Part of the problem is the video doesn’t tell us what the man said to the woman. There is a far cry from criticising her for parking illegally and threatening her. If I say you are a jerk for parking in a handicapped space (and she was) and saying I am going to beat you up.

        2. avatar HoundDogDave says:

          Drejka was being loud enough to draw attention from inside the store with the door closed. McGlocton didn’t just happen to leave the store, he left to protect his wife and kids.

        3. avatar No One Special says:

          This I agree with. Was she wrong for parking in the handicap parking spot illegally? Yep sure was. The question is who made this idiot parking police? By the way it sounds no one appointed him to that position. If it was such a big deal he should have called law enforcement that’s their job not his. They can write tickets he can’t. There are several lessons that can be learned from this. First is if it doesn’t affect you personally mind your own business and keep moving. Don’t think giving someone’s wife or significant other a tongue lashing doesn’t have consequences. I’m 6’2″ and 240 lbs and I’m not fat. If someone gets in my wife’s face you can bet I’m going to be in theirs. The saying two wrongs don’t make a write comes to mind as well. Self appointed parking police was if not wrong he was stupid for his actions and the now dead guy shouldn’t have resorted to physical contact initially. The driver shouldn’t have parked illegally to begin with. And lastly in this case an armed society isn’t always a polite society because we will always have idiots that think carry a gun gives them the power to do whatever they want. This idiot thought carrying a gun gave him the right to be parking law enforcement with no official capacity. The only thing that could have made this stupidity better is the driver getting killed in a horrific accident of some kind. Three very stupid people off the playing field. Law of nature is a beautiful thing. The strongest and smartest survive.

      2. avatar Charlie says:

        Others have pointed out that Drejka was being loud and obnoxious. So loud that he could be heard in the store! It would be reasonable for McGlockton to assume that his wife (GF, whatever) was in danger. This makes Drejka the agressor, and McGlockton the defender. Not the other way around.

        In my world you don’t mess with a man’s woman, you don’t fuck with his car, and you don’t act like a psychotic asshole . If you do any of those things then don’t be surprised what happens next.

        Charlie

  47. avatar Randy in Waco says:

    Drejka was not engaged in any unlawful activity and had a right to be in the place that he was.

    Would anyone’s assessment of this incident be different if Drejka had been an off-duty cop in street clothes talking to the woman about her illegal parking?

    Why? Do police officers have some extra special right to self-defense the general citizenry does not?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email