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

*sigh* No, it does in fact mean you are a lay person. Unless you're saying you've had some form of legal training? Are you a law student? Paralegal? Were you a clerk? Eh? No? Lay person.

Just because its in the list doesn't mean the guy's record had anything to do with motive or intent in this instance. How are those incidents related? Is this the same guy from those incidents, which might explain what the deal was here? No? Then how is it relevant to motive in this case "counsel"? O.... you want to say because he once some years ago got charged with something that obviously proves his motive here was illegal? You mean you want to use prior bad acts to show propensity to commit the crime in this case? So barred evidence then?

Thanks for playing.

 

No, there were no familial witnesses to the actual shooting and lead up. Whereas here, the widow can claim to be a victim of harassment/assault by the guy who shot her man when he came to her aid. She was there. She's a fact witness, not some character witness who heard about it after the fact and says "well that doesn't sound like my baby".
Plus here there is video tape.

I'd advise you work on your understanding of use of force doctrine for people that don't have qualified immunity and the whole thin blue line to stand on.

 

Why does that matter with all the crying and discussions on how he wanted to work at NASA. You're going back to logic.

I'm very aware of it.

That's why I know that after getting bounced off concrete, I was just subjected to a potential serious injury, and when I pull the trigger within 4 seconds of landing I haven't broken the law.

 

He caught a shove and fell man. Don't get dramatic, I don't think he even had a shiner from it much less a serious head injury. Yes, a hard shove on to concrete CAN kill you or seriously injure you. It doesn't seem it did in this case. Continuing the assault would've opened him up, yes. However: Whether or not he was continuing the assault is seriously in question, see the tape. If he was not, its not a good shoot. If he was, it was. Its as simple as that.

 

Because she can describe what happened as someone who was there, giving her credibility, then use that credibility with facts as they occurred to bootstrap onto her emotional appeal. Is this your first time?

Yeah so that's not actually how it works. You may point to the statute saying within 4 seconds and you're good.

Here's the thing: If the attack was stopped, and the jury decides dude on the ground should've known that, he's going in.
Period. His fate will come down to 12 regular people (double sifted for bias IE selecting for some and cutting out others, but working from both directions) deciding if they think he's a hot head or not, essentially.

This is why you should be rather careful in avoiding such conflicts entirely. Even a win here will make this man a pariah nationally, even if he doesn't double and triple and quadruple down on it Zimmerman style.
Not stopping to berate some **** erroneously using a handicap spot and getting into fisticuffs with her angry mate who blind sides you avoids the result (and the court case and expense and loss of life) entirely.

 

Oh I see, so in order to have a self defense case you have to let them kill you or seriously injure you first. Doesn't seem very effective then.

It only matters that he COULD have been seriously injured.

He did continue the assault. He knocked him down then walked towards him.

That's irrelevant too though, as much as taking one shot at someone then making a time out signal with your hand.

 

*sigh* Yes I have had formal legal training. Yes, I have a degree in law. Yes, I have trial experience. Yes, I passed the bar. Yes, I am no longer practicing law, but am now involved in contract law.

Incident #1 - On Dec. 12, 2012, a woman told Largo, Florida, police that a man in a black Toyota truck, later identified at Drejka, pointed a gun at her and her passengers.
"When Largo Police talked to Michael Drejka, he stated that the female driver was driving too slowly through a school zone," according to the complaint. Drejka denied pulling a gun on the woman, and police let him go when they did not find a firearm in his truck, the complaint says.

Incident #2 - In another incident, an 18-year-old man told Pinellas County Sheriff's deputies in 2012 that Drejka flashed a black handgun at him during a road-rage incident. The teenager told deputies the altercation started when he stopped at a light that turned had yellow, and Drejka, who was behind him, allegedly honked and yelled at him, and pointed the handgun at him from his driver's-side window, according to the complaint.

Incident #3 - Three months before McGlockton's shooting, Drejka, who is white, threatened to shoot a black man for parking in a handicapped space at the same store where McGlockton was shot confronting Drejka, according to the complaint. The man's boss told detectives Drejka later called him to complain about his worker, telling him "he was lucky that he didn't blow his employee's head off," the complaint alleges.

I agree that if it is presented as just the guy being an ******, it would not be admissible. The incidences themselves would likely not get it admissible.....except maybe the incident that happened 3 months prior. His actions do support a claim of his intent to harm someone if given the opportunity, but they might not without other evidence that this claim has merit. He does have a history of "starting fights". In the end, a Judge will decide if it is propensity or intent.

 

Being viciously attacked by a man half his age would.

 

I'm not trying to discuss the argument over the parking spot or the character of the two men.

One man was subjected to an unwarranted physical attack that could have seriously injured or killed him.

He responded by shooting his attacker once, which led to his attacker running away.

