Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[Ziggurat]

Therefore the push was reasonable under the information known at the time. Therefore manslaughter.

Uh, no. Drejka's guilt doesn't actually hinge upon whether or not the initial push was reasonable.

 

[kedo1981]

This guy is why Carrying guns is a bad idea all around

 

[PhantomWolf]

Uh, no. Drejka's guilt doesn't actually hinge upon whether or not the initial push was reasonable.

I think that the toughest job that the Prosecutor is going to have in this case is getting through to the Jury how the law is to be interpreted, there seems to be a lot of ignorance and often it seems self delusion about this law, enough that even the writers of the law had to come and to say that the media, and others were getting it wrong.

If they can break through the Jury's human tendency to believe that they know more then they do, and have them listen and understand the Law, rather then keeping their own spin on it, then a Man-Slaughter case should be relatively easy. I still wouldn't have minded seeing a Murder 2 charge, but I guess they decided that it might be easier breaking those that felt sorry for him being pushed over out of their beliefs with the lesser charge.

 

[Ranb]

I think that the toughest job that the Prosecutor is going to have in this case is getting through to the Jury how the law is to be interpreted, there seems to be a lot of ignorance and often it seems self delusion about this law, .....

If FL is anything like WA, the jury will get detailed written instructions from the judge on what the law means and how they are to interpret it. I suspect that the prosecutor will be emphasizing how the victim was no longer a threat when he was shot. The defense will probably tell the jury how terrifying the attacker was when the defendant was forced to shoot him.

 

[Nessie]

The prosecution should concentrate on the point in the video when the gun is drawn and McGlockton steps away. The law clearly states that self defence does not apply when the other breaks away and the attack has ended.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

If FL is anything like WA, the jury will get detailed written instructions from the judge on what the law means and how they are to interpret it. I suspect that the prosecutor will be emphasizing how the victim was no longer a threat when he was shot. The defense will probably tell the jury how terrifying the attacker was when the defendant was forced to shoot him.

I think you are right that the primary argument of the case will be whether Drejka was in reasonable fear at the moment of firing. As far as the letter of the law is concerned, that's the pivotal issue.

I wonder if the prosecutor will want to and/or be allowed to discuss Drejka's motivations. Especially if his prior incidents are allowed into evidence, a strong case could be made that Drejka intended to provoke an incident. Maybe they won't state it so plainly, but try to shade him as a willing agent of conflict. While this may not be relevant to the exact letter of the law, the jury is comprised of people and this bit of background info could be the little push needed for any fence sitters.

 

[Ranb]

I've sat on a several juries. None of the defendants ever made a good impression on me when they spoke, that alone didn't make them guilty though. Ditto for most of the lawyers; it's nothing like TV.

One guy even admitted on the stand under cross examination that he might have taken a swing at the cop he was accused of assaulting. I was thinking, "thank you for the confession".

 

[The Big Dog]

The prosecution should concentrate on the point in the video when the gun is drawn and McGlockton steps away. The law clearly states that self defence does not apply when the other breaks away and the attack has ended.

well we KNOW they don't want to focus on the time the much larger and younger man knocked him on his ******* ass, amiright?

 

[Drewbot]

What we do not know is what the shover was saying after the shove.

Will there be testimony that he was saying things like:

Now, I'm going to kill you ?

Was the woman screaming kill him, or finish him?

We won't know until we hear testimony.

 

[eeyore1954]

What we do not know is what the shover was saying after the shove.

Will there be testimony that he was saying things like:

Now, I'm going to kill you ?

Was the woman screaming kill him, or finish him?

We won't know until we hear testimony.

True and not impossible. It also isn't impossible that the man on the ground thought the man who shoved him had a gun.
But we also don't know what was said to the girl in the car. Did he threaten to shoot her as he apparently has done before. Was this heard on the way out by the man who did the shoving?
This is what trials are for and even then you can never be sure.

 

[Horatius]

I think you are right that the primary argument of the case will be whether Drejka was in reasonable fear at the moment of firing. As far as the letter of the law is concerned, that's the pivotal issue.

