Welcome to Northwest Firearms
Join our community, sign up for free today!
Sign Up

Michael Dejka Trial Coming Up, Most Defense Motions Denied

Alexx1401

Messages
7,521
Reactions
17,515
Yeah, he REALLY should have consulted an attorney before talking to the cops!
I have said for a LONG time. If you have to shoot say nothing to Police until you have a lawyer. Almost every time a shoot gets someone in trouble it is their mouth that does the most harm. People just too often can not seem to shut up. In this case it may not have made any difference since it was not what I call "good" but, his mouth certainly did not do anything to help his case.
 
Messages
1,200
Reactions
1,285
1) I have a Gimp Parking Placard.
2) I always carry a sidearm in public.
3) I also am annoyed by people who park in a Handicapped space and aren't entitled to do so.
4) I realize that seemingly trivial things can go south most Rikki-tik. Parking in a handicapped space without a placard rates a healthy fine. If it p*sses one off that bad, call the cops. They are empowered to bother people about stuff like that. I'm not.
5) I have a hard time putting myself in Drejka's place because I wouldn't have placed myself in that position by getting in the woman's face about it.
6) If you're gonna carry a gun, you have to avoid giving offense even (or especially) if you feel justified. If Drejka had just kept his mouth shut and gone into the store he wouldn't be looking at being in prison for the rest of his life.
7) The whole situation changed in that second when McGlockton backed up. Maybe Mas could have helped with info about OODA, etc. but Drejka should have shot as soon as he hit the ground or stood down when McGlockton backed off. Also as mentioned he should have STFU vis-à-vis post-incident conversations with the police.
8) Also, as noted by numerous commentators incl. myself ignoring it and going about his business he would have avoided the whole thing.
 
OP
awshoot
Messages
1,613
Reactions
3,423
I have said for a LONG time. If you have to shoot say nothing to Police until you have a lawyer. Almost every time a shoot gets someone in trouble it is their mouth that does the most harm. People just too often can not seem to shut up. In this case it may not have made any difference since it was not what I call "good" but, his mouth certainly did not do anything to help his case.
The part of the statement that comes back to my mind the most, is the part starting at about 43:00. The sheriff deputy was, it seemed to me, trying to get him to say something clear like: "I was terrified he was going to seriously hurt or kill me" -- Drejka almost gets there when he talks about thinking McGlocton would "finish the job" and then self-sabotages himself by providing an opinion about the impossibility of knowing what McGlocton was going to do. So apparently when he was sitting on the ground, he didn't have a current apprehension of danger, he was merely concerned it might evolve into physicality. My opinion based on McG's forward motion prior to seeing the gun, is that Drejka was about to be hospitalized at minimum. But all this is opinion -- his and mine -- and none of that needed to be said in that interview.

Somewhat paraphrased, the interview goes like this:

S1: When you look up and you see him, what's going through your mind?
D: What's going through my mind? Is he coming back at me again?
S1: To do what? What did you think he was going to do?
D: Thinking he's going to finish what he started.
S1: And what do you mean, elaborate on the "finishing".
D: I have no clue because he didn't do anything. I can't elaborate on something I don't know about.
S1: What do you think he was going to do?
D: Not a clue. Come after me again? What he would have done is just pure conjecture.
S1: Did you think he was maybe going to get physical with you?
D: Sure.
S2: In a fair fight could you take him?
D: Negative. I'm not a fighter, never been a fighter.
S2: Never?
D: Never.
S2: Ever?
D: Ever. [pause -- S1 is rubbing his eyes probably thinking WTF won't this dude say he was scared for his life] I didn't even fight at school.
...
S1: When you looked up at this gentleman, I know it was so quick, did you see his physical build or did any of that go through your mind?
D: Medium height person.
S1: So did it go through your mind: holy sh-- this guy is huge he's gonna ...
D: [shakes head "no"] ... Anybody can be anything, huge has nothing to do with it.
S1: Sure absolutely, I agree ... but it goes to your mind -- is he going to finish the job.
D: Very correct.
S1: "Finish the job" -- what do you mean?
D: Whatever he started -- I had no clue what he started and what his endgame was. I was in the dark about that. So that makes me believe to myself I need a force multiplier because I don't know what's going on.
S1: What do you mean a force multiplier?
D: Well exactly --- you know what a force multiplier is.
S1: No sir I don't, if I did ... no I really don't.
D: A force multiplier is a sidearm, anything other than your hands. A stick
S1: Some kind of a weapon.
S2: You know terminology we don't.
D: ______ from the FBI who didn't know what that meant.
...
[reads a lot -- not about firearms -- mostly outdoors stuff]
[vision is OK, started using readers]
[likes Monster drinks]
[told his wife about the incident right after]
[S1 told Drejka that McGlocton died]
...
S1: Anything you want to add?
D: Stand your ground thing and I did exactly what I thought I was supposed to be doing considering what was happening to myself.
[end]
 
