Michael Drejka convicted of manslaughter in Markeis McGlockton’s death
The infamous Clearwater parking lot shooting case ends with a guilty verdict. Drejka will be sentenced at a later date.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Drejka Verdict In: Manslaughter
- Thread starter Veer_G
- Start date
I read the article and other related articles and I wasn't there . Everything about it is bad , hard . The one thing that stood out was that one of Drejka's attorneys was disbarred for approaching him to defend him ie solicitation . So if it is against the rules why do so many blood suckers get to approach criminal's families to extort money from law enforcement , cities and States ?
I'm hoping that someone like Florida Man with more local familiarity with the case weighs in.
Despite the fact that they've been ass deep in race opportunists, the surveillance footage, on its face, seems damning. Initial physical attack, yes, but no apparent pressing of advantage with Drejka on his back. I'm wondering how the sequence of events and escalation fit into Florida's SYG law, and somewhat concerned that a failed bid to employ it might weaken further cases, if not embolden the vultures.
The jury analysis of the video is in a frame by frame lawyer led sanitary setting.
Take each one of them outside the 7/11 and bkindside them like the defendant. Then ask them for an opinion on the man's reaction.
Take each one of them outside the 7/11 and bkindside them like the defendant. Then ask them for an opinion on the man's reaction.
Boy, that's a tough one. Drejka (like George Zimmerman) is an idiot and took it upon himself to enforce handicap parking laws (though we as citizens should have that right).
By the video the wise thing would be to hold off on pulling the trigger. However, one could make the argument that if the pistol is drawn, the decision has been made to pull the trigger already. SO was he justified and drawing the firearm? That's tougher to say. He was arguing a verbal argument and McGlockton is the one who escalated to physical confrontation.
If we are arguing over which is better, 9mm or .45 or any other useless argument and it gets heated, does that give you the right to push me to the ground? At what point did McGlockton feel his family was in danger and needed to use force to protect his family?
It may have been closer if Drejka did not have a history of threatening people.
By the video the wise thing would be to hold off on pulling the trigger. However, one could make the argument that if the pistol is drawn, the decision has been made to pull the trigger already. SO was he justified and drawing the firearm? That's tougher to say. He was arguing a verbal argument and McGlockton is the one who escalated to physical confrontation.
If we are arguing over which is better, 9mm or .45 or any other useless argument and it gets heated, does that give you the right to push me to the ground? At what point did McGlockton feel his family was in danger and needed to use force to protect his family?
It may have been closer if Drejka did not have a history of threatening people.
We don't need more armed idiots impinging upon the rights of others who may enjoy a few dozen more IQ points.
I'm having trouble reading the inflection of your voice, so I'm not sure, but I feel there's some sarcasm there!
I'm not talking about IQ but more common sense. I'm also not implying that the fact he's an idiot should impact his right to keep and bear arms nor should it impact his right to self-defense. It has no bearing on the legal question, but a little common sense with his encounter with the truck driver may have kept him out of jail. He was threatening both in talking to the truck driver and then to his manager.
At the same time McGlockton was an idiot for escalating to physical force when could have told Drejka to shut up, gotten into the car, and drove off.
My study in CCW class said that if you start some shit, using inflammatory words to piss someone off for instance, and they react, shooting them is not justifiable as self defense. You provoked it.
You can clearly see he was being loud and aggressive enough that at least two other customers took serious note of the confrontation. Then the black guy was clearly moving away. Looked like murder the first time I saw it and it looks like murder now. He got off easy.
You can clearly see he was being loud and aggressive enough that at least two other customers took serious note of the confrontation. Then the black guy was clearly moving away. Looked like murder the first time I saw it and it looks like murder now. He got off easy.
Starting a verbal argument doesn’t forfeit your right to self defense. But it does muddy the water.
Just like I said. Viewing the video from the comfort of your couch.
The man was an idiot for starting something with the lady over the parking spot.
The dead guy was an idiot for attacking him.
Take a second and look at it from his perspective. You don't see the guy that just shoved you to the ground until you roll over. You look up and see a pissed off dude that is standing over you. You are laying or propped up on your gun side elbow causing you difficulty getting to the tool to defend yourself against a much younger, stronger, bigger assailant.
Are you going to notice that he took a step back when you squeeze the trigger?
I don't think so. But if you want to say that you would....
Like I said earlier. Every one of the jurists should have been put in his position to gain some perspective.
The man was an idiot for starting something with the lady over the parking spot.
The dead guy was an idiot for attacking him.
Take a second and look at it from his perspective. You don't see the guy that just shoved you to the ground until you roll over. You look up and see a pissed off dude that is standing over you. You are laying or propped up on your gun side elbow causing you difficulty getting to the tool to defend yourself against a much younger, stronger, bigger assailant.
Are you going to notice that he took a step back when you squeeze the trigger?
I don't think so. But if you want to say that you would....
Like I said earlier. Every one of the jurists should have been put in his position to gain some perspective.
The way I see it, McGlockton may have started the fight, but he deescalated the situation by retreating as soon as Drejka pulled his piece. Once that occurred, Drejka was no longer justified in using deadly force. Had McGlockton stood over Drejka, made a threat (verbal or physical), or advanced again after retreating, then further action by Drejka would have been justified.
There are a number of lessons to take away from this situation, such as "don't start shit with strangers in public". (especially when considering that contextual evidence in that video suggests this may have been a rougher part of town). Drejka should have walked away as soon as the yelling match with McGlockton's baby mama started, and simply taken a picture of the car and called the cops. If you're going to ruin two lives by playing amateur cop, at least be doing something more important than acting as a fucking meter maid.
There are a number of lessons to take away from this situation, such as "don't start shit with strangers in public". (especially when considering that contextual evidence in that video suggests this may have been a rougher part of town). Drejka should have walked away as soon as the yelling match with McGlockton's baby mama started, and simply taken a picture of the car and called the cops. If you're going to ruin two lives by playing amateur cop, at least be doing something more important than acting as a fucking meter maid.
I have to disagree with this. I don't think the guy deserved to die for parking illegally and protecting his family. The idiot did deserve a little bit of an ass kicking just for being an ass and harassing customers. But nobody in that whole scene deserved to die.
Attack someone physically, you get what you get. He should not have been prosecuted. I don't care if they piss you off, I don't care if you think they need it. Its not your right, its not your place. And if you put their life in danger by attacking them, they should have the right to defend themselves with deadly force.
I would have never been in his situation in the first place. They both put themselves in stupid positions. One wins a Darwin award, and the other helped chisel another piece off a persons right to defend themselves. Fuck them both.
I would have never been in his situation in the first place. They both put themselves in stupid positions. One wins a Darwin award, and the other helped chisel another piece off a persons right to defend themselves. Fuck them both.
Shrug. Like I said...opinion.
Drejka was a small man who felt empowered. McGlockton was a big man who probably bullied his way through life. The only tears I'll shed are for the potential damage to my rights.
I am sure it will get appealed... and it is a tough one to win with a jury watching frame-by-frame.
There was a thread on this when the whole thing started... and a lot of analysis about how the challenging part of the defense would be the fact that the deceased perp (not the shooter) was turning as the shots were fired. In the heat of the moment, movement, etc. that is an awful situation for a citizen on the ground fearing for their life. Can you process the movement while pressing the trigger? On the ground? With adrenaline flowing?
In a courtroom, it is an invitation for a slimy prosecutor who is against stand-your-ground laws and self-defense... to analyze your actions (which took under a second) to a jury frame-by-frame... giving them minutes to stare at his poor deceased "Client of the state" with his back turned and getting back shot on a still video. Tick tick tick tick...meanwhile says the lawyer: "look how unreasonable this shooter was. With the video frozen, he had hours to decide not to shoot. You just watched the frozen video screen."
Bad situation for the guy who pulled the trigger who probably did meet the standard for self-defense. But pressed the trigger a fraction of a second too late as his assaulter wheeled around making for a bad video and an even worse coroners report.
Hope it gets overturned on appeal. Too bad that prosecutorial malfeasance can't be considered during the appeal. But once these grotty little lawyers get the bit between their teeth, they will pull out all the stops to win, whether justice is served or not.
Too bad they don't go after heroin dealers or people who have servers in their bathrooms with so much vigor. But those prosecutions don't get them on CNN so they just get plea-bargained or otherwise tossed back onto the street in 10 minutes.
Sirhr
There was a thread on this when the whole thing started... and a lot of analysis about how the challenging part of the defense would be the fact that the deceased perp (not the shooter) was turning as the shots were fired. In the heat of the moment, movement, etc. that is an awful situation for a citizen on the ground fearing for their life. Can you process the movement while pressing the trigger? On the ground? With adrenaline flowing?
In a courtroom, it is an invitation for a slimy prosecutor who is against stand-your-ground laws and self-defense... to analyze your actions (which took under a second) to a jury frame-by-frame... giving them minutes to stare at his poor deceased "Client of the state" with his back turned and getting back shot on a still video. Tick tick tick tick...meanwhile says the lawyer: "look how unreasonable this shooter was. With the video frozen, he had hours to decide not to shoot. You just watched the frozen video screen."
Bad situation for the guy who pulled the trigger who probably did meet the standard for self-defense. But pressed the trigger a fraction of a second too late as his assaulter wheeled around making for a bad video and an even worse coroners report.
Hope it gets overturned on appeal. Too bad that prosecutorial malfeasance can't be considered during the appeal. But once these grotty little lawyers get the bit between their teeth, they will pull out all the stops to win, whether justice is served or not.
Too bad they don't go after heroin dealers or people who have servers in their bathrooms with so much vigor. But those prosecutions don't get them on CNN so they just get plea-bargained or otherwise tossed back onto the street in 10 minutes.
Sirhr
Two stupid people met, played a stupid game and both loss. They are both wrong. Don’t play cop. Mind your business and let the police deal with it.
Maggot is correct. You can’t provoke a situation armed and claim self defense should bullets start flying. The only thing you can do is stop a forceable felony out of concern for life or great bodily harm to yourself or others.
If you like to play tough guy in verbal confrontations you should leave the ccw home.
I would of shot. If I got pushed randomly and someone kept coming at me . We have the right to talk to each other in this country. Not to put hands on people though . We should not receive a guilty charge if the person we are having discourse with (or anyone else) escalates to violence and we respond combatively.
I am probably wrong with this thought. BUT it sounds to me like LEO is saying bad shot, civilians are saying self defense. If we change the script and it was LEO arguing with the driver. When another man walks up blindsides LEO pushing him to the ground and standing over him gets shot. Would you have a different opinion.
he provoked it with the woman not the man that ran out of the store.... he had no idea who this random guy was that ran out and pushed him hhmmm...
There is a slippery area there between talk and escalating the situation to where some dumbass commits a forceable felony.
Legalities aside, it is in conceiled carriers best interests to avoid confrontations and set the ego aside while armed.
Nope it was not a negative comment about anyone. Just curious if anyone would have a different opinion of what they saw on a camera maybe 60 ft. From the action with no audio. Not trying to get any feelings.
You want to go being a whiny self important little empowered prick and yelling and harassing some woman because you feel all up tight about some stupid government regulation.... you don't get sympathy from me.
Apparently since folks around here seem to think that you should use deadly force or none at all, (which I think is part of the problem in this country, everybody wants to find an I Win button to settle things at the point of a gun instead of maybe letting people learn in a non deadly way that their mouth shouldn't write checks their fists can't cash.)
When the boyfriend or the woman confronted the empowered little prick they should have just shot him first.
The little prick deserved to get a good beating up from the boyfriend to make him understand not to be a jerk... but I guess the boyfriend really should have had a gun and just hauled off and shot him and said he felt threatened and his girlfriend felt threatened.
That little prick is exactly the kind that destroys the rights of everyone.
I think it's good they get an example made out of them, so the rest of the little empowered pricks understand that they shouldn't use a gun to backup the crap they start and then expect to get away with it.
Apparently since folks around here seem to think that you should use deadly force or none at all, (which I think is part of the problem in this country, everybody wants to find an I Win button to settle things at the point of a gun instead of maybe letting people learn in a non deadly way that their mouth shouldn't write checks their fists can't cash.)
When the boyfriend or the woman confronted the empowered little prick they should have just shot him first.
The little prick deserved to get a good beating up from the boyfriend to make him understand not to be a jerk... but I guess the boyfriend really should have had a gun and just hauled off and shot him and said he felt threatened and his girlfriend felt threatened.
That little prick is exactly the kind that destroys the rights of everyone.
I think it's good they get an example made out of them, so the rest of the little empowered pricks understand that they shouldn't use a gun to backup the crap they start and then expect to get away with it.
I don’t think that argument flies. He provoked the situation. None of what happened would have occurred if the shooter had handled the situation differently or not at all.
Here's my issue with your statement, and I'm going to get on my soapbox for a minute: He wasn't killed for parking illegally! It's a semantic twist I've seen in other discussion, typically where someone is killed by police. Some kid is dealing a bit of weed, get's spotted by the cops so he runs, cops chase and in the middle of the chase, the suspect reaches into his waistband or pocket and tries to pull out his gun, which results in him getting shot by the officer. The comments are, "No one deserves to die for a little bit of weed," which is an intellectually dishonest statement that is designed to completely absolve one party of wrongdoing because it completely glosses over the primary reason the kid was shot: HE TRIED PULLING A GUN OUT OF HIS POCKET! The media loves using little quotes like that. In this instance, it would be the same as saying, "No one deserves to go to jail over a handicapped parking spot."
In this case, McGlockton wasn't shot for parking illegally. He was shot because he assaulted Drejka! What was McGlockton protecting his family from? Being told they were parked in a handicapped spot??? It should've been as simple as, "You're right. I'll move," but too many people feel entitled and have this "Who the hell does this guy think he is to tell ME i'm wrong?!?" because their ego can't accept being told they're wrong and start escalating the situation.
I'm not saying Drejka is right here either. I like how @Expert684 said it: Two stupid people played a stupid game and both lost, and how @EddieNFL did, as well: Drejka was a small man who felt empowered. McGlockton was a big man who probably bullied his way through life. The only tears I'll shed are for the potential damage to my rights. Drejka's best interests would've been served by him keeping his stupid mouth shut, avoiding confrontation, and walking away without saying anything to anyone, but just like other people's egos won't let them accept criticism, Drejka sounds like the wannabe cop who tries telling people what they're doing wrong and he probably felt empowered because he had a weapon.
Damn it, if you start using logic instead of emotion to analyze this, you will kill the thread.
I can't help but wonder how it would be judged if the shooter was in a wheelchair and had gotten blindsided and pushed to the ground like that.
The shooter was physically assaulted and placed at a disadvantage, and there appeared to be another subject moving towards the altercation when he drew. Can't help but wonder what the video would look like if he wasn't carrying.
The pusher did back up, but what were they saying prior to the gun coming out?
Were they saying, "We're gonna fuck your old ass up!"?
Based on all I can see, the proper verdict was reached. It would have been interesting to hear testimony. I guess it's out there somewhere, but I have things to do.
The shooter was physically assaulted and placed at a disadvantage, and there appeared to be another subject moving towards the altercation when he drew. Can't help but wonder what the video would look like if he wasn't carrying.
The pusher did back up, but what were they saying prior to the gun coming out?
Were they saying, "We're gonna fuck your old ass up!"?
Based on all I can see, the proper verdict was reached. It would have been interesting to hear testimony. I guess it's out there somewhere, but I have things to do.
Not to be flippant, but it's just one more unlawful use of a handicapped parking spot-related death.
And yes, at the very least footage from the other side with audio would have been illuminating.
dont put your hands on anybody and you probably wont get shot
They're all retarded - shooter, dead guy, gf. Shooter should have never put himself in that situation, period; he has every right to call people out on being shitheads when they're being shitheads, but there's no logic in standing there and arguing with someone with entitlement issues. If you tell someone to go fuck themselves for no reason and they cold cock you, you're going to have an uphill battle claiming self-defense. I don't think he should lose the self-defense argument because he called someone out for a parking violation, but there's no audio so it's tough to make the call here.
Now, the GF started escalating the situation by getting out of the car. Dead guy escalated the situation further when he resorted to violence. Dead guy continued to advance until the shooter drew his weapon. I see people here saying dead guy was backing away so the shoot is no good, but that's not true: dead guy did not push the shooter and back away, he pushed the shooter and stepped forward so it's logical to assume that he had every intention of continuing the assault. So shooter is now on the ground in a 2v1 situation (I also think it's logical to assume that the reason the GF got out of the car was that she intended to attack as well), at which point he makes the decision to shoot. Humans are, in general, fucking horrible at judging distance to things visually - it's why we put big red brakelights on cars. Dead guy made no hand gestures or anything after the guy drew to indicate that he was done with the assault. Saying that the dead guy took a step or 3 back should've ended the confrontation doesn't hold water in my opinion because it's very possible the shooter didn't see it, especially when the shooter would've been focusing on his sights (or at least center mass).
This is the Zimmerman case all over again. Both shooters are fucking idiots who put themselves in dumb situations and make the rest of us look bad, and both dead guys escalated the situation by resorting to violence and throwing the shooter to the ground. Legally, I think they were in the right, but personally I'd prefer it if neither carry again to avoid any unnecessary spotlights on the 2A.
Now, the GF started escalating the situation by getting out of the car. Dead guy escalated the situation further when he resorted to violence. Dead guy continued to advance until the shooter drew his weapon. I see people here saying dead guy was backing away so the shoot is no good, but that's not true: dead guy did not push the shooter and back away, he pushed the shooter and stepped forward so it's logical to assume that he had every intention of continuing the assault. So shooter is now on the ground in a 2v1 situation (I also think it's logical to assume that the reason the GF got out of the car was that she intended to attack as well), at which point he makes the decision to shoot. Humans are, in general, fucking horrible at judging distance to things visually - it's why we put big red brakelights on cars. Dead guy made no hand gestures or anything after the guy drew to indicate that he was done with the assault. Saying that the dead guy took a step or 3 back should've ended the confrontation doesn't hold water in my opinion because it's very possible the shooter didn't see it, especially when the shooter would've been focusing on his sights (or at least center mass).
This is the Zimmerman case all over again. Both shooters are fucking idiots who put themselves in dumb situations and make the rest of us look bad, and both dead guys escalated the situation by resorting to violence and throwing the shooter to the ground. Legally, I think they were in the right, but personally I'd prefer it if neither carry again to avoid any unnecessary spotlights on the 2A.
Yeah well....
It's a shame we no longer live in s polite society.
Wife and I went to haul off trash today. All bays are full, line is backed up. I pull up so line can progress. I line up to back into next spot, car pulls out directly behind me, goes around me, I start backing up, car shoots out of line into hole I'm backing into, I slam on brakes. Wife starts doing the monotone "Old Crazy Joe whisperer" voice. I finally get s hole and sail out of the truck. "Joe, Joe, Joe, no, no, Joe."
I didn't say anything but the look I gave him got my message accross.
NEVER say anything.
One day this world will get a lot more polite.
It's a shame we no longer live in s polite society.
Wife and I went to haul off trash today. All bays are full, line is backed up. I pull up so line can progress. I line up to back into next spot, car pulls out directly behind me, goes around me, I start backing up, car shoots out of line into hole I'm backing into, I slam on brakes. Wife starts doing the monotone "Old Crazy Joe whisperer" voice. I finally get s hole and sail out of the truck. "Joe, Joe, Joe, no, no, Joe."
I didn't say anything but the look I gave him got my message accross.
NEVER say anything.
One day this world will get a lot more polite.
Ahh this is the beginning of the story of how some dudes new girlfriend started screaming at him not to park in the handicapped spot or he might get shot!
There’s 2 Floridians who won’t be driving to slow in the smoky mtns!
That’s a shame.
That’s a shame.
Here is the problem with stand your ground laws. I will be honest I am surprised he was convicted (I do NOT think this was a justifiable shoot) but am surprised based on the Florida law that he was convicted and I think two years ago he would have gotten off.
The problem with the stand your ground laws in some states is it allows for disproportionate responses based on a persons feelings of a threat. Ultimately the bar is too low.
Police, having been trained, are supposed to be held to a level that forces them to evaluate the actual risk not just their feelings. There fore a police officer who is scared doesn’t get to shoot because a guy 30 ft away has a knife unless the guy charges because at 30 ft he isn’t a threat to anyone but himself.
Citizens who carry a firearm need to be held to a standard where they are responsible for evaluating the threat. Being scared does not meet a level for lethal force
The problem with the stand your ground laws in some states is it allows for disproportionate responses based on a persons feelings of a threat. Ultimately the bar is too low.
Police, having been trained, are supposed to be held to a level that forces them to evaluate the actual risk not just their feelings. There fore a police officer who is scared doesn’t get to shoot because a guy 30 ft away has a knife unless the guy charges because at 30 ft he isn’t a threat to anyone but himself.
Citizens who carry a firearm need to be held to a standard where they are responsible for evaluating the threat. Being scared does not meet a level for lethal force
I respectfully disagree. Police are also trained in hand-to-hand and other non-lethal techniques to defend themselves. Are we going to require that Joe Citizen go through such training as well so they might have other options before going lethal? A lot of places also outright prohibit citizens from carrying less-than-lethal devices that officers get to have. This means in terms of defense, it's guns or nothing. The courts have pretty consistently held that fearing great bodily harm to you or a loved one is sufficient cause for lethal force.
And yet having a credible fear of death or grievous bodily harm is a defensible motivation in a self-defense shooting.
Very few absolutes or givens here.
The problem here with this is I have little control over what scares you.
If I’m 18” and 100lbs bigger than a person
Me getting their attention because they dropped something could scare them, I don’t want to take a bullet because of that.
As history has shown a young Blackman in a hoodie is more likely to scare someone than a middle aged white man in a polo
Personally I fall in the camp that says you have to be willing to accept a certain level of risk to avoid a mistake
We have executed and have held enough people on death row who ended up being innocent to say that the death penalty is a problem.
I think that as gun owners and those who carry have to be willing to allow a situation to develop further to be able to properly analyze the threat beyond my own fear.
Typically between the moment of fear and the time when a threat becomes a reality a person usually has opportunity to remove themselves from the situation As a gun owner I hold myself to that standard to have the awareness to avoid.
The reality is unjustified shoots because of perception of fear without a real threat is the quickest way to empower the left
Part of the issue here is that the tipping point can be RAZOR sharp.
It can be as complicated as a mentally ill homeless person making semi-threatening motions towards your child...it can be as simple as seeing your ex wife’s new husband bury a knife in the middle of your stomach because he finally snapped.
If I pull out my gun, and the person attempts to put the brakes on the stabbing or shooting they were attempting to get the first blow in...will they land me in prison for the rest of my life because I couldn’t close the loop reaction time wise before shooting them?
Anyone who “knows” the answer hasn’t ever really been asked the question when it actually mattered.
It can be as complicated as a mentally ill homeless person making semi-threatening motions towards your child...it can be as simple as seeing your ex wife’s new husband bury a knife in the middle of your stomach because he finally snapped.
If I pull out my gun, and the person attempts to put the brakes on the stabbing or shooting they were attempting to get the first blow in...will they land me in prison for the rest of my life because I couldn’t close the loop reaction time wise before shooting them?
Anyone who “knows” the answer hasn’t ever really been asked the question when it actually mattered.
Note the customer in blue saw the shooter reach for the gun and made it 15 or more feet out of the area before the trigger was pulled.
The deceased appears to have stood there stunned and torn between his ego and flight response. Seems as though he might have been about to start a barrage of "what are you gonna shoot me?" verbiage.
Random observations
The deceased appears to have stood there stunned and torn between his ego and flight response. Seems as though he might have been about to start a barrage of "what are you gonna shoot me?" verbiage.
Random observations
Good conviction. The video is pretty obvious. Dude was not in imminent harms way.
McGlockton obviously was just standing there, he even took a step back after the draw.
Big difference between being in the process of getting your ass kicked during an attack to the point of not knowing if you are going to live and getting pushed to the ground.
There was a HUGE pause between the draw and the shot, and during that time there was no "attack".
ZERO REASON TO PULL THE TRIGGER HERE
Someone putting hands on you does not automatically equate to being able to take their life.
Interesting how more than a few people out there (and on here) are all about taking a life so quickly.
What? Because a dude pushed you........over something you started.
Amazing
McGlockton obviously was just standing there, he even took a step back after the draw.
Big difference between being in the process of getting your ass kicked during an attack to the point of not knowing if you are going to live and getting pushed to the ground.
There was a HUGE pause between the draw and the shot, and during that time there was no "attack".
ZERO REASON TO PULL THE TRIGGER HERE
Someone putting hands on you does not automatically equate to being able to take their life.
Interesting how more than a few people out there (and on here) are all about taking a life so quickly.
What? Because a dude pushed you........over something you started.
Amazing
Last edited:
