Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 75
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,728

    Default Re: Does This Actually Fit in the Bookends of Syg

    Quote Quoting Who'sThatGuy
    View Post
    I think Jim may be right. It was 4.5 seconds after he hit the ground that he fired his handgun. McGlockton was just standing there after he completed his forceful push. Drejka was the one who started the altercation with McGlocktons girlfriend.

    In no way an I sticking up for McGlocktons side, but I'm looking through the same window as Jim.

    If the AG doesn't file charges, Drejka better count his blessings...
    i think your clock is running a bit fast but during that time, contrary to your claim, mcglockin moves towards the guy on the ground in an aggressive mannner. He had already shown he was willing to engage in physical violence without any real justification so the guy was justified in shooting.

    only when he realizes the guy is pulling a gun does the guy standing retreat. If anything that is the critical point where the syg law might have demanded ground guy not shoot. Other than that, guy doing the pushing was as asshole. Even if the guy was yelling at his girlfriend (which given the lack of animation that almost always accompanies yelling suggests he wasn’t), there was no justification to blindside the guy and forcefully shove him to the ground.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    189

    Default Re: Does This Actually Fit in the Bookends of Syg

    to say 'without any real justification' lends the shooter great benefit of the doubt that his words and posture to the woman would not be viewed as offensive OR assaultive by her another.

    I'd like to review the statements from those there are to what was actually being said since most everyone around turned their heads taking notice.

    I wonder how many of those who were on the scene, including those who left during, were interviewed.


    Let's say he was standing there loudly calling her a list of choice superlatives laced with profanities that a decent person does not use around women or children, would that provoke you if say, the woman was your wife and the kids were yours?

    It is clear, her parking there harmed nary a soul, and certainly not the shooter and nobody else at that time.

    I'd also like to see how clearly the spot was labeled or if the paint was highly worn as it is located in a spot I'd not think would be designated for handicap parking.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,627

    Default Re: Does This Actually Fit in the Bookends of Syg

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    i think your clock is running a bit fast but during that time, contrary to your claim, mcglockin moves towards the guy on the ground in an aggressive mannner. He had already shown he was willing to engage in physical violence without any real justification so the guy was justified in shooting.
    Yeah, I re-watched the video, He only did move back when the firearm was pulled out. However, McGlockton did step back prior to firing. I think the AG should have a grand jury watch the video.
    I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.......

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,728

    Default Re: Does This Actually Fit in the Bookends of Syg

    Quote Quoting KK1968
    View Post
    to say 'without any real justification' lends the shooter great benefit of the doubt that his words and posture to the woman would not be viewed as offensive by her man.

    I'd like to review the statements from those there are to what was actually being said since most everyone around turned their heads taking notice.


    Let's say he was standing there loudly calling her a list of choice superlatives laced with profanities that a decent person does not use around women or children, would that provoke you if say, the woman was your wife and the kids were yours?

    It is clear, her parking there harmed nary a soul, and certainly not the shooter and nobody else at that time.

    I'd also like to see how clearly the spot was labeled or if the paint was highly worn as it is located in a spot I'd not think would be designated for handicap parking.
    Offensive doesnt justify physical violence. Aggressive, threatening; yes. Offensive; nope

    ans his posture was not threatening. He was spaced away from the car and very little animation.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    189

    Default Re: Does This Actually Fit in the Bookends of Syg

    it will be interesting to see what the actual witnesses actually state what was being said and with what tone

    the 'billowing' attire may not have been wasted on those observing and it certainly wouldn't have been on any seasoned law enforcement officer since it is an indicator of a person packing

    I wonder what was being reported to inside the store as the guy stood there with the door open watching, or if the altercation was loud enough no reporting was required.

    It will be interesting and I certainly maintain the bar for an assaultive offense <ergo provocation> can be met verbally.

    I don't know Florida's position on "Fighting Words" is. Here, one's mouth can legally precipitate a good ole timey stomping.

    Quote Quoting Who'sThatGuy
    View Post
    If the AG doesn't file charges, Drejka better count his blessings...
    "Deputy Drejka" seems to be a habitual provoker.

    Amazing how that statute and a carry permit embolden those who may have complexes.

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/victims-gi...ry?id=56751894

    "The owner of the convenience store in Clearwater told ABC affiliate WFTS that Drejka had assaulted customers in the store’s parking lot before. And Rich Kelly, who frequents the store, claimed Drejka picked a fight with him over a parking spot about a month ago, calling him racial slurs and threatening to kill him, WFTS reported."

