Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Stand Your Ground

Trial starts today..............

It's already been 'hashed-out' here, just waiting for the 'peers' to weigh-in...............

It seems open and shut from the info presented. I'm no lawyer, but who was the initial aggressor would not seem to matter. Drejka got pushed to the ground, then shot the guy who pushed him as he walked away. The only way he is not guilty of at least manslaughter, is if he can convince the jury the guy he shot still posed a threat to "a reasonable man". IOW would a reasonable man believe his life was still being threatened by the guy who pushed him to the ground and then was walking away from him. It wouldn't seem to me that the Stand Your Ground law would have much to do with it.

It's troubling though, that the article started off with "shot a BLACK man" and then later went on about how colored folks thought the Stand Your Ground Law represented a threat to THEM. How would a law (I'm assuming here) that didn't list anything about a person's race, favor one race over another UNLESS ONE RACE COMMITTED THE PREPONDERANCE OF DEADLY ASSAULTS/MURDERS? In that case, it would seem to favor the victim over the criminal, which I don't have a problem with.

But...showing such bias in the article makes one wonder if the facts are presented truthfully in the first place.

So on the surface, if the facts are right, it looks like the guy shot the other guy in a fit of rage after being "attacked". Since he wasn't harmed much, it's hard to work up much sympathy for him.

Different states have different 'stand your ground' laws and it all depends on how Florida's law is written. Like EE, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not familiar with FL state laws, but if there laws are anything like Louisiana's, there are other things that come into play.

First, the man was shoved and until he pulled his weapon, the black man was still in his 'kick your ass' mode, but as soon as he saw the weapon, the black man started backing up. In LA. if you pull you weapon and don't shoot, you can be charged with 'brandishing a weapon'.

Second, see the other fellow, that walked out the door behind the black man..... he is advancing toward the man on the ground and only changes direction when he see the gun. The man on the ground might have thought the 2nd fellow was going to attack from the rear.

But, Louisiana law also states that if you are the aggressor, which could be the interpreted as starting an argument (who knows?), then the 'stand your ground' law cannot be applied. In other words, If you start a fight and are getting your ass whipped, you cant shoot your opponent and use the stand your ground law as your defense.

I'm not saying the man that did the shooting was right in starting the argument, he should have called the law, if he was so upset about people parking in a handicap spot. He certainly should not have started an argument with a woman setting in the car. But, if attacked......

It all depends on the wording of the Florida laws and the interpretation of that wording.

Someone comes lookin for trouble, they oughta find it, in spades.

The guy on trial deserves to do some time. He murdered that man.

The Stand Your Ground aspect of Florida self-defense law really has no part in determining justification under these circumstances, since escape (even if desired) wasn't an immediately viable option for the shooter while he was sprawled on the ground. Therefore, it's correctly analyzed according to very standard self-defense concepts, i.e., was there reasonable fear on his part of imminent serious bodily injury or death from the person he shot. That's the only question. The Stand Your Ground component of Florida law is not at issue at all.

All Stand Your Ground does is say that you are no longer required to credibly assert that you had no effective and immediate means of escape in order to claim the legal defense of self-defense. In the past, you had to credibly assert that escape wasn't an immediate option. Now, with Stand Your Ground, you don't have to assert that in order to assert the legal defense of self-defense.

So, now that the Stand Your Ground aspect has been shown to be irrelevant in this case, we can analyze this under traditional self-defense law, where the only question is did the shooter reasonably believe that the man he shot presented an imminent threat of serious bodily harm to him.

That's the only question for the jury, since immediate escape was removed from Drejka's list of options once McGlockton knocked him off his feet to the pavement.

I think it could go either way under that analysis. It's a little ambiguous. A jury could see it either way. It's somewhere in the middle between justified and not.

I think he gets jail time!

Don't be a thug, and you won't get shot, don't put your hands on another and you won't get shot, and last of all don't park in a handicapped space if your only handicap is being stupid, and you won't get shot !

Nice shot placement I might add !

Pun intended?

The world is full of stupid people. You don’t have to look very far to find one. In this case two. Hasbeen

CNN's version. Rife with conjecture and inference.

A lot like my local station broadcast that comes on before Rush. Liberal hack telling Jimmy Cefalo this morning that 80-90% of all Americans approve "assault weapons" ban and far-reaching red flag laws. I don't know how Jimmy talks to these idiots so calmly.

In a word- Bullschit.

If I walk out of a store and somebody is yelling at my wife or DIL in the car with kids, I would handle it in a very similar manner. The dude was a bad ass against a woman but did not even have the awareness to see a potential threat much less defend himself against a man. So he immediately goes to the gun for no good reason, I hope he serves some time.

I do agree about the handicapped parking place, don't park there unless you are handicapped.

You can't even imagine the number of schitballs I see getting in and out of cars they've parked in handicap spaces here in south FL.

Biggest perpetrators by %? What a coincidence. Black women.

I certainly believe in the right to protect oneself. In this situation though I think he will be found guilty. He initially instigated the encounter and then finished it with a bullet. If you go looking for trouble and get punched out you kind of own it.

Yelling at someone is not illegal, however assaulting some one however is, poor dicision making can cost you your life.

My physical size and life style prevents most people from wanting to attack me, but the thug in this case towered over the guy he attacked, his lack of respect and forethought cost him his life.

It was 100% his fault, and he paid dearly for his lack of both.

You can certainly argue that it's best not to argue with scofflaws, but to call that an instigation of an assault is a huge stretch.

Once you place your hands on someone, be prepared for the worse, had the thug replyed to words ,with words, he would still be a carefree skittle eating burdin on society, but his hands on approach , led to the end of his dreams of a college education.

It will all come down to the Florida definition of stand your ground. If it is a loose definition only requiring him to feel he is in harm then he walks. If not then he gets his 3 square and a bunk for a while.

I don't see the thug walking away until the Vic starts to draw his weapon. He was still heading towards the guy and stopped to pull up his drawers that's when the Vic starts his draw and the thug starts to get the hell out of dodge, too late.....Game on.

The guy was stupid to start the whole mess to begin with but the thug got what he asked for.

Sorry, but the Stand Your Ground aspect of Florida self-defense law has no bearing whatever on this case, since the defendant having been sprawled out on the pavement by the man he shot precluded immediate escape in any event. That removes it from Stand Your Ground analysis, and leaves only classical self-defense analysis, i.e., was it reasonable for the shooter to believe that the man who was shot posed an imminent threat of serious bodily harm to the shooter.