Stand Your Ground

Trying to Clarify Why He Didn't Arrest Michael Drejka for Killing Markeis McGlockton, Sheriff Muddies Matters More

At first Bob Gualtieri said he lacked probable cause. Now he seems to be saying something more than probable cause is needed.

|

Pinellas County Sheriff's Office

Yesterday Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri responded to criticism that he had misrepresented Florida's "stand your ground" self-defense law while explaining his decision not to arrest Michael Drejka for fatally shooting Markeis McGlockton. But in attempting to set the record straight during a press conference that lasted nearly an hour, Gualtieri misrepresented his own public comments about the case and the test for arresting someone who uses deadly force.

Drejka shot McGlockton during an altercation at a convenience store in Clearwater on July 19. Surveillance video shows McGlockton, responding to an argument between his girlfriend and Drejka over her decision to park in a handicapped spot, pushing Drejka to the pavement. Drejka, still sitting on the ground, draws a pistol, prompting McGlockton to back away, at which point Drejka shoots him in the chest.

Under Florida law, the shooting was justified only if Drejka "reasonably believe[d]" it was "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." At a press conference the day after the shooting, Gualtieri said this test is "largely subjective," a claim that was contradicted this week by three key legislators who had a hand in writing the law and the National Rifle Association lobbyist who helped get it passed.

Now the sheriff says he was misunderstood. "It is an objective standard," he said yesterday, "but it has a subjective component to it because it has to be considered through the lens of the person who used force." In other words, he explained, "what that person knew, how they knew it, and other factors that are in their heads" are relevant in deciding whether his actions were objectively reasonable "under the circumstances of the time." That formulation is fine as far as it goes, since the law requires a judgment based on what a reasonable person would have done in the same situation. But that is not what Gualtieri said at his July 20 press conference.

"'Stand your ground' allows for a subjective belief by the person that they are in harm's way," the sheriff said then, and "we don't get to substitute our judgment for Drejka's judgment." The question, he said, is not "what I would do, what you would do, what the public would do, what someone else would do." What really matters, he suggested, is "the person's subjective determination of the circumstance they were in" and "the fear that they had."

The implication is that if Drejka sincerely feared for his life, he was justified in killing McGlockton, even if that fear was not reasonable in the circumstances. That is plainly not what the law says. Yet Gualtieri continues to imply that it is improper to second-guess Drejka's assessment of the situation. "Do I think that I would have shot in that situation?" he said in an interview with The New York Times yesterday. "No. But just because I would not have, or don't believe I would have, doesn't mean he's not within the boundaries of the law."

At yesterday's press conference, Gualtieri added to the confusion by claiming that Drejka was immune from arrest because it was not "absolutely clear" that the shooting was unlawful. "To arrest," he said, "it must be so clear that as a matter of law 'stand your ground' does not apply in any way to the facts and circumstances that you're presented with. That is not the situation here. The facts are not so clear that this is absolutely outside the boundaries of 'stand your ground.'"

Again, that is not what the law says. It says a law enforcement agency "may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful." Probable cause, usually defined as a "fair probability," is by no means the same as absolute clarity or certainty. Even if you assume that probable cause means something is more likely than not to be true (and it's not at all clear that it does), it looks like Gualtieri would have been justified in arresting Drejka, since he conceded that Drejka "probably could have" defended himself by brandishing the gun without firing it.

Gualtieri cited the Florida Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Dennis v. State, which established that defendants raising a self-defense claim have a right to a pretrial evidentiary hearing on that question, since people who use force lawfully are immune from prosecution under the 2005 "stand your ground" law. The law "grants defendants a substantive right to not be arrested, detained, charged, or prosecuted as a result of the use of legally justified force," the court said. "The statute does not merely provide that a defendant cannot be convicted as a result of legally justified force." According to Gualtieri, that means the "stand your ground" law "has taken away law enforcement discretion to arrest unless there is no 'stand your ground' [defense] as a matter of law."

In other words, if Drejka had said he shot McGlockton because he did not like his looks, Gualtieri could have arrested him, because that is not a legal justification. But since Drejka said he shot McGlockton because he reasonably feared for his life, Gualtieri was legally barred from arresting him, because that is a valid justification, no matter how implausible it might seem in this particular case. That reading of the law flies in the face of the authority to arrest someone when there is probable cause to believe his use of force was unlawful. Two weeks ago, Gualtieri said "we don't have probable cause" to arrest Drejka. Now he seems to be saying something more than probable cause is necessary.

Muddying the waters further, Gualtieri said a 2017 law that changed the rules for pretrial self-defense hearings factored into his decision. Defendants used to have the burden of proving by "a preponderance of evidence" that their use of force was lawful. Now prosecutors have the burden of proving by "clear and convincing evidence" that the defendant's use of force was not lawful. "The recently created burden that the state has to prove the shooter is not entitled to 'stand your ground' immunity by clear and convincing evidence is relevant at this stage too," Gualtieri said, because people like Drejka have a right "not to sit in jail while all this is sorted out on an issue where the burden on the state is high."

The logic here is murky. The prosecution's burden at trial, which is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's use of force was unlawful, remains unchanged. So does the standard for an arrest, which is still probable cause.

"Absent that immunity from arrest and the recently created burden on the state to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Drejka is not entitled to this immunity," Gualtieri said, "Drejka would be sitting in jail right now, and the system would be working to figure it out." In Gualtieri's view, "when the legislature created Florida's 'stand your ground' law, it said we don't want people who have arguably acted within [the] law to sit in jail while the state attorney's office spends weeks or months considering whether to file formal charges."

Much depends on what Gualtieri means by "arguably," since someone could have an arguable self-defense claim even if there was probable cause to doubt it. Rejecting the charge that Drejka got a pass because he is white and McGlockton was black, the sheriff noted that he had recently arrested white shooters in cases that the state attorney for Pinellas and Pasco counties, Bernie McCabe, decided not to pursue. But those examples illustrate a point that Gualtieri seems bent on obscuring: The standard for arresting someone who uses deadly force is much weaker than the standard for going to trial or winning a conviction.

Gualtieri emphasized that the McGlockton case is still open and that McCabe will ultimately decide whether to charge Drejka. But if there really is no probable cause to arrest Drejka, how could McCabe hope to convict him?

NEXT: President Trump Is No Friend to 3D Printed Plastic Guns, Says WH Press Secretary

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Luckily, the Florida State Attorney General is now the next step to review the case.

    The media is of course trying to push their agenda which is to get rid of self-defense protections.

    1. The media is of course trying to push their agenda which is to get rid of self-defense protections.

      On this we agree. Reason’s stance here is that “stand your ground” is not the problem here (directly refuting the mainstream media), but instead that the cops don’t know how to correctly apply the law. Criticizing Drejka for his actions is actually the anti-gun control stance on this issue because we’re saying we don’t need new gun control to prevent these things from occurring, we just have to enforce existing laws against murder and manslaughter.

  2. If only Reason pushed the agenda of Libertarianism rather than how kewl they would be at Cosmo parties.

    1. Do you think the shoot was justified?

      1. Do you?

        1. Yes.

      2. I think it was self defense.

        Its very telling that mcglockton only took one step back when drejka drew the pistol.

        A reasonable person could agree with drejka that he had fear of injury or death.

        There is a lot of anti-gun publicitiy , so drejka will probably have to trial and be acquitted like zimmerman was.