I wonder if the prosecutor will want to and/or be allowed to discuss Drejka's motivations. Especially if his prior incidents are allowed into evidence, a strong case could be made that Drejka intended to provoke an incident. Maybe they won't state it so plainly, but try to shade him as a willing agent of conflict. While this may not be relevant to the exact letter of the law, the jury is comprised of people and this bit of background info could be the little push needed for any fence sitters.

I wonder if his known habit of carrying a gun while deliberately provoking conflicts could suggest that he didn't have a reasonable fear for his life. He routinely gets into these confrontations secure in the knowledge that he can always pull his gun if it starts going badly for him. That's not a "reasonable fear", that's a plan.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Biden suggested a shotgun, not a handgun.

I'm assuming this is a response to Brooklyn Baby's post just above mine. Just in case anyone was confused.

And yes, I think Biden was referring to a shotgun.

 

[The Big Dog]

I wonder if his known habit of carrying a gun while deliberately provoking conflicts could suggest that he didn't have a reasonable fear for his life. He routinely gets into these confrontations secure in the knowledge that he can always pull his gun if it starts going badly for him. That's not a "reasonable fear", that's a plan.

You think he planned to get blindsided by a guy half his age and knocked on his ass?

Ah, this plan is fiendishly clever in its intricacies! Super that we can ferret these out

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You think he planned to get blindsided by a guy half his age and knocked on his ass?

Ah, this plan is fiendishly clever in its intricacies! Super that we can ferret these out

Yeah, he was probably only carrying at that moment because he was planning on brandishing at someone during road rage later on that day.

Keep fighting the good fight buddy. Rest of the world is ready to flush this turd.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yeah, he was probably only carrying at that moment because he was planning on brandishing at someone during road rage later on that day.

hey, maybe he directed the girlfriend to lazily park in the handicapped spot in the first place! then he planned to get into a controversy with her, that leads to him getting knocked ass over tea kettle.

Ya gotta ask yourself, how deep does this really go?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

hey, maybe he directed the girlfriend to lazily park in the handicapped spot in the first place! then he planned to get into a controversy with her, that leads to him getting knocked ass over tea kettle.

Ya gotta ask yourself, how deep does this really go?

Maybe the girlfriend parked there because she wanted out of the relationship and everyone knew about crazy guy with a gun who loved to pick fights over the parking spot.

Maybe he and the girlfriend are having an affair and they set the whole scene up to get rid of her boyfriend.

Or maybe she was just a bit of a thoughtless jerk about parking in handicapped spots and she never imagined it would get her partner killed and an angry, volatile local man jailed.

 

[The Big Dog]

Or maybe she was just a bit of a thoughtless jerk about parking in handicapped spots and she never imagined it would get her partner killed and an angry, volatile local man jailed.

Oh, I gotta think that she had some inkling that her boyfriend was capable of sudden violence. Hell, as soon as he makes his appearance she starts getting out of the car, and then it was shoving time!

 

[Horatius]

You think he planned to get blindsided by a guy half his age and knocked on his ass?

Ah, this plan is fiendishly clever in its intricacies! Super that we can ferret these out

Not in that particular, but he clearly panned on getting into fights of some sort.

But you go ahead and keep ignoring his history of provoking just these sorts of confrontations. I wouldn't want you going to all the trouble of admitting you might be supporting an ******* exploiting an obvious flaw in a ******** law.

 

[The Big Dog]

I wouldn't want you going to all the trouble of admitting you might be supporting an ******* exploiting an obvious flaw in a ******** law.

Given that your theory is based on the concept that he planned to get physically attacked, you REALLY don't have to worry about me doing this.

 

[This is The End]

Uh, no. Drejka's guilt doesn't actually hinge upon whether or not the initial push was reasonable.

Well, not entirely, but it can. Defending yourself (or others) is not a valid reason for the other party to then defend themselves.

So if the push is deemed a reasonable defense of his family the person pushed loses the ability to defend themselves from that push.

Perhaps think of the push as a valid self defense gunshot, that might help you...

If someone is threatening me enough to where I can legitimately shoot them in self defense, they cannot then proceed to claim self defense as well for actions they take after the initial justifiable self defense.