Sheriff called parking spot shooting legal under ‘stand your ground’ laws. Prosecutors disagreed.

The matter of pre-trial negotiations and maneuvering is not being discussed. Rather it is being explained why the odds of the prosecuting attorney successfully convicting Drejka of anything are very poor. Drejka was violently assaulted not five seconds before McGlockton was shot and killed. It is going to be very difficult for the prosecuting attorney to convince a jury that, because McGlockton was not attacking at that particular instant in time, that Drejka was unjustified in the use of deadly force and thus was acting out of malice and revenge.

Reading over the posts presented on the part of yourself in this particular matter, as to how the legal window of opportunity for the use of lethal force for self defense can disappear in an instant, one would have to believe that if a person has been assaulted and is being repeatedly punched in the head, the legal window for the use of lethal force in self defense only applies when the fist of the assailant makes contact with the skull of the defendant, and then immediately ceases to exist when the assailant is pulling back for the purpose of delivering subsequent blow, only to again pop into existence once contact has been reestablished.

 

As might the courts that hear appeals if such occurs.

Remaining in the area, especially the immediate vicinity of a crime, is not a retreat.

 

Yeah except you keep saying it then claiming you didn't say it. It's all there in black and white.

Your entire defense revolves around "he took a step back and had a gun pointed at him, ipso facto the threat was over". That's not an argument, try as you might.

You can keep calling me names all you want, we both know what that means.

No, I'm looking at it from self defense.

Which, of course, is why I keep telling you good luck with convincing a jury that he was no longer in fear of death or serious bodily injury in the 2-3 seconds of drawing the firearm and pulling the trigger.

So. Good luck.

 

the video shows the guy moving away from guy with the gun.

looks like the assault was over and a retreat was in progress.

to any reasonable person, the neccessity for deadly force ended.

or he could have at least attempted a citizens' arrest

 

You're not getting it. You got your standard wrong on self defense in Florida, what you have to prove, to what standard and when, so I corrected that.

As to "not attacking at that particular instant in time" no its more like: "had backpeddled and was turning to flee thus no longer a threat because he was unarmed".

Here you go again: To prove imperfect self defense and thus manslaughter (what he's actually charged with) you do not need MALICE AND REVENGE. You need a genuine yet unreasonable fear and a corpse because of it.

That's not actually something that can be derived from my posts but I understand why you're salty. Quote them and explain your reasoning if you disagree.

 

Except it cannot be cited by yourself how the incorrect standard is being demonstrated on the part of myself. Rather it is only being claimed such is the case by yourself.

McGlockton was not engaged in a retreat, and made no effort to convey the fact that he was standing down. Beyond that matter, being unarmed does not mean one is not a threat. Observe:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-new-york-queens-florida-window-a8482756.html

A Florida man has died after being punched by a driver whose car window he knocked because he mistakenly thought the vehicle was his Uber.


Sandor Szabo, 35, was visiting New York City for a wedding from his home in Boca Raton, Florida.

Mr Szabo had reportedly knocked on a number of car windows in Long Island City, a neighbourhood in the Queens borough, at 1am on Sunday, to see which was his Uber ride.

His family reported he was leaving the hotel where his brother was staying and making his way to his own at the time of the incident.

The suspect got out of the vehicle and allegedly punched Mr Szabo so hard he fell, hitting his head on the concrete pavement.


The tourist was then rushed to hospital where he remained on life support for the early part of the week.

Drejka being shoved to the pavement constituted deadly force just as much as if McGlockton had threatened him with a knife or a firearm being brandished in his face. Simply because he did not die as a result means nothing whatsoever. Deadly force qualifies as force a reasonable would believe capable of causing great bodily harm.

Since Drejka was subjected to what has proven to be deadly force in other instances, there is nothing about his fear that could legitimately be considered as unreasonable.

The following is a prime example. Observe:

Following the example above, the prosecutor must actually prove Drejka knew McGlockton was unarmed, was actually intending to give up fighting and flee, had no further interest in violence, and yet still chose to shoot him anyway.

Since Drejka had already been subjected to unprovoked, unjustified deadly force not even ten seconds earlier, explain precisely why his decision to shoot would be equally unjustified. In the united states, is one individual actually allowed to shoot another individual, and if the victim of such does not immediately die they are not allowed to return fire in their own defense? The force used was obviously not deadly as they are still alive and physically able to return fire, so why is the standard different?

 

You are the one who claimed to be an expert by way of your copious research into the issue. I didn't think I'd have to do so much for someone so sophisticated. I pointed it out, I told you where to find the answer. Is googling too much for you?
Here, let me do it all for you, o wise and learned one who does so much research.

http://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/fl-776-032 immunity-from-criminal-prosecution-and-civil-action-for-justifiable-use-of-force/
"
4) In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection (1)."

I think I'll call you Mr. Expert who can't be arsed to read the ****ing statute.

He was out of arms reach and unarmed. What's more as is shown in the tape once the gun is out he stops and moves the opposite direction while turning over his right shoulder to flee. While in the midst of this turn he is shot once.
I never claimed that an unarmed person cannot cause harm, I said that they have to be within grabbing distance to do so and they've got to be coming toward you in earnest, not well out of grabbing distance backing up and turning away to beat feet.

You need to learn what imminent threat means.
Since you can't even be bothered to read the statute, I'm sure you can't be bothered learn the definition.

They actually don't need to prove that at all. He doesn't have to know with certainty he's unarmed, he doesn't have to prove malice either. Imperfect self defense, which ends in a manslaughter charge which is what he's been charged with, requires a genuine if unreasonable fear and a corpse stemming from it.

I have explained it. Multiple times. But let me try again:

First its not "in the united states". Its "in The State of Florida". See that link I gave you? That's the use of force statute for the state. In America its not the feds who have police powers, its the states. Civics lesson over, employing a firearm is per se deadly force, whether someone ends up dead or not from the shot. So if you produce a firearm the threat of deadly force must be authorized and if you use one the use of deadly force must be authorized.
In this case, the initial assault was unjustified (the pushing) opening the assailant up to the statute while he presented an imminent threat to life or limb. This would mean that while that assault continued, he was fair game for any use of force necessary to get him to stop. Such stoppage was effected by the production of the firearm by the defendant, when the assailant physically stopped, backpeddled, and began to turn over their right shoulder to flee. At that point the threat is no longer imminent because that assailant has discontinued his assault, as evidenced by his stopping backpeddling and turning to flee.
Once the imminent threat is passed by the discontinued assault, the authorization to use deadly force is over.


In your example there are no facts to indicate the assault has been discontinued. In point of fact in your example it explicitly remains on going.
Contrast that with the current case where the assailant, even in the words of his detractors, stopped his assault upon production of the gun and began to flee.
Its not my fault you intentionally misconstrue the argument because you're salty.

 

As time goes by your story gets more ridiculous. He pushed him away from his wife and backed away unarmed. Seeing Drejka has a history of assaulting and harrasing people he was right.

 

You'll wasn't in my quote you're responding to or in the quote it of yours I responded to with it, so what the **** are you on about now?

Positioning, direction of travel, intent of motion, of claimed imminent threat: All of these things are evidence that goes into a use of force calculus. They are the farthest thing from irrelevant.

O my you finally get the standard right after two days of being corrected on it. Wonders never cease.
That won't be all that difficult to prove, he shot an unarmed man who, even by your admission, has stopped his assault backed up and began to flee.

 

Your average runner can run 10-15 miles per hour, at least according to the internet.

If you take the low end of that we have:

1 mile = 5280 feet
1 hour = 3600 seconds

10 miles per 3600 seconds = 1 mile every 6 minutes

1 mile (5280 feet) / 360 seconds

Your average low-end runner can move about 14.7 feet in one second.

Clearly, he was still a threat.

 

Sure.

You protract away, meanwhile the defense will be pointing to his injuries, the intent to continue the assault, and the 3 seconds between the draw and the trigger pull.