        1. Didn’t work out so well for Zimmerman

          1. Not sure what you’re getting at here. Zimmerman was acquitted in July of 2013.

            1. Yes, he was. He’s also a societal pariah. Though, as I understand it, he doesn’t exactly do himself any favors.

        2. He didn’t take more steps back because he just happened to get shot right about that time! After Drejka drew his gun, the other man began backing away from him and would have kept backing away. Drejka did not need to shoot him to protect himself. Think about it, he took someone’s life, when in all probability he did not need to. If you’re going to kill someone, it better be pretty damn obvious that they need killin’. It is not in this case.

          Obviously, the man who was shot was wrong to assault Drejka. However, when the man is, what, 4 or 5 feet away and backing away, he is not a danger to Drejka’s life. In some cases the stand your ground law applies but I think not in this one.

          That said, this sheriff is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

        3. Let me make sure I understand. I am holding a gun on someone and they are backing away. Yet it is still reasonable for me to fear injury or death?

    2. Shoot-’em-up laws are not libertarian.

      Neither are you.

      Wingnuts love shoot-’em-up laws as part of general gun absolutism and to flatter their tough-guy fantasies (precipitated by their resentments with respect to being life’s losers), though.

      1. You have a right to defend yourself.

        If an angry black thug, who is much bigger than you, accosts you, and with malice aforethought, assaults you with great force, knocking you off your feet, resulting in your head being introduced to the parking lot pavement, what should you do, Rev?

        1. Drejka put himself in a tough spot through his own reckless action of accosting a total stranger and berating them. He then used deadly force to get out of that tough spot. Shoot not justified in my view once McGlockton backed away, which he clearly did in the video.

          1. So you’re saying you can assault people for saying things that upset you or that you disagree with.

            1. I heard someone interviewed on the radio who said Drejka had given him crap about parking in that gas station parking lot also and he thought Drejka was a cop wannabe trying to boss people around.

        2. WWRALKD (What Would Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland Do?)

          The large black man grabbed Kirkland by his collar. “Hey, did you just insinuate that I’m an idiot?”

          Kirkland looked down his nose at the man. This was a difficult feat, given the height difference between the two, but Kirkland achieved it by tilting his head back so that his nose was higher than the ceiling.

          “Of course not,” Kirkland said smarmily. “I just insinuated you need to bow down to your betters, lest they choose to force it down your throat sideways.”

          The man grinned angrily. “My betters, eh? And who would they be?”

          “Oh, you know,” Kirkland said awkwardly. The man tightened his grip on Kirkland’s collar.

          “No, I don’t, whitey,” the angry man said. “So how about you tell me about these so-called betters.”

          “The ones that have been forcing progress down the throats of reprobates such as yourself,” Kirkland said, trying to keep up his snooty appearance.

          “Reprobates, eh?” the man mused. He smirked. “Unlucky for you, I just got off of reprobation.”

          The man raised his fist to hit Kirkland. Kirkland squirmed awkwardly.

          “Now wait a minute!” Kirkland said desperately. “I’m sure my children will be glad to compete with the denizens of the poor, intolerant, can’t-keep-up backwoods people like you hail from!”

          1. The man’s brow wrinkled. “This is San Francisco.”

            “Yes, and you can see what wonders can flourish when your betters take control?”

            Kirkland was unable to finish his sentence as the man’s fist came down into his face. Kirkland hit the pavement hard and bounced, flipping over. When he landed again, his face came squarely down into a puddle of human shit. That was the last thing Kirkland tasted before he slipped into unconsciousness and shat himself.

        3. There’s no reason to believe he was a “thug” and there’s no reason for you to invoke his color. Why is “black” relevant here?

      2. No most believe in self defense because when seconds count the police are minutes away. I love it when progressive socialists who are advocates for government tyranny move to absurdity to make their case. This was tough and I am not sure I agree but then again I have only been privy to a few seconds of video. The cops have more background.

    3. Shorter lc1789: Yap yap yap yap yap!

      1. Even shorter sarcasmic: duh… Im not an anarchist because I made this word up. It has the same root word as Anarchy but its different because me and my clan say so.

        1. wow do you also redefine racism?

      2. At least he had a point. You’re just wasting my time.

  3. I still think this thing is largely a matter of a cop being scared shitless that somebody’s claim of “feared for my life” might be held to some sort of objective standard of reasonableness. Why, once we start second-guessing the reasonableness of a shoot, it’s likely that at some point we might start thinking of applying that same standard to cops just as we apply it to normal, non-cop-type people.

    1. I was surprised they didn’t arrest the shooter, but I couldn’t put my finger on why they didn’t. Your comment nails it down.

      1. Self-defense is why.

    2. When the attack is already underway, there is no longer any question about the reasonableness of the fear. The Drejka case has no relevance to cases in which the cops shoot without having been attacked.

    3. “once we start second-guessing the reasonableness of a shoot” means that there is no right to self-defense.

      If the state claims authority to judge all instances of self-defense, then it is no longer a right, but only a tentative approval by the state.

      1. Doesn’t it just mean one’s actions have to be justified because you just took someone else’s life? Not every shooting is automatically justified. You have to look at the circumstances. What if he shot an innocent person? Don’t they have rights, too?

  4. In all of this – is it important that he was or was not arrested right away?

    Are the police not doing an investigation? Can they not decide at some point in that investigation that they do have enough evidence to arrest? Can they not then arrest?

    Shooter doesn’t seem to be a flight risk – he’s still around after all, so what’s the importance of locking him up in the immediate aftermath? Sure, the cops might have made the wrong call here (and the Sheriff certainly hasn’t bothered to learn the finer points of the laws he’s been elected to enforce – or even bother to have a lawyer come by to work this out) but this failure to arrest isn’t a major issue.

    Now if, and from the information I have this doesn’t seem to be the case, if the police threw up their hands and said ‘Stand Your Ground’ and walked away from the case – that’s fucked up. But even in a genuine, open-and-shut, case of self-defense there will still be an investigation into the incident just to ensure all the i’s are dotted and t’s crossed.

    The only distinction here is whether or not the shooter is arrested, arraigned, and bailed, and then goes home to wait or just goes home to wait.

    1. Can they not decide at some point in that investigation that they do have enough evidence to arrest? Can they not then arrest?

      My understanding of Florida law it that the police don’t get to make that call. If the facts of the case make a self-defense claim plausible, the police are required to pass the case up to the state attorney’s office for an investigation, and then there has to be a hearing on the merits of the self-defense claim. Only if the self-defense claim is ruled to be invalid or questionable can the local prosecutor proceed with the case, and can the police make the arrest.

      1. As it should be. We all have the natural right to be secure in our persons, free from violent assault with the inherent right of self-defense to guarantee that security. No jury should be allowed to judge or take away a natural right.
        It is clearly a self-defense case. A response to a physical assault. Absent clear evidence that it was something other than self-defense, there must be no arrest or prosecution. Anything else implies that the right of self-defense is not a right at all, but a permission provided by the state.

        1. “Physical assault” is not a singular thing. If he flicked his nipple it could be considered “physical assault” but I’m sure even you would agree that deadly force is not justified. The question isn’t whether we can technically classify this as “physical assault.” The question is whether it was reasonable to conclude that the “physical assault” that occurred was a precursor to a life threatening assault. And there’s no reason to believe that it was, because shoves almost never turn into that. Just like nipple flicks.

          1. And there’s no reason to believe that it was, because shoves almost never turn into that.

            Sources? How many times are shoves to the ground turned into head-stomps? Considering that head-stomping will lead to serious injury and is possibly fatal, at what point does a reasonable person who suddenly, and by surprise, find themselves shoved to the ground get to fear for their life that their current, prone position is a precursor to head-stomping?

