Other State Shooter in deadly Florida 'Stand Your Ground' case arrested for manslaughter

[Nick Burkhardt]

Here are a few frames from the part you mention -- adjusting shorts bit. It is the closest approach McGlockton made and I marked it in red. You can see clearly that McGlockton is retreating while Drejka is digging for his gun. The second to last frame with the gun is not the first frame in which it is visible, but it is what appears to me the first frame in which it is aimed and steady.

View attachment 488744

View attachment 488748

How much ground did Mr Blue Shirt and the female cover between those two frames?

That is how far McGlockton could have/should have backed off if he wanted to retreat.

 

[American123]

1.25 seconds with your gun in your hand is an eternity.

And being blindsided into the pavement could reduce a person's ability to utilize their faculties to their fullest extent.

1.25 seconds is the same amount of time regardless of how we slice it, what is unknown to everyone involved in this except for the shooter is what processes were taking place in his mind leading up to this. He looks on the older side, older people don't process information as quickly as younger people to begin with, being blindsided would only magnify this difference substantially.

He was likely moving as fast as he possibly could to draw and fire, which may seem slow for some, but that was likely the best he could do at the time. Not everyone is Instructor Zero

 

[awshoot]

That's your take, here's another:

It seems to me his point is not that shooting was legal -- his point was that you shouldn't escalate situations. He also believes Drejka set up the situation to give himself the opportunity to shoot someone. It also appears from the CNN excerpts, that he is accepting the Sheriff's determination that the shooting was legal. Most telling I think though, is that he indicates disagreement with the law on self-defense (he feels you should be allowed to shoot a retreating attacker, even in the back). The fact that he has a disagreement to SD law in general, is not an endorsement of this shooting as being legal. That's a whole other topic.

 

[American123]

It seems to me his point is not that shooting was legal -- his point was that you shouldn't escalate situations. He also believes Drejka set up the situation to give himself the opportunity to shoot someone. It also appears from the CNN excerpts, that he is accepting the Sheriff's determination that the shooting was legal. Most telling I think though, is that he indicates disagreement with the law on self-defense (he feels you should be allowed to shoot a retreating attacker, even in the back). The fact that he has a disagreement to SD law in general, is not an endorsement of this shooting as being legal. That's a whole other topic.

His main argument is don't be a dumb azz and put your hands on other people without legal provocation and you won't get shot. He also made several convincing statements that the shover gave numerous indications that the attack was going to continue until the shooter started reaching. He also placed the largest blame on the shover and the woman for both escalating the situation from verbal to physical.

But, ya know, two people can hear the same thing and take away from it what they prefer.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

1.25 seconds with your gun in your hand is an eternity.

On the range, sure. Under stress who knows. I am not sure how long I was standing there staring at my hand after my fall before my son asked "You ok Dad?" 1, 2 or 5 seconds.

I am now seeing the usefulness of those game targets that make you think or do math before you shoot.

 

[po18guy]

Yep, criminals hate being shot, it's true. Stand your ground is only controversial to people who are assaulting others. Being around guns constantly, but not assaulting other people, I never worry one bit.

Back on duty, I would have arrested the shooter. No doubt. Is anyone here looking at the totality of the circumstances? This only happened because hothead took the law into his own hands. For a parking violation!

Result: a funeral.

Bad law. Face it - each of us could be next, depending on the situation. How would that feel?

 

[American123]

Back on duty, I would have arrested the shooter. No doubt. Is anyone here looking at the totality of the circumstances? This only happened because hothead took the law into his own hands. For a parking violation!

Result: a funeral.

Bad law. Face it - each of us could be next, depending on the situation. How would that feel?

Your opinion is noted, but it isn't necessarily correct. Your feelings indicates the shooter started it by talking, by that logic, if you say something I don't like I can assault you and you should just be ok with that and wait for police and not defend yourself.