Good luck.

 

1) Your average low end runner at FULL STRIDE can do that. By your own admission dude STOPPED and then TOOK STEPS BACK. He's have to stop his momentum again and take steps forward. That would take longer than a full second.
2) And how long does it take the finger to squeeze the trigger when the gun is out, up and aimed already and you're looking right at him?

Its not a threat that must be proven its IMMINENT threat that must be proven and guess what? He'd discontinued his assault making him no longer an imminent threat to life and limb. Imperfect self defense. Manslaughter. Open. Shut.

 

The intent to continue the assault as evidenced by him stopping, backpeddling, and turning to flee?

Yeah that's going to go over real well with the jury I'm sure.

 

Still within striking range, no matter how you spin it.

We know that people who have had guns pointed at them have taken those guns, then killed people with their own guns.

Your argument that the guy was no longer a threat is just wrong.

Depends on your reflexes, response time, and how addled he was from the already executed violent attack on him.

 

How is one hit center mass when one is supposed to be fleeing?

 

He's turning to flee over his right shoulder. He is beginning that turn, perhaps a quarter to halfway through the motion when shot.
Its harder to tell with that video, I'd need a better quality copy to pin it down farther.
When you start to turn to your right, you swing your body around that direction. While doing that your chest is still open and a shot can still easily strike center mass.

 

I'm not sure how you turn, but my chest is always pointed right in the direction I'm turning. It's kinda designed that way.

He certainly turns once the slug is inside him though.

 

Not really, considering the time limit and the fact that his momentum is already going the wrong direction.

When they're in arms reach, yes. This guy was not and was moving the opposite direction when shot.

He didn't seem to have any trouble pulling the trigger once he had his shot lined up. He seems to be aiming not deliberating.
The point being if you think the deadman could change direction again and make it across what is now clearly more than 10' (since you announce he stops at 10' ) in less than a second, but you don't think the defendant's trigger finger could travel about an inch in distance, you're equating ninja status to the assailant and worse than elmer fudd status to the defendant.

 

When you start a turn you immediately end up fully turned without passing through the intervening space?
What are you a character in an old 32 bit video game?

Do I honestly have to explain that while you're turning your chest is pointed a multitude of directions? The defendant is on the ground some dozen or more feet forward and to the assailants right, the car is to his left. When he turns his chest is angled first side on, and then directly at the defendant with his chest, while he goes through the turn from front to right. During that turn, he's shot.
This is rocket science chief. Don't feel bad you're having trouble /sarc

 

He was either fleeing with his torso pointed in one direction, or he was not fleeing and facing the shooter when shot.

Your mind reading of his future actions might be attributed to him being shot and then fleeing, which is what happened in reality.

 

It was not a push, it was a violent shove to the pavement, which has proven to be deadly in other documented cases. McGlockton did not willingly disengage from the act of violence, he only did so when he realized Drejka was armed. Even then, McGlockton made absolutely no effort to convey the fact that he was giving up, or would not pursue the matter further. Two steps back is not a retreat, and being unarmed does not mean one is not a threat.

All of which is immaterial, as Drejka was not charged, arrested, or convicted of a single incident prior to this, meaning no history of anything other than accusations actually exists.

 

Oh and FYI, I'm not the one who started reporting the bad words, in case you were wondering.

 

I dont know how many times I have to say that he was in the middle of his turn when shot before you grasp it. He was turning. Not turned. TURNING.

 

How are you "in the middle of a turn"?

Do you mean he was facing sideways when he was shot?

Do you mean he was contemplating turning?

Do you mean his lower torso turned around while his chest remained pointed directly at the firearm?

If his chest wasn't pointed directly at him, he wouldn't have a bullet in that location.

Maybe he turned so fast that he spun around?

 

So has shaking someone hand. He wasnt injured and in no danger. His victim was retreating and backing away. He had a history of violence and he acted out. You can defend scum like that isnt going to change what happened.

Video shows thats not true, he backs away before the gun is drawn.

Its not it shows his character.