            1. How many times are shoves to the ground turned into head-stomps?

              A miniscule number. You watch too much tv.

              1. It’s a number greater than 1. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude from a prone position induced by a sudden, violent shove, that further aggression is imminent.

                So answer my question, since you are evidently, the local expert for how often shoves turn into anything more; at what point does a reasonable person who suddenly, and by surprise, find themselves shoved to the ground get to fear for their life that their current, prone position is a precursor to head-stomping?

                1. I know this is just anecdotal, but in my experience, the rate at which aggressively shoving someone to the ground leads to further violence is 100%. But I’m sure Junk is going to share his scientific data on this any minute.

                  1. Scientific data is not necessary. Although most studies have shown that Americans have engaged in fights at a rate of about 40%. The number is closer to 35% in Canada. I’d argue that this vastly underestimates the relevant number here considering that fights usually don’t include shoving matches. We also know that 40% of Americans have not died or been seriously injured as a result of physical altercation. In fact, far far fewer. So to assume something that occurs so regularly will result in death or serious injury is simply not based in reality.

                    People who have not been in fights don’t realize these FACTS. This leads to irrational fear which in turn leads to irrational decisions. I don’t know Drejka, but if I were a betting man I’d guess that he’s never been in a fight which is why he had such a heightened response to the event.

                2. It’s a number greater than 1. Therefore, it is reasonable to

                  See, this is where I think the fundamental divide is: not everybody has a good idea of what the word “reasonable” means. If I don’t answer the phone when my elderly mother calls, she assumes that I’m “dead in a ditch” and alerts the rest of my family. While she’s technically correct that it is POSSIBLE that something terrible has happened, it’s unreasonable for her to jump to that conclusion. The reason is simple: because the number of people who don’t answer the phone for benign reasons far exceeds the number of people who don’t answer the phone because they’re dead. The number who don’t answer because they’re dead is greater than 1, sure, but it’s still a very, very unlikely event.

                  at what point does a reasonable person who suddenly, and by surprise, find themselves shoved to the ground get to fear for their life that their current, prone position is a precursor to head-stomping?

                  To answer that question accurately, we need to understand the events that typically lead to head-stomping. If most head-stomping incidents occur on sunny days, we can’t assume that a sunny day will lead to you being head-stomped that day. That would be unreasonable. Likewise, we can’t assume that merely being on the ground in a prone position indicates that you’ll be dead the next moment. Especially after you’ve been harassing someone’s wife and kids, where the reason you’re on the ground should be more obvious.

                  1. So, because Junk is able to pull statistics out of his ass indicating that the odds are great that your injuries will not be serious if you don’t defend yourself after being slammed to the ground, you should just calmly take your beating rather than risk injury or death to the aggressor by engaging in armed self-defense. After all, you must have asked for it or you wouldn’t have been attacked, right? People have a right to harm you for saying something they didn’t like, as long as they probably aren’t going to kill you, right?

                    Absolutely ridiculous.

                    1. I don’t know why you have to be so hyperbolic here. We’re not talking about taking a beating. We’re not talking about being slammed. As I keep telling you, there’s no need to engage in sophistry to make your point, unless you know your point is weak. Please. I’m asking you again — let’s call a spade a spade here instead of playing the game you’re playing.

                      When somebody shoves you (and literally NOTHING more) because you accosted their wife and kids, shooting is not warranted. Bottom line. Stop trying to paint this story as a “violent aggressor”, who’s black, “slamming” and “attacking” a guy and “beating” them to death. None of these words belong in this case, so please stop obfuscating the issue.

                    2. who’s black

                      Sorry, that was someone else on your side using that argument, not you.

                    3. Calmly take his beating? He pulled a gun on the man and the guy begin to back away. Did you watch the video?

            2. You must be talking about some other case. In this case the man pulled a gun and the other man began to back away. How was it going to turn into a head stopping?

  5. Root cause analysis: The existence of preferred parking for privileged citizens, and the abuse of that privilege is the root cause of the shooting. All Handicapped parking spaces must be removed to prevent another shooting.
    For the children.

    1. Or you could just use the Parking Mobility app and not be a tough guy asshole with a gun harrasing a woman and her children.

    2. At least the handicap parking space got used that day. I have seen stores with 8 or 10 empty handicapped parking spaces right up front. What a waste.

  6. …Gualtieri said this test is “largely subjective,” a claim that was contradicted this week by three key legislators who had a hand in writing the law and the National Rifle Association lobbyist who helped get it passed.

    Ha, yeah, I sincerely doubt any state legislature crafted an air tight law that requires the word “reasonable”. That is subjective any way you slice it. Also, while this particular shooting was in my opinion ridiculous, I wouldn’t say the victim was backing off when presented with the weapon.

  7. I think he clearly should’ve been arrested. I’m less certain he should be prosecuted, though I lean towards yes.

    1. I think he should be prosecuted. There is enough here that a jury should weigh the facts. It is not slam dunk either way.

    2. Why arrest someone if you are not planning on prosecuting them? You understand that every state action can lead to violence?

      Florida voters know this, so they created a law now know as the ‘Stand your Ground law’. It reduces police action against people defending themselves.

      1. Its called due process. Look it up

        1. If, in your opinion, “it is not a slam dunk either way,” why prosecute and submit the matter to a jury?

          Should a man’s fate be given to 12 dopes on iffy evidence? That is not the hallmark of a free society. A free society does not punish those who defend themselves from big, angry, violent black thugs.

          1. “Should a man’s fate be given to 12 dopes on iffy evidence?”

            Should a man’s life be taken away by a panicked dope?

            “That is not the hallmark of a free society. ”

            Rule of law, not violence, is the hallmark of a free society. The law of taking a life in self defense is a good law. Easily understood, applied universally. Did it apply in this case? Verdict to be decided by a jury.

            Is the jury system perfect? No.

            Do you have a better suggestion? Should “experts” decide? Should the general public? Should politically motivated prosecutors and judges decide?

            1. Yes, let it be.

              One physically larger man, with malice aforethought, violently assaults another, smaller, older man. The violence with which the larger man assaulted the smaller, older man was so significant, the latter’s head was introduced to the parking lot pavement.

              Who are you, or any other fan or fans of black violent social dysfunction, to second guess what the video demonstrates?

              Stop trying to excuse black social dysfunction.

              1. Have any white people ever done the same thing?

            2. Should a man’s life be taken away by a panicked dope?

              If that “dope” is “panicked” by a violent assault by that man, then the “dope” has the right to forcefully defend himself. If that man dies as a result, it’s his own fault for initiating violence.

          2. I agree somewhat. If the facts of a case can be interpreted for or against a defendant, you give the defendant the the benefit of the doubt. But I tend to think when it’s a question of what the law says specifically, and not what happened, the jury should have the last word.

    3. “I think he clearly should’ve been arrested.”

      Arrested for what?

      If you are not clearly of the opinion he committed a crime then what basis do you have for locking him up?

    4. Josh: “I think he clearly should’ve been arrested. I’m less certain he should be prosecuted”

      I see. You want the innocent to be arrested while the authorities sort things out. Please move to France, where they believe in that sort of thing.

  8. So basically if you suffer an assualt which are verbal threats you can legally shoot them.

    1. If you violently attack someone and are still aggressive toward someone with a gun, you can be shot.

      Self-defense 101

      1. True statement. Unfortunately for you it doesn’t apply here.

      2. Come on, LC, you are misrepresenting what happened.

  9. Man was violently assaulted without warning, knocked to the ground, shoots his attacker.

    Valid shoot, end of story. No one in a free society should be subject to violent assault, regardless of any verbal engagement or confrontation. A 57 year old being knocked to the ground as he was could easily have suffered permanent injury or death, particulary with a head impact.

    There was no clear backing away of the attacker within the instant of the shooting. And without sound or a facial shot we have no idea of the specifics.

    1. The pack of pachyderm in the room: the lengths to which people who claim to be libertarian will go to excuse angry, violent black social dysfunction.

      1. Pretty sure your trunk is swinging right now..

        1. Also probably greasing up your cross with turpentine …

          1. You are making my point.

            1. By calling you out as an alt-right, former republican racist?

              1. Calling me out? LOL

                I am an anarcho-free enterprise-individualist who happens to be a race realist.

                Just look at how this angry, thuggish, violent black man handled the situation. Is that what you would call civilized behavior? Is that what you would call rational, peaceful behavior? Is that what you would call non-violent behavior?

                You are not special or deserving of props because you make excuses for violent black social dysfunction.

                1. If you call a black man a “thug” that is upset someone is harassing his wife/gf and kids, you might be a racist.

                  If you believe a majority of black people are socially dysfunctional, you might be a racist.

                  But go ahead and keep calling it “race realist” if it makes you feel better about yourself.

                  1. He’s wasn’t a “thug” because he was upset. He was a thug because he violently attacked someone.

                    A majority of Black people are not socially dysfunctional, but a grossly disproportionate number of Black people are socially dysfunctional and criminally violent compared other ethnic groups in the US. The facts are absolutely clear on that.

                    1. “The facts are absolutely clear on that.” Wrong. Look at Table 21 of the fbi crime rates then come back we can discuss it.

                    2. In 2016, 70% of all crime was perpetrated by good, all american, white folk. 27% by “thug, socially dysfunctional” black folk.

                    3. Since you’ve already looked at the numbers and misunderstood them, I don’t see what further conversation about them would accomplish.

                    4. How did I misunderstand them? Or is that way to avoid a good-faith debate on crime rates in America?

                    5. It’s a way to avoid wasting time arguing with an idiot.

                    6. …or concede defeat.

                    7. I’ll agree that the black population has a slightly higher crime rate per capita but not as “grossly” as you believe and there are many confounding effects. The largest being the proportion of black people living in poverty. In fact, the poverty rate nearly perfectly tracks the crime rate. Regardless, as a person (any race gender, etc) in this country, the likelihood that you will be the vicitim of a crime perpetrated by a white person is 70%. As a white person, the likelihood that you will be murdered by another white person is 84% (from Table 3, fbi expanded homicide Table 3). The likelihood you will be murdered by a black man is 16%. Most murders are black on black and white on white.

                    8. So if 27% of all crime is committed by roughly 13% of the population then the other 87% of the population would have to commit roughly 174% of all crime for the original 27% to not to be grossly out of whack.

                      The rest of your gibberish follows the same illogic.

                    9. I know math is hard……

                    10. Mike and Vernon, are y’all white? If so, don’t be so cocky – Asian-Americans have a much lower crime rate than whites.

            2. Can somebody explain why race is relevant to this discussion?

    2. “There was no clear backing away of the attacker within the instant of the shooting. And without sound or a facial shot we have no idea of the specifics.”

      Posters all over the internet have disagreed about the “clear backing away”. It is clear to me. To you it is not. A jury should decide. If they split, he walks. Forensic evidence may or may not sway them. Testimony by witnesses who heard the altercation may or may not affect their judgement.

      It was a split-second decision by Drejka. Normally I would give someone in his situation the benefit of the doubt, but given his history of a previous similar altercation, I am not so inclined. He initiated the chain of events that lead to this split-second decision.

      1. backing away would mean hands raised in a defensive posture, retreating from the conflict.

        It is none of those. The only people claiming he was ‘backing away’ are those who are looking for any excuse to criticize the shoot.

        The whole point of self-defense laws is the recognition that actions in the heat of conflict are next to impossible to second-guess. When the flight/fight response kicks in and the adrenaline is surging, a spectator in the comfort of the jury bench has no real perspective to judge what should or shouldn’t have happened.

        And verbal conflicts almost never justify assault, particularly as the assaulter wasn’t even involved during the verbal altercation. That is utterly irrelevant to the blindside assault.

        1. It is more than that. It is the ridiculous lengths to which some folk will excuse violent socially dysfunctional behavior of blacks.

          1. If you believe the majority of black people have “violently socially dysfunctional behavior”, you might be a racist. A simple google of “table 21 fbi crime rates” will show that you are indeed wrong.

            1. Black people have a much higher propensity than either whites or asians to:

              (1) make babies out of wedlock;

              (2) drop out of school;

              (3) be the recipients of welfare;

              (4) commit crimes of inter-racial violence.

              For 2008, according to the FBI, there were a total of 520,161 interracial crimes of which 429,444 of them were of the black on white variety whereas 90,717 were white on black.

              Given that blacks constitute about 12-13% of the population, you can grok how they are far more likely to commit crimes of interracial violence than whites.

              1. And where can I find this data? I’ve been looking and find it anywhere.

              2. The first three points you make are irrelevant to the case at hand.

                Given that blacks constitute about 12-13% of the population, you can grok how they are far more likely to commit crimes of interracial violence than whites.

                By the same logic, whites are more likely to be victims than blacks simply because there are more of them. This is why you have to account for multiple variables when you attempt to use statistics to make a point.

        2. Sorry Mike, but you are not a mind reader. I am not looking for excuses. I call it like I see it. And I see the guy backing away.

      2. turco syas, “I am not so inclined. He initiated the chain of events with his lawful behavior that lead to this split-second decision forced upon him by an attacker who had much more time to consider his violent intentions before initiating a violent assault. Not to mention the shooter should have been concerned about the intentions of the targeted woman who felt safe enough to exit her car to create another front for attack. And I think the shooter showed great restraint in not dispatching her as well.” FTFY

        1. Damn! He could have had a two-fer. Hey, then he coulda shot their kids because they might have tried to do something to him, too.

    3. ..he was 48, not 57, but why bother with facts?

      1. 57 is what I saw in another article.

        Not my problem that too many writers are sloppy.

        1. Which article? It is your problem…

          1. My only problem is the irrational need to respond to some pedantic twit’s comment.

            1. My only problem is people making claims without even understanding the basic facts.

  10. I believe if you’re armed you have an extra responsibility to avoid and deescalate conflict and not get into arguments over stupid things like parking spaces. Drejka had no business initiating the confrontation in the first place.

    1. “I believe if you’re armed you have an extra responsibility to avoid and deescalate conflict and not get into arguments over stupid things like parking spaces.”

      That’s a nice sentiment.

      “Drejka had no business initiating the confrontation in the first place.”

      Telling other people what they can and cannot say is not within your purview.

      1. …but shooting them for getting shoved is.

        1. “shoved”

          A childish way to describe being violently knocked to the ground in a blind-side assault.

            1. Insofar as the shove was sufficient to cause and/or place the victim in fear of serious bodily injury then yes, it was a reason to get shot.

              Don’t physically attack people.

              1. But was he injured…al all? No. Just his delicate ego

                1. The law, nor basic common sense, nor decency, does not require that you suffer injury prior to defending yourself.

                  1. Right, all you need is physical contact.

                2. Drejka was lucky. A shove to the ground can result in serious injury or death.

    2. Verbal conflicts are routine. The vast majority of them don’t escalate to physical violence.

      It is a ridiculous sentiment to imply that to be ‘armed’ one most behave like a saint, better then all others.

      1. No, just don’t be an asshole. Probably impossible for you to understand…

    3. I’m not defending McGlockton’s actions. He resorted to physical violence without a second thought, and we could talk all day about why that is too. Once the physical assault occurred, the shooting was probably justified, although I question if McGlockton was really an immediate threat when he backed off after the weapon was drawn. Of course, I live and carry in Massachusetts though, where the rules of engagement are much stricter. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that avoiding conflict is as important to self-defense as is knowing how to properly handle your weapon and to physically defend yourself.

  11. Gualtieri’s latest efforts make it ever more clear that his initial statements on the case had less to do with the particulars of the case, and more to do with his opposition to the ‘stand your ground’ revision to Florida self defense law.

    He spun himself into a hole, and now is having more trouble trying to spin himself out.

  12. “what that person knew, how they knew it, and other factors that are in their heads” are relevant in deciding whether his actions were objectively reasonable “under the circumstances of the time.”

    My grandmother SWORE that my cousin was stealing her car. She had sold it to him a week before and her senility kept her from remembering that fact or recognizing her own grandson. Perceptions aren’t what matter here. Little black kids delivering newspapers scare the bejeezus out of old ladies who think a home invasion is going to take place. Their irrational fears should not dictate how we treat cases.

    Drejka’s fear was irrational. What he thought was going to happen would have been INCREDIBLY rare. Especially when you consider the context (McG was not beating on him even though he had an opportunity to, and the conflict was not initiated by McG in the first place). His fear by definition was irrational, and so you can’t hang your hat on the “factors that are in their heads.”

    1. Drejka had already been attacked, so the question of the reasonableness of his fear of attack was settled. He was under attack. He defended himself. Speculations about what was in his head are rendered irrelevant by the reality of McGlockton’s attack.

      Your final paragraph is a complete ass-pull.

      the conflict was not initiated by McG

      The violence was initiated by McG. I can’t understand why commenters here can’t grasp that.

      1. Drejka had already been attacked, so the question of the reasonableness of his fear of attack was settled.

        This is where we disagree. Shoving almost never leads to murder. Therefore, unreasonable.

        The violence was initiated by McG. I can’t understand why commenters here can’t grasp that.

        Because if a man called a kid’s daughter a “cunt nigger whore” for example, that man very likely will be physically shoved or thrown out of an area (or worse). I’m not saying that was what Drejka said, but the notion that there’s no such thing as instigation until someone touches another human being is absurd.

        What we know about the case is that McG was alerted that somebody was accosting his wife and kids, he came out and saw an aggressive person doing so, and he acted accordingly. The death penalty is not warranted here.

        1. A reasonable man protecting his wife and kids would have put himself between the accoster and his family.

          A reasonable man would have avoiding escalating the situation to a physical confrontation directly next to his wife.

          These things did not happen. Instead, a victim was blindsided by a violent physical assault. We have the natural right to be secure in our person, regardless of how much of an ahole we are being.

          Arguing that the victim should have been arrested is arguing that the right to self-defense doesn’t exist, but is at the whim of the state’s approval. It is difficult to understand why any Libertarian would want the most basic of human rights to be solely approved by the state.

          1. “A reasonable man protecting his wife and kids would have put himself between the accoster and his family.”

            umm….that’s what he did.

          2. We have the natural right to be secure in our person, regardless of how much of an ahole we are being.

            Nope.

            Arguing that the victim should have been arrested is arguing that the right to self-defense doesn’t exist

            I fully believe in self-defense. But deadly force should only be used when there’s a reasonable expectation that your life is in jeopardy. His life wasn’t in jeopardy. And I can prove it.

            1. Ridiculous. Someone who has been violently attacked should not be expected to able prove he was in danger of death before having a right to forcefully defend himself. If you don’t want to risk being killed by someone in self-defense, then don’t violently attack people.

              1. The fact that you people keep replacing what actually happened (shoving) with “violent attack” demonstrates that even you believe Drejka went too far. Otherwise, you’d call a spade a spade and acknowledge that the “attack” you speak of was a shove (which was an attempt to stop an accoster). Use correct words. It’s important.

                If McG wanted to really hurt Drejka, then he did all the wrong shit. He should have led with a punch or a kick and then immediately got on top of him. The fact that he didn’t indicates that either his intent was not to really hurt Drejka, or McG is too stupid to know how to hurt someone.

                1. The fact that you people keep replacing what actually happened (Drejka being slammed to the pavement) with “shove” demonstrates that even you believe McG went too far. Otherwise, you’d call a spade a spade and acknowledge that the “shove” you speak of was a violent assault (which was an angry outburst because another man was speaking to his girlfriend). Use correct words. It’s important.

                  If McG wanted to really hurt Drejka blah blah blah mindreading blah blah blah

                  I guess Drejka lacks your psychic abilities and had to rely on his observation that he had just been slammed to the pavement by a much larger and much younger man who was still glowering over him.

                  1. Hahaha did you just “I know you are but what am I” me?

                    “Speaking to”. I see what you did there. Sure, I guess you could call it that. Interesting that none of the witnesses on the scene called it that. But what would eye witnesses know?

                    No matter how hard you try to pretend he did something MORE than “shove”, the video shows the truth. It was a shove by every common sense definition of the term. Only pussies would think that meant they were going to die. No psychic tools necessary. Just an understanding of how the fucking world works (and the ability to not be overcome with fear).

                    And now you’re saying sex doesn’t matter, but age and size do. Wait, you reversed your opinion on size. My mistake. Are you SURE age is important?

                    1. A shove that knocks you to the ground can lead to serious injury or death if you land wrong. It’s assault and battery, and sometimes it’s manslaughter.

                      A blind-side attack forcing you to the ground is also a favored tactic for someone that _does_ want to beat you bloody or kill you – it puts you in a very vulnerable position. If Drejka did not have the gun, he would have been defenseless should McG go on to kick him, or drop to his knees on top of him and pound his head into the pavement.

                      Even after the gun came out, McG was staying in position to do either of those things – and Drejka would only have a second or two to fire if McG lunged at him. Cops are taught that anyone within 21 feet is a threat to attack before they can fire their gun.

                    2. A shove that knocks you to the ground can lead to serious injury or death if you land wrong. It’s assault and battery, and sometimes it’s manslaughter.

                      Again, it’s very, very rare for a shove to turn into manslaughter. So rare that it’s usually covered by all the news outlets when it happens.

                      he would have been defenseless should McG go on to kick him, or drop to his knees on top of him and pound his head into the pavement.

                      Again, it’s very, very rare for this to occur. The numbers bear this out. The video also shows that McG didn’t make an attempt to do any of this.

                      Even after the gun came out, McG was staying in position to do either of those things

                      Or he was staying in position to yell at him. Or because sprinting away would have been highly unusual in that situation. That you saw a man planning (why do you need to plan?) to kill another guy by standing is really strange.

                  2. Just “speaking out his girlfriend”? No! More like arguing loudly and angrily with each other.

                    Use correct words. It’s important.

                    Ouch! That one came back to bite you!

        2. Shoving almost never leads to murder.

          Being violently slammed to the ground by a much larger and much younger man is a violent attack against which one has a right to self-defense. What JunkScienceIsJunk calls it or what he thinks it “almost never leads to” is irrelevant. After-the-fact judgements about whether a fear of attack was reasonable apply only to cases in which force was used to PREVENT an attack. After an attack has commenced, then defense against the attack is reasonable on its face.

          the notion that there’s no such thing as instigation until someone touches another human being is absurd.

          The notion that mere words (other than credible threats) can justify escalation to violence, and that those words negate the right to defense against that violence, is childish and uncivilized. Adults in a modern liberal society are expected to control their own actions and refrain from violent emotional outbursts. If they fail to, they are exposing themselves to the risk of forceful self-defense.

          1. His size and youth are not relevant and should not be used against him. Nor was Drejka “slammed”. McG was not on top of Drejka. You people are using phrases deliberately intended to obfuscate the fact that the “violence” in question was a shove. Shoves happen every day. They don’t end in death. Contrary to your opinion, this is HIGHLY relevant because it demonstrates that a fear for one’s life is unreasonable. Just like how it’s not reasonable to assume you’ll be struck by lightning because you heard thunder.

            If what you’re saying is reasonable, then we should have thousands and thousands of dead people on the street because they were victims of shoves.

            1. we should have thousands and thousands of dead people on the street because they were victims of shoves.

              Apparently you think people being forcefully pushed to the ground by a stranger is normal and common. You must either have an active imagination, or live in a very interesting neighborhood. Anyway, there undoubtedly are thousands of violent miscreants in this country who could do the world a favor by getting shot dead by one of their victims. But even though that would be “reasonable”, there’s no reason to think it will happen, regardless of the details of the laws.

          2. “Shoving almost never leads to murder.”

            Vernon, that statement alone should tell you you are not engaging in an honest debate with someone of good faith.

            1. “Vernon, that statement alone should tell you you are not engaging in an honest debate with someone of good faith.”

              That statement alone, tells me you know he’s correct and have no rebuttal.

              1. He’s correct that ‘shoving almost never leads to murder’?

                Maybe. but that wasn’t his point.

                Or that ‘leads to murder’ is a remotely relevant legal standard for use of lethal force?

                That was his point, and it’s not remotely correct. In fact, it’s what is commonly referred to as question begging. So thus stands rebutted.

                1. Maybe. but that wasn’t his point.

                  Are you sure?

            2. You have a stick up your ass after I bested you in an argument about health care. We should discuss in person. What are your hours at CVS again?

        3. This is where we disagree. Shoving almost never leads to murder. Therefore, unreasonable.

          Shoving, however, is generally the preferred method for putting a victim in a convenient position to commence with head-stomping/kicking, which, if not fatal, will, in fact, cause “great bodily harm.”

          So, at what point, after being violently thrown to the ground — the precursor to head-stomping — may a reasonable person be afraid that head-stomping is imminent and defend themselves?

          1. Apparently after the shover has taken three steps backwards and can’t back up anymore because his car’s in the way. Then it’s okay to shoot. Clean shoot.

            1. Also, if he wanted to beat him to death, he would’ve tackled him and began smashing his face in. That’s how rage works 99% of the time. Instead he pushed him and then prepared himself in case he was going to get up and fight like a man. Instead, Drejka just pulled out a gun and murdered him.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2JDLfkV_no

  13. I’m unclear what Mr. Sullum’s premise is here. Imo based on available reporting about the incident and the accompanying video the shooting appears entirely justified both in terms of self defense laws and the Stand Your Ground statutes on the books in the state. Man verbally argues with woman (woman remains in car, man remains outside car), second man emerges from convenience store, approaches and physically assaults the first man. First man shoots second man.

    Disregarding for a moment the justification or non-justification of the reasonable use of force, the question I always ask myself in these situations is ‘Could the situation have been handled differently?’, that is, without lethal force. The answer is yes.

    However based on self defense rights and the Stand Your Ground doctrine as written in the state the shooting appears entirely justified and nothing Sheriff Gualtieri said confuses, refutes or contradicts that.

  14. The logic here is murky. The prosecution’s burden at trial, which is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s use of force was unlawful, remains unchanged. So does the standard for an arrest, which is still probable cause.

    No Sullum it is not murky. The 2017 law created major changes which obliterate common law precedent.

    For an arrest, the standard remains ‘probable cause’ de jure – but adding a civil action basis for wrongful arrest if the defendant utters the magic words and is either not prosecuted or acquitted at trial on that basis means a big de facto risk if you can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt before the arrest.

    For the pre-trial hearing, the burden has shifted huge. The prosecution now has to provide clear and convincing evidence (one step short of beyond reasonable doubt) that it wasn’t self-defense – or else they can’t proceed to trial. This is no longer really adjudicated by the court/jury.

    The prosecution burden at trial remains the same. But magic words and civil recourse create a huge disparate impact in bypassing pre-trial stuff. The FL legislature is essentially creating two justice systems. Know the magic words or have a lawyer already, then you can avoid most manslaughters level charges. Stuck in ‘need a public defender’ or plea bargaining world – you are stuck in the existing system. So existing system will get harsher because who gives a shit about their rights anyway if that is a different system.

    1. The other thing this 2017 change will likely do – is affect homicide statistics. Wasn’t it just a couple years ago that a ton of police shootings weren’t ever reported to the FBI/DOJ as homicides because they were quietly deemed justifiable very early on in the investigation? Where there had to be a lot of collection of daily newspaper stories – simply to understand WHAT was actually going on?

      Well guess what – Florida has just added more homicides – that are NOT police shootings – to that distortion. It wouldn’t surprise me if that’s also a motivation for the change in law. Add a whole bunch of those and the police ‘justified homicides’ just become easier to be lost.

      And you can bet that lying about overall homicide rates – and abusing all the statistical reporting of that – is very advantageous to ‘tough on crime and criminals’ pols. What the people don’t know etc.

  15. Even the NRA is now saying Drejka should have been arrested (check Foxnews, Politico and a variety of Florida news outlets if you don’t believe me). Apparently, the only wingnuts that think he should walk are posting in this thread.

    1. Oh, the NRA has spoken?

      Well, that settles it then.

    2. Not only is the NRA correct here, but they’re also acting strategically (as is Reason). By acknowledging that the pussy fucked up and that the death wasn’t an inherent issue with the philosophy, they can continue to cite Stand Your Ground as a concept worth defending — even if it may need some fine-tuning.

      If, on the other hand, it falls under the protections of Stand Your Ground, the NRA is going to have to answer the questions being asked — especially the ones that have been raised regarding white supremacists verbally picking fights with black people to entice them into shoving them and then opening fire. Not that I think that’s likely to happen, but it’s a question that’s being asked nevertheless.

      1. “Not that I think that’s likely to happen.” I agree with everything you said except this part. The culture in the US is so interolerable anymore that I think it will happen quite often. Probably not mostly by white supremicists, but by road rage incidents and political uprisings. People are more impolite adn rude than I’ve even noticed in nearly 50 years. After traveling outside of the country it becomes clear quickly how miserable our culture has become. Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand …as someone once said.

  16. Things are looking worse for the cop who shot the grandfather in Colorado.

    “Calls police, tells the police my husband is wearing this,” the family’s attorney Siddhartha Rathod told FOX31. “My son is wearing this. There’s a naked intruder…describes the intruder.”

    Or maybe the 911 dispatcher didn’t relay the information.

    https://tinyurl.com/y8hprhot

    1. Even if they did – that’s probably not significant. The cops arrived BEFORE the homeowner killed the intruder. So they arrived – and heard three shots – and then ran into the house and shot the guy holding the smoking gun.

      That is a problem with ‘solving the intruder problem yourself’ while also ‘calling the cops to solve the intruder problem’. Lots of good guys with guns – with no real coordination or common organization. In war, that means friendly fire. In peace that means the good guys end up shooting each other – because all anyone really knows is who’s holding the guns not who’s the good guy.

      Course that’s just one reason why 2nd should be viewed in the organized militia context – BECAUSE that creates the ability for the good guys to muster/organize/train together – so that they CAN know what to do in the heat of the moment.

      1. If they did get the info, and ran into the house where a naked (young, black – I’m presuming that was part of the information relayed) intruder was reported, and then proceeded to shoot a clothed (old, white) guy because he was armed???

        I’d call that a major mistake.

        But otherwise I agree, which is why even though I carry I always tell people the only way I’ll confront an ‘active shooter’ is if the threat is immediate to me or my own. Otherwise the last thing I want to be at that moment is another guy running around waving a gun. And then there is the problem of clear lines of sight/shot. I don’t want a bullet matching my gun pulled from an innocent.

        1. Just searched up some other articles. Initially I was willing to take a wait and see approach to this one. Apparently they were wearing body cams. The longer it takes for that footage to be released the less wait and see I’ll be.

        2. then proceeded to shoot a clothed (old, white) guy because he was armed???

          From your link – he was armed – had just shot the weapon three times with the cops hearing – and was looking for another intruder coming into or already in his house – when the cops came into his house.

          Obviously any video stuff will add info – but on the surface this just sounds like a clusterfuck waiting to happen. So on the surface it doesn’t surprise me that something happened.

          1. A bad situation to be sure, but guns don’t just ‘go off’ and clusterfucks don’t ‘just happen.’ Hearing gunfire and seeing a gun is not sufficient justification to shoot someone – especially once you’ve entered a private residence based on reports of a violent intruder. You have to know there are going to be at least two types of people present, and any of them could be armed.

            If the situation was cut and dry I’m sure the body cam footage would already be out. It’s not, and they’ve called in an outside agency to do an investigation. Maybe the cop’s actions will seem reasonable once all the details are available. I certainly hope so, be a shame if that crazy dirtbag who started it all ends up ruining another life.

            But if that cop wasn’t justified then he needs to face the law himself.

        3. As for the 911 info being relayed or not. Seriously – that can never be taken as either true or false. From the responders perspective, it’s just completely unverified and unsolicited info that requires them to respond. If cops were to have some policy that makes an assumption about the truth/falsity of that, then it would be very easy to pull them into an ambush.

      2. that creates the ability for the good guys to muster/organize/train together – so that they CAN know what to do in the heat of the moment.

        Yeah, like the police do! They NEVER needlessly…nevermind.

      3. JFree says, “…just one reason why 2nd should be viewed in the organized militia context – BECAUSE that creates the ability for the good guys to muster/organize/train together – so that they CAN know what to do in the heat of the moment.

        WTF?! Don’t the “good guys” with costumes and badges train together. Lotta good that did. The training must not go effectively beyond protecting their fellow costumed heroes in the heat of the moment.

        “…because all anyone really knows is who’s holding the guns not who’s the good guy.”

        Oh, really?! The costumed clowns were certain enough that they were the only good guys and showed no regard for the actual good guy before murdering him.

        You can bet if that murdering cop did not believe they had the violent upper hand on grandpa they would have withdrawn and called for back up. Too bad these were not the heroes that showed up at the Orlando nightclub massacre so they could’ve stormed the building without retreat.

        1. You people must think militia and police are the same thing

  17. Stand your ground is like a get out of jail free card for those fearless white individuals who shoot those scary black people…because they were scared for their lives. scared=chickenshit.

    1. Agreed. To codify “fear of great bodily harm” as a legitimate reason for taking someone’s life is going to wreak havoc on the justice system and any society foolish enough to implement it.

      1. ” To codify “fear of great bodily harm” as a legitimate reason for taking someone’s life is going to wreak havoc on the justice system ”

        LOL.

        Care to tell me how long that has been the statutory standard in Florida?

        Because, while I can’t tell you exactly when the law was changed to be that way, I can tell you it has been that way for well over 25 years.

        1. Perhaps. Perhaps it was just the change to let nobody in particular determine when that occurs (maybe a sherrif?) and flipping the burden of proof. That change happened in 2017. Now who determines what a reasonable “fear of great bodily harm” is? Nobody as far as I can tell. Seems a violation of due process.

          1. You really have no fucking clue what you are talking about, do you?

            1. “Due process” is really not a mantra you can use to self soothe when nothing else is working…

              1. Here you go asshole:

                due proc?ess
                d(y)o?o pr??ses/
                noun
                noun: due process; noun: due process of law

                fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen’s entitlement.

                Translate due process to

                When someone’s life is taken, nobody but the judicial system should be allowed to determine someone’s guilt or innocence. A dipshit sherrif doesn’t get to decide. Neither should a dipshit like you as you shoot someone.

                1. That is what happens under Florida law. The sheriff does not make the decision.

                  1. Then who does? Can the D.A. even charge someone that hasn’t been arrested for a crime?

                    1. This has been explained repeatedly in the last two threads about this by several commenters. The case materials are passed up to the state’s attorney’s office for investigation. Then, a hearing is held on the validity of the self-defense claim. If the hearing judge rules that the self-defense claim is without merit, then the local prosecutor can proceed with charges and an arrest can be made.

                    2. Mcgoo95: Of course the DA can charge someone that hasn’t been arrested. It’s the DA that has to follow up on the charges in court, not the cop. Charges _must_ precede the arrest, and cops on the scene _should_ _not_ be making the decision to charge and arrest unless the case is pretty clear.

                      What people are complaining about is that Florida law now discourages punishing the probably innocent with an arrest where it seems likely that a self-defense claim will hold up, but this is just partially correcting a frequent injustice that the courts have allowed to creep into the system. And the Zimmerman case shows that it doesn’t go far enough in protecting those that legitimately defended themselves against a potentially deadly attack.

                    3. “Then who does?”

                      How the fuck can you ask that question having already stated that there is a lack of due process?

                      Oh, because you are just pulling it all out of your ass.

                      Here’s a fucking clue: Due process is something a suspect/defendant is entitled to. Any violation of due process would be a harm to the shooter – the very guy you think is a criminal.

                      In this sort of case there is a defined process – which has been described here multiple times. You either haven’t been paying attention, are to stupid to take note, or think that if you whine enough it will somehow cease to be the case.

                      So, to repeat, you really have no clue what you are talking about.

                    4. ” Can the D.A. even charge someone that hasn’t been arrested for a crime?”

                      Dude, you are really embarrassing yourself here.

                    5. I’m so embarrased. I’m not a lawyer asshole, it was an honest question. Guess the last paragraph of the article kind of summarized that yes charges can still be filed but it seems unlikely anything will come of it.

                      “Gualtieri emphasized that the McGlockton case is still open and that McCabe will ultimately decide whether to charge Drejka. But if there really is no probable cause to arrest Drejka, how could McCabe hope to convict him?”

    2. Drejka wasn’t just “scared”?he was actually under attack. I don’t understand why people aren’t getting that.

      1. Aren’t?

        Or, don’t want to?

        1. Like I said, I don’t understand. Are they habitual bullies who fear potential victims will level the field by arming themselves? Are they really more concerned about the safety of criminals than the safety of their victims? If so, is that because violent criminals are disproportionately Black? Are they radical pacifists who think we all should be willing to take a few beatings to avoid killings on the streets? I don’t get where they’re coming from, and they aren’t saying.

          1. Any, all of the above, or maybe some other missed possibilities. But none of that matters.

            What matters is that they are choosing to not engage with the reality of the situation, and instead substitute ‘facts’ more convenient to their preferred outcome. Which makes their arguments entirely in bad faith and not worthy of consideration.

            1. By “bad failth” you mean not rolling over and agreeing with you and your (possible) sockpuppets.

              1. Yep, you caught me.

                We are all sockpuppets.

  18. What difference does it make whether he was arrested? The DA ultimately decides whether charges will be filed.

    1. I think the difference it makes is that people opposed to laws like Florida’s don’t want people defending themselves against violent criminals, and they believe people will be less willing to do so if they know they face arrest.

      1. Except he wasn’t a violent criminal. He pushed a guy away from his wife and children because he was harassing them. Oh, but he sure “looked” like a violent criminal. What if it were 130lb woman that pushed him to the ground?

        1. He became a violent criminal when he assaulted Drejka.

          1. In the United States you must be convicted of a crime before you become a criminal. That is how the justice system works. Probably better you didn’t answer the question I asked.

            1. No. You become a criminal when you commit a crime. The law requires the state to convict you before the state considers you a criminal. The general public is under no such requirement.

              To answer your silly question?I have known women smaller than that who are martial artists and could easily slam someone like Drejka to the ground. In such a case, he would have the right to use force in self-defense. It is the force used by the attacker that matters, not their size or sex.

              1. I would argue that nearly any 130 mom soccer mom with no martial arts training could have easily pushed Drejka to the ground in a similar manner if she was angry enough (like having her kids threatened by an asshole trying to pick a fight).

                1. We have no information that he made any threats or was seeking a physical fight.

                  1. …only because you choose to ignore the obvious facts of the situation.

                    1. If you wtfv, you can see at least two people looking at him quizotically as he berates her. One of which told the deceased, while in the store, someone was giving a woman in a car a rash of shit out there….or words to that effect. You also have the girlfriend quoted as saying the guy was agressive and looking for a fight. You also have the owner of the store saying Drejka had previously admonished people for parking in handicaped spaces and brandished a weapon in a threating manner…..But you have no information about that because you refuse to acknowledge reality. Must be nice in your world where you’re never wrong.

              2. It is the force used by the attacker that matters, not their size or sex.

                You’re correct that size and sex don’t matter (even though you said yesterday that it DID matter…?). But “the force” is also not directly what matters either. The ONLY thing that matters is whether or not Drejka’s life was realistically in jeopardy.

                The distinction is important because if somebody applying physical force to another person was all that’s required, then every bully in high school should have been shot and killed. Hey, they started it, right? A flick of someone’s nipple, which is correctly classified as assault and physical provocation, should be grounds for death. Meanwhile, things like stalking, berating someone’s children, etc. should NEVER be addressed through physical means, or else you volunteer yourself to be shot and killed as well.

                We live in a society where due process is (or at least should be) paramount to solving criminal disputes. There are times when we can’t wait for due process because our lives are in danger. I don’t mean 1 in a million in danger, I mean realistically in danger. And that’s when deadly force, or the threat to use deadly force (e.g. pointing your gun at someone), is justified. Otherwise, due process 100% of the time.

                1. You already know what my response to that will be. No, you do not have to be in imminent danger of death to have the right to defend yourself against an attack. That’s absurd. It is also absurd to equate being nudged by a bully in a middle school corridor with being thrown to the ground like Drejka was. “Applying physical force to another person was all that’s required” is not a standard that anyone here has advocated. No, you don’t get to shoot someone for poking you in the chest during an argument, and, no, you should not expect someone to refrain from defending himself if you slam him to the ground. Apples here, oranges over there, please.

                  things like stalking, berating someone’s children, etc. should NEVER be addressed through physical means, or else you volunteer yourself to be shot and killed as well.

                  Getting shot in defense is a real possibility if you attack someone in such situations, so if you don’t want to face that risk, don’t attack people. What’s so hard about that? Why do you believe that you should be free to violently assault people without fear of armed retaliation as long as you don’t obviously intend to kill them? How would society benefit from tolerating such behavior?

                  1. It is also absurd to equate being nudged by a bully in a middle school corridor with being thrown to the ground like Drejka was.

                    So if the bully in school threw you down, then different story, right? I’m really interested to hear your response to this question.

                    Why do you believe that you should be free to violently assault people without fear of armed retaliation as long as you don’t obviously intend to kill them? How would society benefit from tolerating such behavior?

                    Look around. That’s your answer. That is the current standard RIGHT NOW. We glorify physical defense of our women in children. It’s in all our movies and television shows. It’s how a lot of people behave. I’m not advocating for it. I’m pointing out that it’s a common occurrence. To suggest that people should be shot and killed for it is to advocate for slaughter under the guise of “self-defense”.

                    Like liberals, you’re trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

                    1. So, you think real life should be like TV shows. That explains a lot.

                    2. VD’s got a murder boner. That’s all..

                    3. That’s what you took away from that statement?

                    4. “You already know what my response to that will be. No, you do not have to be in imminent danger of death to have the right to defend yourself against an attack. That’s absurd.”
                      You do have the right to defend yourself. That’s much different than saying you have the right use deadly force to do so. Apples over here, oranges over there…..as you claim.

    2. Can a D.A. even file charges against someone that hasn’t been arrested?

      1. Yes. That’s usually how it’s done. The prosecutor gets an indictment from a grand jury, and then issues an arrest warrant. In some states and in some cases, the prosecutor can issue an indictment himself without the grand jury.

        1. Makes sense. It will be interesting to see what happens.

  19. Watch the video closely you will see Mrs. Jacobs exits her vehicle and gets in Drejka’s face when she sees her boyfriend preparing his assault. She knows he is capable of violence and her decision to exit the vehicle and escalate the situation makes her an accomplice in the assault and criminally responsible for McGlockton’s death. ABC and other MSM outlets edited this part out they show only a few seconds of footage that starts when Jacobs has already gotten out of her vehicle.

    There is also video of McGlockton entering the store and collapsing after he is shot. But where is the video of him leaving the store to confront Drejka? The outside camera shows a man standing in the doorway and this individual then follows McGlockton out of the store. We’re told someone alerted people in the store to what was happening outside. Why haven’t we been shown video of what transpired inside the store?

  20. I love that while discussing the laws how everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that McGlockton did nothing illegal yet was assaulted and shoved hard to the ground. I love how everyone is ignoring the fact that the girlfriend had just gotten out of the car and was also moving toward Drejka before he was shoved to the ground. I love how no one seems to see how this creates a 2 on 1 situation that can be perceived as being jumped and creates a reasonable fear for one’s life.

    Here are the facts folks:
    McGlockton and his GF were parked illegally.
    Drejka decided to investigate the situation on his own (he’s legally allowed to do that)
    Drejka confronted the GF (also still legal)
    The GF decided to get out of her illegally parked car to respond. (Technically legal)
    McGlockton came out of the store, inserted himself into the situation creating a 2 on 1 situation, and shoved Drejka (assault) so hard that he fell to the ground.
    Drejka pulled a gun to defend himself (legal)
    Drejka used the gun. (LEGAL)

    Guns fire bullets. That’s their job. They aren’t there to just show so to everyone so that an assailant will back off. Drejka will be acquitted and rightfully so.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.