I'm not worried whatsoever about being shot in a stand your ground case. I don't assault people. Had shover kept his hand to himself he would have lived to be a piece of trash and park in handicapped spots another day. His only handicap was this:

 

[No_Regerts]

And being blindsided into the pavement could reduce a person's ability to utilize their faculties to their fullest extent.

1.25 seconds is the same amount of time regardless of how we slice it, what is unknown to everyone involved in this except for the shooter is what processes were taking place in his mind leading up to this. He looks on the older side, older people don't process information as quickly as younger people to begin with, being blindsided would only magnify this difference substantially.

He was likely moving as fast as he possibly could to draw and fire, which may seem slow for some, but that was likely the best he could do at the time. Not everyone is Instructor Zero

He drew, pointed the thing at the guy, waited at least a second and then cooks off a shot. He wasn't reeling from a tremendous tackle.

 

[awshoot]

... He looks on the older side, older people don't process information as quickly as younger people to begin with ...

So if he argues that in court, the prosecutor would probably love it. "Ladies and gentlemen, Drejka presented evidence that he is getting older and his reaction and processing time, just ain't what it used to be. He wants you to believe that he was acting as a reasonable person would when he carried a loaded deadly weapon despite the fact he believes his capacities are diminished. He's probably right that he was incompetent to be carrying a gun -- he can't even tell the difference between a retreat and attack -- and because he made that irrational choice to carry a gun, to aim it, to fire it at another human being even while he knew he was not as competent as he needs to be to bear that responsibility -- a father of three is dead today.

 

[American123]

He drew, pointed the thing at the guy, waited at least a second and then cooks off a shot. He wasn't reeling from a tremendous tackle.

And you can't fathom the thought that he was making sure his sights were aligned so he didn't hit an innocent bystander?

 

[awshoot]

His main argument is don't be a dumb azz and put your hands on other people without legal provocation and you won't get shot. He also made several convincing statements that the shover gave numerous indications that the attack was going to continue until the shooter started reaching. He also placed the largest blame on the shover and the woman for both escalating the situation from verbal to physical.

But, ya know, two people can hear the same thing and take away from it what they prefer.

Sounds like we heard it the same way. What I did not hear from him, but was perhaps alluded to by the CNN commentary and maybe he accepted that at face value, was that the shoot was clearly legal.

 

[American123]

So if he argues that in court, the prosecutor would probably love it. "Ladies and gentlemen, Drejka presented evidence that he is getting older and his reaction and processing time, just ain't what it used to be. He wants you to believe that he was acting as a reasonable person would when he carried a loaded deadly weapon despite the fact he believes his capacities are diminished. He's probably right that he was incompetent to be carrying a gun -- he can't even tell the difference between a retreat and attack -- and because he made that irrational choice to carry a gun, to aim it, to fire it at another human being even while he knew he was not as competent as he needs to be to bear that responsibility -- a father of three is dead today.

So old people, the most vulnerable to assault shouldn't be able to carry a gun and defend themselves?

Why stop there, why do women carry, their the physically weaker sex and their reaction time is on average slower than men too.

Is this where your argument dies?

 

[awshoot]

So old people, the most vulnerable to assault shouldn't be able to carry a gun and defend themselves?

Why stop there, why do women carry, their the physically weaker sex and their reaction time is on average slower than men too.

Is this where your argument dies?

I didn't say that. I did say it is likely a really bad argument -- it may be true even, but unless the prosecutor brings it up, don't give him or her any rope to hang you with.

 

[awshoot]

And you can't fathom the thought that he was making sure his sights were aligned so he didn't hit an innocent bystander?

That's another bad argument (or great one for the prosecutor). Careful aiming like you do at the range is counterindicative of an imminent threat.

 

[American123]

Sounds like we heard it the same way. What I did not hear from him, but was perhaps alluded to by the CNN commentary and maybe he accepted that at face value, was that the shoot was clearly legal.

