The news articles seem to suggest that the prosecutors are using the past bad acts of the defendant to justify the arrest.

My best understanding is that a defendant cannot use the past bad acts of the aggressor to justify use of force.

I guess this rule only favors the prosecution?

I take no position as to whether it is a justifiable action or not as I simply do not know enough about the interaction.

EasyFire

^^the grand jury room is closed and a prosecutor can say anything he wants and there is no one there to stop him from doing so...or object or interject anything.

Its a cop reading a report or giving testimony to the grand jury with the prosecutor present and requesting an indictment....

when this came out a friend of mine was on FB complaining about the lack of an arrest. (my friend is a cop) I had to remind him that the sheriff probably had some kinda issue and didn't want to be at the center of the issue (maybe he's up for re-election, doesn't like SYG, whatever) and figured that putting it in front of a Grand Jury was the way to make them be the vehicle to instigate the arrest. (or letting the use of SYG be the bad guy who didn't issue a warrant and thereby clearing the shooter from arrest)

personally, i think the shooter was in the wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by EasyFire:
The news articles seem to suggest that the prosecutors are using the past bad acts of the defendant to justify the arrest.

My best understanding is that a defendant cannot use the past bad acts of the aggressor to justify use of force.

I guess this rule only favors the prosecution?

I take no position as to whether it is a justifiable action or not as I simply do not know enough about the interaction.

EasyFire

In the Harold Fish case here in AZ, the assailant Fish shot had a very long and well-known history, which clearly bolstered Fish's reasons for fearing for his life. But there was no way Fish could have known that at the time he drew and fired. The confrontation happened way out in the bush, far from anything and the two were complete strangers who crossed paths. I'd say the deceased's prior bad acts could help convince the jury the guy was a threat, but again, the shooter could not have known that at the time and thus not used that info to fear for his life.

I could be wrong (I often am) but I dont believe 10/20/life applies to manslaughter. With manslaughter, the only enhancer for the use of a gun is a bump in degree. So he will be charged with a 1st degree felony, guidelines apply.

That is a win in my book and makes it a whole lot easier for defense and state to negotiate a resolution to this case. Had they filed any kind of murder charge, mandatory 25 to life. Good chance the guy will do time, but....he should see daylight again.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:

quote:

Originally posted by EasyFire:
The news articles seem to suggest that the prosecutors are using the past bad acts of the defendant to justify the arrest.

My best understanding is that a defendant cannot use the past bad acts of the aggressor to justify use of force.

I guess this rule only favors the prosecution?

I take no position as to whether it is a justifiable action or not as I simply do not know enough about the interaction.

EasyFire

In the Harold Fish case here in AZ, the assailant Fish shot had a very long and well-known history, which clearly bolstered Fish's reasons for fearing for his life. But there was no way Fish could have known that at the time he drew and fired. The confrontation happened way out in the bush, far from anything and the two were complete strangers who crossed paths. I'd say the deceased's prior bad acts could help convince the jury the guy was a threat, but again, the shooter could not have known that at the time and thus not used that info to fear for his life.

I am familiar with the Fish case & believe it was wrongly decided due to the inability to introduce the aggressors prior bad acts which would lend support to Fish's claim of threat to life. If I recall correctly, Fish had no prior bad acts.

From the moment I first watched the video of this shooting, my only question was how many years this guy was going to be sentenced to. The sheriff not charging him initially opens up a lot of questions about the sheriff's motives.

I think this one can go either way in Florida.

I've watched the video; shooter was a reasonable distance from the car window, the woman got out of the car to confront him and then he got blindsided by the soon-to-be-deceased and hammered to the ground. He then drew, aimed, hesitated a second and fired. The moment he fired, he was on the ground and it was two on one. In addition, he only fired one shot stopping the threat; didn't mag dump in a panic or anything like that even though he tracked the threat with his gun until the guy had clearly retreated.

I think that the key will be whether or not he had reasonable fear. That will likely turn on what was said, and there will be multiple witnesses to the exchange or words. The shooter, if he chooses to testify, the woman who exited the car, and the guy in the blue shirt.

While I agree that objectively, he shouldn't have shot, I think this will be a close case and will turn on the jury's impression of his state of mind.

I wonder; if the guy knocked to the ground was a uniformed police officer, would we even be having this discussion?

This is tragic, as someone noted, 4 lives ruined. But I think it will be a close case.

We had a deputy slip and fall. She received 4 stitches, was sent home due to a concussion, and had bruises on her side. This was a petite woman about 5 4. Maybe 140. I can completely see someone pushing an elder person making the case for a stand your ground here. Now, do i think he needed shooting? Hell no, don't argue over parking spots, your a moron. But I can see why he was in the right by law as written, if not intended.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
I wonder; if the guy knocked to the ground was a uniformed police officer, would we even be having this discussion?

I'd venture to say that a uniformed police officer would not have even pulled his gun due to simply being pushed to the ground. I certainly wouldn't. Especially in this day and age. The fight would be on, but it wouldn't be a gunfight.

But I'm saying that as a reasonably in-shape person who doesn't mind a bit of rolling around on the ground, if the situation requires it.

Thanks. That's what I wanted to know.

quote:

Originally posted by fatmanspencer:
We had a deputy slip and fall. She received 4 stitches, was sent home due to a concussion, and had bruises on her side. This was a petite woman about 5 4. Maybe 140. I can completely see someone pushing an elder person making the case for a stand your ground here. Now, do i think he needed shooting? Hell no, don't argue over parking spots, your a moron. But I can see why he was in the right by law as written, if not intended.

If he is right by the law, then the law is wrong.

And for the record I disagree with you. I don't believe he has a stand your ground case at all according to the law.

https://apnews.com/3a50de84aed..._campaign=SocialFlow

Florida man convicted in parking lot shooting of black man

A white Florida man who told detectives he had a “pet peeve” about illegal parking in handicapped spots was convicted late Friday of manslaughter for the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man in a dispute over a handicapped spot.

Six jurors deliberated for six hours before convicting Michael Drejka for the July 2018 death of Markeis McGlockton. Drejka, who could get 30 years, looked down after the verdict was read then wiped his brow with a blue handkerchief. He was ordered held without bond. Members of McGlockton’s family could be heard weeping in the courtroom.

Drejka, 49, had confronted McGlockton’s girlfriend for parking in a handicapped space while McGlockton went inside a convenience store. Security video recorded McGlockton leaving the store and shoving Drejka to the ground. Seconds later, Drejka pulled out a handgun and shot McGlockton, 28, as he backed away. McGlockton ran inside the store, where he collapsed and died.

The video was played multiple times for the jury of six men and a woman.

Drejka didn’t testify on his behalf, although jurors were played a video of his interview with detectives.

Drejka told the detectives he has a “pet peeve” about illegal parking in handicapped spots and often walks around such cars looking for handicapped stickers and placards, sometimes taking photographs. He said he often sees people illegally parked in the handicapped spot at that convenience store, but the owner doesn’t do anything about it.

Drejka said he saw McGlockton’s car in the handicapped spot in July 2018, so he went to its back and front, looking for stickers, which store security video shows. He said the car’s windows were tinted, so he didn’t know anyone was inside.

He said McGlockton’s girlfriend, Britany Jacobs, partially put down her window and asked what he was doing. He said he told her it was “not very polite” to park in the spot and “she took that as an affront.” He said that sparked an argument that got heated, with Jacobs saying “Do I have to get my man?”

Jacobs, who was waiting in the car with two of her children with McGlockton, testified that Drejka started walking around her car, stopped in the front, and then started pointing and yelling at her for parking in a handicapped spot. She said she eventually cracked the window to hear what he was saying and a screaming match ensued.

Jacobs and a witness, Robert Castelli, testified that McGlockton was backing up after shoving Drejka. Both said McGlockton didn’t take a step forward, toward Drejka as he was on the ground after being shoved.

When a detective in the video interview asked Drejka why he fired his gun, he said, “I have never been in that situation before, but I thought kicks were coming... I think he is coming to do the rest of it.”

Thanks for the update. He damned himself with his stupid comments establishing himself as someone looking for a fight:

Drejka told the detectives he has a “pet peeve” about illegal parking in handicapped spots and often walks around such cars looking for handicapped stickers and placards, sometimes taking photographs. He said he often sees people illegally parked in the handicapped spot at that convenience store, but the owner doesn’t do anything about it.

I agree with the verdict. If the guy was advancing on him then maybe.

It will be interesting to see how much prison time the defendant gets in this case. I will tell you in the liberal dimocrap progressive haven of St. Louis City, DA Kim Gardner gave a guy a plea deal in a case where defendant got in a fight near Ballpark Village, went and got his gun (known gang member), returned to the scene, re instigated the confrontation and during that time shoot his gun, hitting and killing a completely innocent bystander who was nearby. Want to guess what he got form the plea deal: 4 years with a 1 year credit served. So shitstain killer has to do 3 more years for killing someone. Ahh, progressive justice!

A claim of self-defense rings pretty hollow when it was you who instigated or escalated the confrontation.

yes of course each of these cases has to be observed for its own details / merits, etc

looks like the conviction in this case was warranted

can't shoot someone for mere physical force

guy was looking for a fight, he over-reacted when he got pushed. no weapon or threat of imminent deadly force. enjoy your hard time.

-------------------------------------

You push me down, I can't get up without really putting myself in a dangerous position. Your not backing off ...I'll shoot you....

quote:

can't shoot someone for mere physical force

Maybe not in this case, but not necessarily. It doesn't require weapons to inflict great harm or even kill. Fists and feet can do a really good job of that. A good clocking upside the head can leave you a vegetable, for example. I wouldn't make that a one-size-fits-all, blanket statement.

This case ended up where most of us thought it should.

Can disparity of force be a factor in shooting someone who has overpowered you?
Definitely!
Had I been on the jury in this case a lot of my decision would have been based on the fact the defendant instigated this event, then escalated it.
Why?
Because I see people parking in handicapped spots from time to time but have never felt compelled to confront the illegal drivers. Since I dont confront them, I dont get my ass kicked and then have to shoot someone.