This is the textbook definition of self defense, and a justified shooting.

 

If someone was blocking you in would you step up to their car and ask them to move?

 

I didn't say that at all and you may quote me otherwise.

I said if the assault was not continuing, then its not a good shoot. You're the one walking around giving the guy a license to kill because he was touched once like its a game of tag or something.

See the bold? >>> Then stopped when the gun was produced backed up and came to a halt. < That's not exactly continuing the assault.

 

Then you're allowed to call yourself a lawyer, though not practicing. In which case: Maybe you should brush up on some fundamentals of trial work again, you're pretty rusty as what you're shooting for is propensity.

The 3rd incident would be more prejudicial than probative in addition or alternative to propensity. You have to examine the shooting as it occurred, not taking into account history neither of the 2 men knew about each other.

 

Baloney. If someone swings at your head with a baseball bat and misses, and you pull a gun and pull the trigger inside four seconds, it doesn't matter what the guy crapping his pants does.

When someone does something to you that could have killed you, taking a step back doesn't end ****.

 

Ah, so you want to entirely divorce the shooting from its only context, IE that the defendant was apparently ranting at a woman who had erroneously taken up a parking space and said woman's mate intervened by blind siding the defendant.

You're not going to be able to do that because "what led up to the shooting" is going to be one of the more relevant factors. My husband blindsided a dude for no reason is different than my husband blindsided a dude for harassing and/or threatening me.

It might be unwarranted. If he was harassing or threatening the woman, that might not be how it plays out.

The defendant responded by drawing a pistol, to which the dead man responded by backing up and coming to a halt, and THEN the defendant shot him after which time, yes the attacker full on fled for some distance. You keep wanting to leave out relevant facts that aren't good for your argument.

 

If between the swing and my producing the pistol and then firing he : stops, backs up, stops, and drops his weapon then defecates, and I'm aware of all of these things or should be, then its no longer justified under use of force laws to kill him. Threat was enough, he stopped (as indicated by his defecating himself and stopping his attack) ergo further is not authorized.

I mean when they push you, and were advancing then you produce a pistol and they back up and stop it certainly can indicate that the fight is over. Its not per se or anything like that, but its certainly something one might reasonably infer from that.

 

He was shoved, and as I recall had no serious injuries or even any nice bruises or scrapes to show for it.
As stated above, yes a fall on concrete and harm but this one doesn't seem to. He was pushed once, while brow beating some **** over a parking space, by said ****'s man, don't be dramatic.

 

I can not call myself a lawyer as I am no longer licensed. I went into a different professional field.

I am certainly rusty in criminal law as my lawyer days were when I was quite young, but I do have knowledge of experience of something very similar to this situation. You are focused on propensity alone. I am not focusing on propensity. I am focusing on whether the shooter had a desire to find a way to "legally" shoot somebody. With his past actions, it would not take much more to claim the argument has merit...though I do agree that it would likely take more. Testimony from a friend where he spoke of this desire. A facebook post where he states he would like to kill anybody that parks in a HC space, etc. If the prosecutor proves motive or intent of this desire, his past actions will likely be admissible. But, as I said, it will depend and rest with the Judge. I have seen Judges allow past action on a lot less.

 

Yeah I doubt four seconds is enough for him to sign the form of unconditional surrender.

Now tell me what the conditions would be if he rang your bell with the bat and actually hit you.

When you shoot someone you're not killing them. You're ending the threat so they can no longer harm you.

 

Ranting is not a justifiable reason for the attack, so it doesn't matter.

If the guy with the gun had been kicking at the door, breaking the window, trying to pull her out of the car or something, then YES I'd agree with you.

None of that happened on the video, and he didn't look particularly animated with his gestures.

I haven't left out a single thing. A verbal argument is not the basis for justification of a physical attack.

Here's a good example of why. This has a metric **** ton of "context".

All the **** talking and verbal arguments didn't matter here, and they don't matter in this case either.

 

This is a ridiculous argument.

You don't have to allow yourself to be harmed before you can respond with deadly force.

You only have to be attacked in a way that could cause death or serious injury, or be threatened with imminent death or serious injury.

I mean if someone pulls a knife on you, you're welcome to let them stab you first if you feel that helps your case. I'm not going to wait.

 

They are involved in more mass killings than guns.

That wasn't what happened in this case.

 

No, it wasn't, but it really wasn't any different either.

 

If you reread my posts, you'll notice that I consistently stated 'outside of arms reach'. If I have my gun, in my hand, cocked and ready to fire, aimed at an individual who is outside of my arms reach, then there is no way on earth he is getting to me before I fire.

 

I agree. He was assaulted but he was not in any danger when he pulled the trigger. Not a stand your ground, 2nd degree murder.

 

It's called assault. Arguing with someone is absolutely NO excuse for physical violence.