Last edited:
OP
awshoot
Messages
1,613
Reactions
3,423
....
5) I have a hard time putting myself in Drejka's place because I wouldn't have placed myself in that position by getting in the woman's face about it.
...
7) The whole situation changed in that second when McGlockton backed up. Maybe Mas could have helped with info about OODA, etc. but Drejka should have shot as soon as he hit the ground or stood down when McGlockton backed off. Also as mentioned he should have STFU vis-à-vis post-incident conversations with the police.
...
I agree totally with the notion that he shouldn't have gotten himself into that position. On #5 though, if my recollection is correct, the woman in the car started the "conversation" -- of course, Drejka was looking mighty suspicious prior to that circling the car and looking at it closely.

Regarding #7, here is the part that gives me a lot to think about: it is 100% clear from Drejka's (stupid) interview, that he 100% believed the video would vindicate him (this is based on testimony of witnesses about Drejka wanting to confirm it was on video, as well as his comments in the interview). He completely believes he saw McGlocton advance -- I have no doubt about that in my mind. The video shows something else of course and so what we have here is that there can be a major difference between human perception and video recording.

As humans, we can mispercieve things. We can feel absolute certainty about things we are totally wrong about. We can get ourselves into bad situations. I admit I feel empathy for Drejka, but I also feel that there was a lack of testimony on Drejka's perspective in the matter, and if I limit my decision to what was presented at trial, I think the evidence is against him.
 

bbbass

Messages
8,204
Reactions
17,541
THREE separate interactions! bubblegum if a forum full of gun owners can't understand that, what chance does an average jury have?

The much vilified stand your ground had nothing to do with this case. The prosecution can't say he had a duty to retreat when he is flat on his @ss.

For the last time, shooter did not start the interaction with the pusher, because he had no idea the attacker was even there.
That's selective understanding... same as others have their understanding. You saying your point of view over and over does not make it so.

I see the confrontation as having started when he hassled the woman in the car... (Edit: IMO The "confrontation" started when he approached the car... of course she's going to ask him WTF he is doing... wouldn't anybody?) Your case could be made that the confrontation was only the interaction with the person that got shot. We see it differently. <shrug>

The statement has been made that this case had nothing to do with Florida's Stand Your Ground law. Maybe... in the interview Drejka is claiming it did. I'm certainly no lawyer. The question in my mind is how it was presented to the jury. Did the defense lawyer claim it was protected under Stand Your Ground... I doubt he would... because Drejka started the confrontation (or there was a good chance a jury would see it as such). So that brings it down to a standard SD shoot. Having reviewed the vid several times, I would still convict the little pissant as having gotten mad and deciding in the moment to shoot the guy.

Hang him high!!!
 
Last edited:
Messages
482
Reactions
533
He can appeal, he won't win. This was a bad shoot no matter how you look at it and interpret the details. Florida's stand your ground laws just don't apply here. And in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter what Dejka's perspective was. The video is incredibly damning against him, he would still get convicted even if he kept his mouth shut and lawyered up early on.

Sure those people were aholes parking in a handicap spot. However, Dejka confronted the people when he had no legal authority to do so. Honestly, so what if Mcglockton pushed him down. Dejka drew his firearm, Mcglockton stepped back and was even in process of turning away, and Dejka still shot him. Video is quite clear, Mcglockton was retreating and Dejka shot him.

Dejka well deserved his manslaughter conviction and only made CHL holders look bad. Just, because Little Johnny pushed you down behind the swings, doesn't mean you get to bash his head in with a rock.
 
Last edited:
OP
awshoot
Messages
1,613
Reactions
3,423
... The video is incredibly damning against him ...

... Video is quite clear, Mcglockton was retreating and Dejka shot him.
I've heard all the witnesses and watched all the evidence and I am certain that Drejka was 100% convinced the video would show what he thought he saw, which he said was forward motion of McGlocton's feet.

The video is grainy and of exceptionally low quality. It is not really possible to say what motions McGlocton's feet made at the moment Drejka shot. However, the defense presented no witnesses on the video, no witnesses on perspective differences between the video and Drejka's position, and their human factors witness was not very clear in explaining how there is a difference in human perception to video recording. Based on the evidence presented at trial though -- and ignoring the "parking lot cop" irrelevancies -- I think the verdict was correct.

In any event, our perceptions can deceive us, completely lie to us and yet make us feel so confident. I look at this Drejka case and that old cliche comes to mind: there but for the grace of God go I. And while I wouldn't get into an argument over a parking place -- I wonder what random thing I do would be seen as equally ridiculous.
 
Messages
640
Reactions
508
I've heard all the witnesses and watched all the evidence and I am certain that Drejka was 100% convinced the video would show what he thought he saw, which he said was forward motion of McGlocton's feet.

The video is grainy and of exceptionally low quality. It is not really possible to say what motions McGlocton's feet made at the moment Drejka shot. However, the defense presented no witnesses on the video, no witnesses on perspective differences between the video and Drejka's position, and their human factors witness was not very clear in explaining how there is a difference in human perception to video recording. Based on the evidence presented at trial though -- and ignoring the "parking lot cop" irrelevancies -- I think the verdict was correct.

In any event, our perceptions can deceive us, completely lie to us and yet make us feel so confident. I look at this Drejka case and that old cliche comes to mind: there but for the grace of God go I. And while I wouldn't get into an argument over a parking place -- I wonder what random thing I do would be seen as equally ridiculous.
After having watched his post-shoot discussions with the police, I will agree with you on the above first bolded point.
I believe Drejka thought he saw McGlocton coming towards. He didn't lie to the police, it's just that his perception of the event was very different than what the surveillance video showed.

I believe the verdict was correct & I am very much in agreement with you on the second bolded point illustrating that our perceptions can deceive us.

IMO, had Drejka not tried to play parking enforcer everyone would have gone about their day.
 

NEW CLASSIFIED ADS

LATEST REVIEWS

  • Rangemaster Gunworks
    5.00 star(s)
    I have done business with Jeff for many years,he is trustworthy and honest
    • grpolarbear
  • Rangemaster Gunworks
    5.00 star(s)
    I've known him from the beginning. I trust him completely. His prices are fair. He is technically competent in all aspects of gunsmithing and...
    • OLDMANWINTER
  • Country Line Shooting Sports
    5.00 star(s)
    If you like a good mom and pop, country store, County Line only lacks the cracker barrel and chairs to be damn near perfect. They try and for the...
    • CptPh0t0n
  • Brimstone Gunsmithing
    5.00 star(s)
    David is kind, considerate and a true professional as are the rest of his staff ! Thanks
    • LuLuBelle
  • Brimstone Gunsmithing
    5.00 star(s)
    Back in April, I had Brimstone do a Tier 1 trigger job for my 10/22 race gun build. After months of use and a handful of speed steel events, I...
    • Mister Bisley

Staff online