He flat out said that the stand your ground law is a good and reasonable law, people should not have to deal with others putting there hands on them without defending themselves.

He made generalized alluding comments that white people wait for black people to do dumb stuff like get physically violent so then they can kill them within the parameters of the law, but he still placed 100% blame on the shover who initiated physical contact. He even offered advice to the deceased what he should have done, used his words to say, 'sir please step away from my car' and then drove away without further incident.

 

[po18guy]

Not here to argue, as that is a waste of time.

You're in a bar ordering a roiund. Drunk hits on your wife or girlfriend. Right up in her chest. She gives you "the look." You step in, the guy shouts at you and you shove him away. He draws and kills you.

Good law?

 

[American123]

That's another bad argument (or great one for the prosecutor). Careful aiming like you do at the range is counterindicative of an imminent threat.

Not bad at all, you are liable for every shot that comes out of that barrel. You don't know how often this guy practices, he could have potentially never fired that gun, he could have only fired it once when he bought it. He also only shot 1 time which shows restraint and a desire to inflict no more harm that was necessary to stop the threat from his perspective. By taking a small amount of more time to aim he ensured he only hit his attacker.

Some people can't hit a target at the range, let alone under duress.

 

[awshoot]

He flat out said that the stand your ground law is a good and reasonable law, people should not have to deal with others putting there hands on them without defending themselves.

He made generalized alluding comments that white people wait for black people to do dumb stuff like get physically violent so then they can kill them within the parameters of the law, but he still placed 100% blame on the shover who initiated physical contact. He even offered advice to the deceased what he should have done, used his words to say, 'sir please step away from my car' and then drove away without further incident.

Yeah but that has nothing to do with whether this shooting was legal. SYG has been injected into this case to give SYG a bad name when this case has never had anything to do with SYG. Law of Self Defense VIDEO: Just because it's lawful to present the gun doesn't mean it's lawful to press the trigger

EDIT: Your summary of his comments is accurate, and while he thinks McGlockton got what was coming to him, that is not the same thing as saying the shoot was legal. He expressly states that he thinks SD law is wrong where it says you can't shoot a retreating person.

 

[American123]

Not here to argue, as that is a waste of time.

You're in a bar ordering a roiund. Drunk hits on your wife or girlfriend. Right up in her chest. She gives you "the look." You step in, the guy shouts at you and you shove him away. He draws and kills you.

Good law?

Can you legally carry in a bar where minors aren't prohibited?

Sounds like he would be guilty of unlawful possession and him being intoxicated at the time would hang himself in any court trial. Not to mention, I'm faster I'd beat him on the draw haha

Joking aside, I don't see that your example bears any relevance. In most of the country firearms are banned in bars. I'm not familiar with the laws in Florida, but they definitely are in Washington.

Furthermore, I'm not quite sure what's your example means. Is he sexually assaulting her by touching her body or is he verbally 'hitting on her' your example is vague.

In either case, I wouldn't worry much, shoving is for children and people who don't know how to strike.

Your whole premise plays into the what if world of infinite's that's are so obscure it's no worth discussing.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

He drew, pointed the thing at the guy, waited at least a second and then cooks off a shot. He wasn't reeling from a tremendous tackle.

According to his statement, he was not waiting, but reacting to the pushers leg jerk. McGlockton lack of significant retreat or other actions were not sufficient enough to signal surrender.

I am out for most of the week with work, so unless anything braking comes up such as Drejka had is glasses knocked off, or Baby Momma's last text was "Baby Kick his @ss" I won't have time to react to posts.

Of course none of us would want to put ourselves in the position of the shooter by thoughtless actions. Like Zimmerman, Drejka is not the ideal posterboy for concealed carry, but if we surrender an inch, the antis will take a mile. The next thing you know a comment that you made years ago on the internet gets called "hate speech" and thanks to some new law signed by Kate or Jay in response to this SYG media frenzy its "Sorry no more CHL for you".