Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He'll be acquitted. People underestimate all the white people who will be on the jury, like the Zimmerman case.
Last I checked, it still takes an unanimous vote for conviction.
I wouldn't be so sure about him being acquitted. I'm pro-gun, an NRA member, and generally support "stand your ground" laws, but this guy is the poster child for stand-your-ground gone bad. He literally spends his spare time stalking handicapped spots, while armed, hoping for a confrontation. He's a danger to society and needs to be off the streets. I have no use for people who park in handicapped spots illegally, but a disapproving look should suffice. Relentlessly berating people while armed is the height of irresponsibility. I personally would have zero problem convicting him of premeditated murder. He was actively looking to shoot someone.
I wouldn't be so sure about him being acquitted. I'm pro-gun, an NRA member, and generally support "stand your ground" laws, but this guy is the poster child for stand-your-ground gone bad. He literally spends his spare time stalking handicapped spots, while armed, hoping for a confrontation. He's a danger to society and needs to be off the streets. I have no use for people who park in handicapped spots illegally, but a disapproving look should suffice. Relentlessly berating people while armed is the height of irresponsibility. I personally would have zero problem convicting him of premeditated murder. He was actively looking to shoot someone.
Good. The guy should have been held pending or dismissing of charges. There was a man killed. The cops job was to detain the shooter. It's the DA's job (and by extension, a court of law) is to determine if it was justified, not the cops to call balls & strikes of adjudication.
(CNN)Michael Drejka, who fatally shot Markeis McGlockton after McGlockton shoved him in a Clearwater, Florida, convenience store parking lot, has been charged with manslaughter, the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office said Monday.
"Consistent with the decision-making process established under Florida law in this case, the State Attorney conducted his review and decided to charge Drejka with manslaughter," Sheriff Bob Gualtieri said in a news release.
Drejka, 47, was arrested Monday morning and booked into Pinellas County Jail. His bail is set at $100,000, the sheriff's office said.
His first court appearance is set for Tuesday afternoon.
He'll be acquitted. People underestimate all the white people who will be on the jury, like the Zimmerman case.
Last I checked, it still takes an unanimous vote for conviction.
Last I checked, people on juries should be, and hopefully will be, looking at the law, not race.
If jurors cannot be guided by the law rather than their own biases, they should be removed from the jury.
A good attorney will try to keep white racists off of the jury. And if your comment means that because white people are on the jury, they will all be racist, I believe you are totally off-base.
The Florida Statute:
[SIZE=-1]776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or (2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a) Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.
It is going to difficult for Drejka to get around this. He initially provoked the situation. He was not in imminent danger, the victim was unarmed and was retreating. The shooter could have also retreated to his car while simply holding a gun on the victim. He did not need to shoot.
^^^^^ The article was written by one person, and edited by another.
I don't know if both of them never watched the video, are feeding off of other less than accurate reporting, or just have an agenda. The first paragraph is irresponsible. It paints a picture that didn't happen because of what it omits....any mention of the girlfriend. That omission makes it sound as though the arguing was between McGlockton and the shooter, rather than the girlfriend and the shooter.
After reading the story, I clicked on the first video, and let all of the other videos set to auto feed and play in full, one after another, after that first one (eleven total I believe).
There were only three that were more than a few minutes.
The first of those was a second press conference by the Sheriff that appeared to air on a local station. I don't think that that second press conference has been mentioned in this thread. It was 53 minutes long...almost twice the length of the first press conference.
A rep from the local chapter of the NAACP, and a different rep from a ministry group were supposed to appear with the Sheriff, but they backed out at the last minute re a different local media story that I hadn't heard about nationally.
As I started to watch the second press conference, I thought about the first press conference, and the discussion on the thread, including the stated law, re what the shooter could do if the Sheriff arrested him and the SYG assertion was ultimately successful.
The Sheriff did address the point that one point of his acting properly was to not open the taxpayers of Pinellas county up to civil liability. One point that wasn't addressed (by the Sheriff in this second news conference nor, IIRC, specifically, earlier in this thread) was....Would that civil liability from a wrongful charge/aka successful SYG assertion transfer to the State Attorney's office (from the country) if the State Attorney brings the charges and is thus responsible for the arrest, or would any civil liability just disappear if the County or Sheriff weren't the entities pursuing the matter?
After seeing the other ten videos, re some of them, I can see why the Sheriff felt the need to have a second press conference.
The other two 'longer than a few minutes' videos were:
1. A segment from Al Sharpton's MSNBC show.
2. A an Orlando Sentinel sponsored show called "The Chat Room" (IDK is that is a web show, or a local TV show}
Both Sharpton, and two local newscasts (IIRC re the #) among the other clips also made it sound as though the verbal argument was between McGlockton and the shooter, not the shooter and the girlfriend.
The main guy on the Orlando Sentinel show referenced the tape several times, yet he thought that McGlockton was the one who drove the car into the handicapped space ..........and that the shooter approached the girlfriend after McGlockton went into the store, not including that the shooter didn't even drive up until after McGlockton went into the store
After watching that eleven or so auto video feed, I moved on to pulling up this thread read through the new posts to that point (up to 2096, IIRC), and then posted the above.
As someone pointed out earlier, pressure could have led to his being arrested and your post certainly points to that.
Last I checked, people on juries should be, and hopefully will be, looking at the law, not race.
If jurors cannot be guided by the law rather than their own biases, they should be removed from the jury.
A good attorney will try to keep white racists off of the jury. And if your comment means that because white people are on the jury, they will all be racist, I believe you are totally off-base.
The Florida Statute:
[SIZE=-1]776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or (2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a) Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.
It is going to difficult for Drejka to get around this. He initially provoked the situation. He was not in imminent danger, the victim was unarmed and was retreating. The shooter could have also retreated to his car while simply holding a gun on the victim. He did not need to shoot.
What a joke. He provoked nothing. He asked a lady to stop breaking the law and the “victim” ran into over and violently assaulted him. If this is really what the DA is going on then it woke even get passed a grand jury.
What a joke. He provoked nothing. He asked a lady to stop breaking the law and the “victim” ran into over and violently assaulted him. If this is really what the DA is going on then it woke even get passed a grand jury.
Which, I'm sure, is what law abiding citizens like you and I want the process to be, right?
I'm sure some of the background - like the same dude threatening to KILL an earlier driver, will be brought forward.
If this was a one-off I would probably agree with you. But you cannot remove an individual from their former actions.
If one short bearded guy who you knew to be a good citizen....was walking toward you on the street with open carry...and, another dude, a Mr. Charles Manson who had been pardoned, was doing the same thing - would you have reason to believe that one put you in more danger than the other? Why or why not?
Just as Micheal Brown is framed by his bullying behavior in the store previous to his death, so do the actions of this man reflect on his situation.
Personally, I am on no "side" except having the case heard by the Grand Jury and/or a Jury of his peers. What happens from here is not my business...it's our system and it's all we have.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
..........and that the shooter approached the girlfriend after McGlockton went into the store, not including that the shooter didn't even drive up until after McGlockton went into the store 