Florida 'stand your ground' shooter Michael Drejka charged with manslaughter

[Inisfallen]

However, if the man who was pushed to the ground had been fatally injured or if he had not been armed and the shover had continued to assault him and he was severely injured, my feelings are you would not have any interest in the case. ;

Are you emphasizing 7_Sorrows’ words for my benefit?

You’re wrong that I wouldn’t have any interest. It’s true that the incident you describe might not have made it into the national news, so I wouldn’t know about it, but I decry pointless violence of any kind.

 

[Inisfallen]

He was a career bully … tried to harm a police officer … who had a gun.

Sure. But in this case, the career bully had the gun.

It didn’t turn out well.

 

[Peebo]

Yes…I wasn’t referring directly to your post…sorry for any mix-up

 

[exnihilo]

Really? “I’m going to report you” is a serious threat? So serious that someone is justified in responding to the threat of a parking ticket with gunfire?

No I didn’t say anything about responding with gunfire. But threatening to report people to police is actually an escalation.

 

[Inisfallen]

No I didn’t say anything about responding with gunfire. But threatening to report people to police is actually an escalation.

What if that person is doing something that should be reported to the police?

 

[7_Sorrows]

Maybe Arizona is different from New York
City. I know many New York City detectives retire to Arizona.
It is still the Old West in some instances and we are also a border state.
Many in Arizona are armed and have foiled home invasions and carjackings.
I hope if I am ever the victim of a crime in a public place, there will be an armed citizen nearby to come to my rescue.

By the way, I notice at the end of the video a woman is seen running from the direction of the car that had parked in the handicapped spot. Is that the wife of the victim?
Did she leave her other two kids unattended in her car while the “deranged”
man was still there by her car armed?

 

[Inisfallen]

Maybe Arizona is different from New York

Well, sure. My twin sister, who grew up in NYC, lives in Tucson now. She’s always trying to get me to move there.

I know many New York City detectives retire to Arizona

Yep. My mother’s side of the family, all the men were New York cops, some detectives (on my father’s side, they were all firemen). Typical Irish immigrant family I have one cousin (a detective with the NYPD) who retired to Tucson.

 

[niceatheist]

However, if the man who was pushed to the ground had been fatally injured or if he had not been armed and the shover had continued to assault him and he was severely injured, my feelings are you would not have any interest in the case.

But he wasn’t. He didn’t even fire until the victim was twelve feet away. We could play the game of “what if” all day long, but what counts is what was. The shooter was no longer at risk of physical harm, and considering he’s the one that instigated the whole series of events by trying to play parking lot cop, and apparently has a history of aggressiveness, I’d say he was a walking time bomb that finally went off.

 

[7_Sorrows]

You would probably enjoy Tucson. I prefer Tucson to Phoenix where I lived more than
30 years. Tucson and Phoenix have both
grown so much since I moved to Arizona in 1978.

 

[7_Sorrows]

You don’t know for sure the shooter was not at risk. Were you there with a measuring tape measuring the distance between each person?

 

[Annie]

They can determine the distance from both the video and from the angle of the wound. (All that geometry does indeed come in handy in real life.)

The FL Stand Your Ground law replaced a law which required that people try to escape, a ridiculous requirement for people actually in serious danger.

This man seems to have shot after the victim saw the gun and began backing up. At that point, it seems, Drejka should not have shot McGlockton, because Drejka was no longer in imminent danger.

The standard for imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm is that which a reasonable person would perceive.

Apparently charges were not immediately filed against Drejka because of a misunderstanding of how the SYG law works.

 

[exnihilo]

This man seems to have shot after the victim saw the gun and began backing up. At that point, it seems, Drejka should not have shot McGlockton, because Drejka was no longer in imminent danger.

The standard for imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm is that which a reasonable person would perceive.

Apparently charges were not immediately filed against Drejka because of a misunderstanding of how the SYG law works.

I don’t know the man was no longer an imminent threat. If we use the rules for police when they shoot someone this man was definitely within the range where with a knife or fists he’d be considered a threat. There are factors besides range but my point is the range alone doesn’t mean this wasn’t an imminent threat.

 

[Annie]

McGlocken was out of range and backing up.

There are many cases of muggers and the like being scared off when the victim pulls a gun. Once the “attacker” starts backing off, he is no longer an “imminent danger.”

The rules for the police are different for civilians, and vary from place to place, but overall, police are trained to shoot even if the threat is distant; however, the threat does have to be oncoming.

In certain cases, police are permitted to shoot because the alleged offender, although not posing an imminent danger to police officers, does pose a danger to others, whom the police are charged with protecting.

 

[dvdjs]

What does that have to do with where he was standing?

The video shows that the information you provided about the killer’s proximity to the car is not true.

 

[exnihilo]

The rules for the police are different for civilians, and vary from place to place, but overall, police are trained to shoot even if the threat is distant; however, the threat does have to be oncoming.

In certain cases, police are permitted to shoot because the alleged offender, although not posing an imminent danger to police officers, does pose a danger to others, whom the police are charged with protecting.

The rules for police shouldn’t be different. A reasonable threat to them should be a reasonable threat to anyone.

With stand your ground laws everyone has the right to protect others from imminent danger. So for instance if I see someone else being attacked and I think they are in imminent danger I could use force to stop the attacker.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I didn’t provide any information. I said he was not next to the car, he wasn’t at her window, was not leaning on the car, was not touching the car with his hands or body.

 

[niceatheist]

Annie:

The rules for the police are different for civilians, and vary from place to place, but overall, police are trained to shoot even if the threat is distant; however, the threat does have to be oncoming.

In certain cases, police are permitted to shoot because the alleged offender, although not posing an imminent danger to police officers, does pose a danger to others, whom the police are charged with protecting.

The rules for police shouldn’t be different. A reasonable threat to them should be a reasonable threat to anyone.

With stand your ground laws everyone has the right to protect others from imminent danger. So for instance if I see someone else being attacked and I think they are in imminent danger I could use force to stop the attacker.

And the question comes down to imminent danger, and most jurisdictions have a definition. Whether this situation covers the accused’s actions will be up to a court, but I’d say, looking at it, with the man backing away when the gun was produced, the accused has a much harder time making the claim that he remained in any significant danger. Now the jury may make allowances for the situation, and give the accused the benefit of the doubt (much as often happens with the police), or it may not.

 

[Annie]

The rules for police should be different, because they are additionally at risk, and because they are known to carry guns.

In terms of protecting others, they have a higher standard than the average person as well. They are supposed to take more action because they have been trained for that and are paid for that. Civilians have a right to protect others, police have an obligation to protect others.

 

[exnihilo]

That isn’t really the American way. Also, police have a lower standard than the average person. They are under no obligation to protect people, except in very narrow circumstances, and they don’t have liability for their actions.

Civilians have a right to protect others, police have an obligation to protect others.

That isn’t true except in very narrow circumstances. One would be if someone is in police custody.

 

[Annie]

Why do you think this is not the American Way?

I think that the issue of the police’s obligation to protect us going to be further refined as time goes on. Obviously they cannot protect everyone 24/7 but at the same time, they do have jobs they are expected to do.