    The doctrine relates to the principle of self defense , particularly in the law of homicide , and it is to the effect that a true man, who is without fault , is not obliged to flee from an assailant who, by violence or surprise , maliciously seeks to take his life or do him great bodily harm . The victim of an aggressor has no invariable duty to retire to a place of safety. See state v Haakenson, (N.D.J213 N. W.2d 394.

    Drekja is not a True Man or with honor. It is doubtful he is even with reasonable cognizance.

    A True Man DOES NOT go use offensive and assualtive words against others in public, instigate and provoke a situation much less against a weaker woman who is with children.

    Some of you have forgotten or never knew what it means to be a MAN.

    The rule requiring accused to retreat is especially applicable where he was at fault in getting himself in the dangerous situation. 40 C.J.S. Homicide § 127, p. 1012.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    355

    Default Re: Does This Actually Fit in the Bookends of Syg

    Quote Quoting adjusterjack
    View Post

    Your imaginary objective reasonable person who would not think it necessary to use deadly force against force that was already completed and where no further force was threatened has absolutely no clue as to what it was like to be on the ground with an attacker looming over him/her and has no business being on a jury.

    Now if you could get 6 or 12 people on the jury who have experienced being suddenly attacked and thrown to the ground while their attacker loomed over them, I would go along with that.
    What you fail to understand is that "reasonable" is the objective standard. That is taught in the first semester of a law school. The person's belief has to be reasonable. It is not the belief they actually have, but a belief they have that is judged to be reasonable. That is what makes it an objective standard. I could sincerely believe that a 3 year old unarmed child posed a deadly threat to me, but that would be patently unreasonable.

    I have specifically litigated SYG hearings in the courts of Florida, so I have a good understanding of the standard, having argued it a number of times.

    Look, wrong was done every step of the way in this case. The woman was wrong to park in a handicap spot. The shooter was wrong to act as if he is a parking cop. He has no standing to enforce any parking code. He should have called the police. The man who died had no right to put his hands on the shooter no matter what the man was saying. That was a battery. But a simple battery by an unarmed person does not give rise to the immunity provided in Florida's SYG statute. The shooter had to reasonably believe that great bodily harm or death was imminent. He did not suffer great bodily harm from the initial push to the ground, and there was nothing that would have indicated to a reasonable person that anything more was going to happen. The speed at which he drew and fired appeared to me to be retaliatory in nature, not defensive. The man was moving away from him. There was no further threat of aggression, and even if there was there was no weapon or other basis to believe great bodily harm (a legal term with specific meaning) was imminent.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    189

    Default Re: Does This Actually Fit in the Bookends of Syg

    Interesting twists are that the store management and police knew Drejka had a history of playing cartoon parking space deputy looking for a fight and possibly this was a racially charged hate crime.

    They also KNEW that parking place was not clearly marked and the simple fact is, she wasn't hurting a thing parking there and certainly was not hurting the shooter.

    According to the witness statement's the battery very well could be argued to have been reasonably justified when one considers he was yelling indecent things to a woman with children in her car. Mcglockin should have knocked him out cold once he determed Drejka's conduct justified prejudice.

    I snipped an image from the ABC news video and the whole store is a rundown shambles, too lazy to host it to post here.

    Drejka went looking, and not his first time, for an excuse to shoot somebody and created one.

    He should ride the lightning and it appears the store owners and police may have some possible liability for ignoring prior complaints and not banning him from the premises.

    asa_jim, thanks for your experienced and qualified voice of reason in this one.

    I feel the media pundits fail the people miserably in not educating them to the facts of SYG stemming from the Trueman Doctrine well established hundreds of years ago.

    Drejka was not and is not a Trueman.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,728

    Default Re: Does This Actually Fit in the Bookends of Syg

    Quote Quoting asa_jim
    View Post
    What you fail to understand is that "reasonable" is the objective standard. That is taught in the first semester of a law school. The person's belief has to be reasonable. It is not the belief they actually have, but a belief they have that is judged to be reasonable. That is what makes it an objective standard. I could sincerely believe that a 3 year old unarmed child posed a deadly threat to me, but that would be patently unreasonable.

    I have specifically litigated SYG hearings in the courts of Florida, so I have a good understanding of the standard, having argued it a number of times.

    Look, wrong was done every step of the way in this case. The woman was wrong to park in a handicap spot. The shooter was wrong to act as if he is a parking cop. He has no standing to enforce any parking code. He should have called the police. The man who died had no right to put his hands on the shooter no matter what the man was saying. That was a battery. But a simple battery by an unarmed person does not give rise to the immunity provided in Florida's SYG statute. The shooter had to reasonably believe that great bodily harm or death was imminent. He did not suffer great bodily harm from the initial push to the ground, and there was nothing that would have indicated to a reasonable person that anything more was going to happen. The speed at which he drew and fired appeared to me to be retaliatory in nature, not defensive. The man was moving away from him. There was no further threat of aggression, and even if there was there was no weapon or other basis to believe great bodily harm (a legal term with specific meaning) was imminent.
    I disagree. In my view the aggressor didn’t move away until he realized the guy on the ground was pulling a gun. Until that time he was actually moving towards the guy.

    Quote Quoting KK1968
    View Post
    Interesting twists are that the store management and police knew Drejka had a history of playing cartoon parking space deputy looking for a fight and possibly this was a racially charged hate crime.

    They also KNEW that parking place was not clearly marked and the simple fact is, she wasn't hurting a thing parking there and certainly was not hurting the shooter.

    According to the witness statement's the battery very well could be argued to have been reasonably justified when one considers he was yelling indecent things to a woman with children in her car. Mcglockin should have knocked him out cold once he determed Drejka's conduct justified prejudice.

    I snipped an image from the ABC news video and the whole store is a rundown shambles, too lazy to host it to post here.

    Drejka went looking, and not his first time, for an excuse to shoot somebody and created one.

    He should ride the lightning and it appears the store owners and police may have some possible liability for ignoring prior complaints and not banning him from the premises.

    asa_jim, thanks for your experienced and qualified voice of reason in this one.

    I feel the media pundits fail the people miserably in not educating them to the facts of SYG stemming from the Trueman Doctrine well established hundreds of years ago.

    Drejka was not and is not a Trueman.
    Regardless of what drejka did, given he did not attack or even appear he was going to attack the woman, the decedent had no right or basis to touch drejka. It was he who started the unwarranted physical interaction. The guy that died was the aggressor. It was his actions and his alone that caused the shooting.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    189

    Default Re: Does This Actually Fit in the Bookends of Syg

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    I disagree. In my view the aggressor didn’t move away until he realized the guy on the ground was pulling a gun. Until that time he was actually moving towards the guy.


    Regardless of what drejka did, given he did not attack or even appear he was going to attack the woman, the decedent had no right or basis to touch drejka. It was he who started the unwarranted physical interaction. The guy that died was the aggressor. It was his actions and his alone that caused the shooting.
    You gotta be kidding me, REGARDLESS OF WHAT HE WAS DOING OR DID you indicate no Trueman had any right to stomp Drejka's butt. Lemme know how you handle being in a similar situation when some mentally ill power hungry moron is cussing your wife with your small children within earshot.... and what exactly he was yelling at her in front of his children has not come out yet.

    The bottom line is if you study the Trueman doctrine, Drejka's conduct DID NOT FALL WITHIN THOSE BOOKENDS even had there not been prior complaints of him acting the same way.

    Do you run around 'billowing' while packing a concealed gun and take it upon yourself to harshly issue scathing rebukes to weaker and defenseless humans over trivial matters?

    If so, you just haven't met the right one yet and it is a tragic shame Mcglocklin didn't take his head off instead of just shoving him.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    355

    Default Re: Does This Actually Fit in the Bookends of Syg

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    Regardless of what drejka did, given he did not attack or even appear he was going to attack the woman, the decedent had no right or basis to touch drejka. It was he who started the unwarranted physical interaction. The guy that died was the aggressor. It was his actions and his alone that caused the shooting.
    Given that reasonable people come to different conclusions based on the media reporting of this event, don't you think it is appropriate for the state attorney in the 6th circuit to determine whether a crime should be charged? And shouldn't a judge and jury make a determination as well? There is no blanket right to kill someone who has shoved you to the ground without more. That simply is not the law. The man was not even injured in the fall. Where was great bodily harm or death supposed to come from?

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Would Sending Out an Email Be Ground to Be Let Go
    By Dallen in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-08-2010, 01:02 PM
  2. A Mosque Near Ground Zero
    By Guilty Or Not Guilty in forum Debate the Issues
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 09-12-2010, 06:36 PM
  3. Ground for Termination of Easement
    By piney in forum Real Estate Ownership and Title
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 06-12-2009, 01:14 PM
  4. Do I Have Legal Ground to Sue
    By chechmate32 in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-20-2009, 01:30 PM
  5. Debt Collectors: Preparing Ground of Defense
    By usvajs in forum Debts and Collections
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-18-2008, 09:12 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources