# Michael Drejka Update



## Knight (Dec 19, 2018)

Trial date set for Clearwater stand your ground shooter 
Posted: 1:06 PM, Dec 14, 2018 Updated: 4:54 AM, Dec 17, 2018 

By: Sarah Hollenbeck


CLEARWATER, Fla. — The man at the center of a controversial stand your ground case in Clearwater appeared in court Friday afternoon. The judge set a jury trial date in this case: August 19th at 1:30 P.M.


Clearwater resident Michael Drejka is charged in the death of Markeis McGlockton. The shooting happened in July outside of the Circle A convenience store on Sunset Point Road.
John Trevena, Drejka’s defense attorney tells ABC Action News new evidence in the case could help a jury rule in the shooter’s favor.

Trevena says the toxicology report indicates Markeis McGlockton had drugs including ecstasy in his system. He also says an independent witness heard Britany Jacobs, McGlockton’s girlfriend tell Drejka, “My boyfriend is gonna f*** you up. He’s going to kill you,” moments before the fatal shot was fired. Trevena hopes to enter both pieces of information into evidence for the future trial. 


"This is a man who was a bully, who beat on pregnant females and has a history of violence with police officers and other individuals. So to characterize him as a saint or a victim is a farce,” Trevena said about McGlockton. 


The wheels of justice move slowly.


----------



## Butterfly (Dec 19, 2018)

Well, it is no surprise that the shooter's attorney wants to characterize his client as the good guy and the victim as a scumbag.  I doubt whether the victim's history of being a bully, if that is true, has any effect on this particular case except in the press.  It isn't about who is the nicer guy; it is about whether the shooter was justified in shooting the victim at that moment in time.  Unjustified killing is unjustified killing whether the victim is Mother Theresa or Jeffrey Dahmer.  To me, the salient points are that the shooter had a gun and the victim was unarmed and reportedly moving away at the time he was shot.

And yes, after a lifetime in law offices I can personally testify that the wheels of justice turn VERY slowly.


----------



## Trade (Dec 19, 2018)

I saw the video. The shooting was entirely unnecessary. The victim started to back away as soon as he saw the gun. But Drejka shot him anyway. If I were on the jury I would vote guilty to 2nd degree murder. 

And I'm saying that as a gun owner, a holder of a concealed carry permit, and a firm supporter of the 2nd amendment.


----------



## Knight (Dec 20, 2018)

No doubt the lawyer will use this. It goes to state of mind after Drejka was shoved to the ground?




“My boyfriend is gonna f*** you up. He’s going to kill you,” moments before the fatal shot was fired.


Turning doesn't take him away from close proximity. Only Drejka knows what he thought in those few seconds. The judge set the court date but the charge wasn't in the article. 2nd. degree as the charge makes sense because shooting towards center mass doesn't IMO doesn't mean intent to kill. 


I don't think this is relevant. 


""This is a man who was a bully, who beat on pregnant females and has a history of violence with police officers and other individuals. So to characterize him as a saint or a victim is a farce,” Trevena said about McGlockton." 




The lawyer may even try to use this.




The Tueller Drill is a self-defense training exercise to prepare against a short-range knife attack when armed only with a holstered handgun. 
Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City, Utah Police Department wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife could cover 21 feet (6.4 m), so he timed volunteers as they raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in 1.5 seconds. These results were first published as an article in SWAT magazine in 1983 and in a police training video by the same title, "How Close is Too Close?"[1][2] 
A defender with a gun has a dilemma. If he shoots too early, he risks being accused of murder. If he waits until the attacker is definitely within striking range so there is no question about motives, he risks injury and even death. The Tueller experiments quantified a "danger zone" where an attacker presented a clear threat.[3] 
The Tueller Drill combines both parts of the original time trials by Tueller. There are several ways it can be conducted:[4] 
The (simulated) attacker and shooter are positioned back-to-back. At the signal, the "attacker" sprints away from the shooter, and the shooter unholsters his gun and shoots at the target 21 feet (6.4 m) in front of him. The attacker stops as soon as the shot is fired. The shooter is successful only if his shot is good and if the runner did not cover 21 feet (6.4 m).
A more stressful arrangement is to have the attacker begin 21 feet (6.4 m) behind the shooter and run towards the shooter. The shooter is successful only if he was able take a good shot before he is tapped on the back by the attacker.
If the shooter is armed with only a training replica gun, a full-contact drill may be done with the attacker running towards the shooter. In this variation, the shooter should practice side-stepping the attacker while he is drawing the gun.
MythBusters covered the drill in the 2012 episode "Duel Dilemmas". At 20 ft (6.1 m), the gun-wielder was able to shoot the charging knife attacker just as he reached the shooter. At shorter distances the knife wielder was always able to stab prior to being shot.[5] 


AT SHORTER DISTANCES THE KNIFE WIELDER WAS ALWAYS ABLE TO STAB PRIOR TO BEING SHOT. 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill


And yes I do know there was no knife involved.


----------



## applecruncher (Dec 20, 2018)

> “My boyfriend is gonna f*** you up. He’s going to kill you,” moments before the fatal shot was fired.



source/link? (not that it would matter...)

Strange that this so-called threat supposedly heard by some un-named anonymous witness is JUST NOW coming out.  It was never mentioned before - not once.

Puhleeeze.  


This case was discussed here - no need to rehash what's already been said, and SEEN.

https://www.seniorforums.com/showth...ting-argument-in-parking-lot?highlight=drejka


----------



## Trade (Dec 20, 2018)

Drejka is the one that started the whole mess by by going out looking for trouble while carry a gun. When you go looking for trouble, trouble will find you. That's a universal law of nature. 

What kind of person get's in someone's face over a parking place? I see people parking places they shouldn't be all the time. I don't go confronting them. And I don't see other people doing it either. That's because most people have half a grain of sense. And better things to do. It's law enforcement's job. And they do that by writing parking tickets. 

I got one a couple of years ago. From a meter maid. Cost me a 10 dollar fine. It's not exactly a big time crime. And it's certainly not something a private citizen packing heat should be getting in someone's face about. 

Drejka is not the kind of person I want walking around carrying a gun. As I said before, if I were on the jury I would vote to put him away for 2nd degree murder.


----------



## applecruncher (Dec 20, 2018)

> Drejka is not the kind of person I want walking around carrying a gun.



He's an unemployed ticking time-bomb with no life and a long history of confronting people, spitting ethnic slurs, and brandishing his gun.


----------



## Knight (Dec 20, 2018)

Because this was a hot topic updating the slow legal process & pointing out the defense attorneys intent to use a witness seemed reasonable. But if he is already convicted here then I guess there is no need to point out what the defense attorneys plans to do. 

Why people do what they do is a mystery. Seems pretty obvious Drejka has an agenda about parking illegally in a space set aside for handicapped people.


----------



## Butterfly (Dec 21, 2018)

Trade said:


> I saw the video. The shooting was entirely unnecessary. The victim started to back away as soon as he saw the gun. But Drejka shot him anyway. If I were on the jury I would vote guilty to 2nd degree murder.
> 
> And I'm saying that as a gun owner, a holder of a concealed carry permit, and a firm supporter of the 2nd amendment.



I agree with you.


----------



## Butterfly (Dec 21, 2018)

Trade said:


> Drejka is the one that started the whole mess by by going out looking for trouble while carry a gun. When you go looking for trouble, trouble will find you. That's a universal law of nature.
> 
> What kind of person get's in someone's face over a parking place? I see people parking places they shouldn't be all the time. I don't go confronting them. And I don't see other people doing it either. That's because most people have half a grain of sense. And better things to do. It's law enforcement's job. And they do that by writing parking tickets.
> 
> ...



Precisely.


----------



## Butterfly (Dec 21, 2018)

Knight said:


> Because this was a hot topic updating the slow legal process & pointing out the defense attorneys intent to use a witness seemed reasonable. But if he is already convicted here then I guess there is no need to point out what the defense attorneys plans to do.
> 
> Why people do what they do is a mystery. Seems pretty obvious Drejka has an agenda about parking illegally in a space set aside for handicapped people.



The defense attorney can try to use whatever he wants to use, as they always do.  The rules of evidence will govern what he can and cannot enter into evidence.  He can't enter "everyone knew he was a bully" sort of stuff or other hearsay.  My personal opinion, based on what I've read and seen (and of course I haven't read and seen all that the jury will have available to them), is that the shooter was not justified in his action in shooting the unarmed victim.


----------



## rgp (Dec 21, 2018)

None of us felt what Drejka felt in terms of threat. So what if McGlockton stepped back, Drejka might have felt he going for a gun in the process. Under Florida's SYG law he was right to shoot.


----------



## Olivia (Dec 22, 2018)

rgp said:


> None of us felt what Drejka felt in terms of threat. So what if McGlockton stepped back, Drejka might have felt he going for a gun in the process. Under Florida's SYG law he was right to shoot.



With that kind of logic anyone could shoot anyone else because of what they "might" do.


----------



## rgp (Dec 22, 2018)

Olivia said:


> With that kind of logic anyone could shoot anyone else because of what they "might" do.



 If they felt like there was an honest threat....yes. Otherwise there is no need for the SYG law.

In the heat of the moment it was still his fears that governed his actions.


----------



## Butterfly (Dec 22, 2018)

rgp said:


> None of us felt what Drejka felt in terms of threat. So what if McGlockton stepped back, Drejka might have felt he going for a gun in the process. Under Florida's SYG law he was right to shoot.



Well, I'll await the court's verdict.  I disagree with your assessment of the situation and the law in question.


----------



## applecruncher (Dec 22, 2018)

Pssst Butterfly, Olivia: do you really want to get on that merry go round? :whome:


----------



## Trade (Dec 22, 2018)

Butterfly said:


> Well, I'll await the court's verdict.



That's all we can do. And unfortunately it's still possible to get away with murder in a state like Florida, especially if the victim is black. As we saw with the George Zimmerman case. So I would not be surprised to see Drejka walk.


----------



## Pepper (Dec 22, 2018)

Zimmerman.  Drejka.  Tough bullies with guns, sticking their noses where they shouldn't.  Then crying like babies that they're _*SCARED *_​and must shoot an unarmed black guy.  Maybe not so tough after all.  Maybe just killers.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 24, 2019)

Drejka was found guilty of second degree manslaughter.
Sentencing will be Oct 10.

_LARGO — A jury found Michael Drejka guilty of manslaughter late Friday in the 2018 shooting death of Markeis McGlockton in a convenience store parking lot.

The conviction came after 6½ hours of deliberations by the jury of five men and one woman.

It was read aloud at 10:41 p.m. Drejka stared straight ahead, standing beside his lawyers. He could face up to 30 years in prison._

(more)

https://www.tampabay.com/news/pinel...of-manslaughter-in-markeis-mcglocktons-death/


----------



## StarSong (Aug 24, 2019)

applecruncher said:


> Drejka was found guilty of second degree manslaughter.
> Sentencing will be Oct 10.


Thank you for the update, AC.  I'd say that with this verdict, justice has prevailed.


----------



## DaveA (Aug 24, 2019)

StarSong said:


> Thank you for the update, AC.  I'd say that with this verdict, justice has prevailed.


I hope so but I'll wait 'til we hear the sentence.  Might be 6 months home confinement with an ankle bracelet.  Then with the lax gun laws he can hit one of the gun shows or buy a piece from his cousin (no backround checks) and be back patrolling the parking areas hoping for violaters to challenge.  What a country it's become.


----------



## StarSong (Aug 24, 2019)

DaveA said:


> I hope so but I'll wait 'til we hear the sentence.  Might be 6 months home confinement with an ankle bracelet.  Then with the lax gun laws he can hit one of the gun shows or buy a piece from his cousin (no backround checks) and be back patrolling the parking areas hoping for violaters to challenge.  What a country it's become.


Agreed, but at least the verdict was just.  We'll have to see how it goes from there.


----------



## rgp (Aug 24, 2019)

A sad day in America..........


----------



## win231 (Aug 24, 2019)

I have a prediction.  The thug's family will be very disappointed at Drejka's sentence (assuming the conviction's appeal is not successful).
And, the thug got exactly what he deserved.
Yes, Drejka was stupid for confronting the woman but Mr. Tough Guy had no right to put his hands on him.  I wish people would use their brains before thinking: "I'm twice his size....I'll just kick his ass."


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Aug 24, 2019)

I really can't comment on this. There are so many inflammatory appeals to ones biases, and the over -the- top character assignations, from both sides; that you can't unemotionally come to a conclusion. It's hard to get past the "he eats babies for breakfast" attorney spin to get at the truth.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 24, 2019)

@fuzzybuddy 

In this case the truth is easy - this is the truth and this is what convicted Drejka:


----------



## Trade (Aug 24, 2019)

Good. I'm glad he's off the street.


----------



## AnnieA (Aug 24, 2019)

@fuzzybuddy   Don't have all the links from when I initially read about the murder (Yes, I know it's officially manslaughter, but I don't agree.), but looking at it through the lens of southern culture, Drejka knew what he was doing.  In every culture, in every part of the globe, there are bad habits.  In the South, it's more likely that a black person without a handicapped placard or tag will park in a handicapped spot than other cultural groups.  In the South, it's more likely that a white man will shoot a black person thinking he'll get by with it.  Those two things came together in this case.  IMO, Drejka was targeting a particular cultural behavior looking for a target to shoot.   That's my message board opinion based on what I've read and watched.  Am pretty sure I'd have had the same opinion as a juror.


----------



## rgp (Aug 24, 2019)

applecruncher said:


> @fuzzybuddy
> 
> In this case the truth is easy - this is the truth and this is what convicted Drejka:





 Correct....and the truth is that Drejka had every right to shoot !

 And I for one am glad that the thug is no longer with us, and the one that started it all was the thug's girlfriend, when she chose to park in the handicapped space. Had she not?...we would not be having this debate.


----------



## AnnieA (Aug 24, 2019)

rgp said:


> Correct....and the truth is that Drejka had every right to shoot !
> 
> And I for one am glad that the thug is no longer with us, and the one that started it all was the thug's girlfriend, when she chose to park in the handicapped space. Had she not?...we would not be having this debate.



@rgp  Please read my post.


----------



## rgp (Aug 24, 2019)

I am not interested in culture/ or it's opinions period. We have a system of justice in place, that has in recent years been horribly  compromised . We need to get back to using *our system as established. *As such evidence such as this [the video] should be secured for the *jury's eyes only.* And not be released to the public to become fodder for argument on either side. When this happens, way too much emotion rule ones opinion. And again ,* our opinion* should not matter....only the opinion of the seated jury should.

IMO if we do not return to our system, mob violence & vigilante justice will prevail. And if that becomes the standard ? .... we all loose.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 24, 2019)

DaveA said:


> I hope so but I'll wait 'til we hear the sentence.  Might be 6 months home confinement with an ankle bracelet.  Then with the lax gun laws he can hit one of the gun shows or buy a piece from his cousin (no backround checks) and be back patrolling the parking areas hoping for violaters to challenge.  What a country it's become.



Hmmm..... I think home confinement is out of the question.   6 mos? Nah. My guess would be about 10 yrs in prison.


----------



## AnnieA (Aug 24, 2019)

rgp said:


> .... As such evidence such as this [the video] should be secured for the *jury's eyes only.* And not be released to the public to become fodder for argument on either side. When this happens, way too much emotion rule ones opinion. And again ,* our opinion* should not matter....only the opinion of the seated jury should. ...



I disagree.  I'm not emotionally involved in this at all.  Just seeing it for what it is in the context in which it occurred.

But this excerpt from your post above does connote emotion.




			
				rpg said:
			
		

> And I for one am glad that the thug is no longer with us, and the one that started it all was the thug's girlfriend, when she chose to park in the handicapped space. Had she not?


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 24, 2019)

@rgp 

_"...And again ,* our opinion* should not matter....only the opinion of the seated jury should. "_

Really?  Surely you jest.  I can think of at least one highly publicized case where the opinion of the seated jury infuriated people. _Hint: October 1995_.


----------



## Trade (Aug 24, 2019)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7389663/Michael-Drejka-guilty-manslaughter.html
*



			He faces a minimum of nine-and-a-half-years in jail up to a maximum of 15 years
		
Click to expand...

*


----------



## rgp (Aug 24, 2019)

applecruncher said:


> @rgp
> 
> _"...And again ,* our opinion* should not matter....only the opinion of the seated jury should. "_
> 
> Really?  Surely you jest.  I can think of at least one highly publicized case where the opinion of the seated jury infuriated people. _Hint: October 1995_.



 Only the opinion of the seated jury should matter......That is our system, and i hope & prey that we will return to it. 

   October 1995 ?


----------



## AnnieA (Aug 24, 2019)

Trade said:


> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7389663/Michael-Drejka-guilty-manslaughter.html
> *He faces a minimum of nine-and-a-half-years in jail up to a maximum of 15 years*



Looks like the system worked just fine in this case assuming he does actually serve the entire minimum.


----------



## Trade (Aug 24, 2019)

AnnieA said:


> Looks like the system worked just fine in this case assuming he does actually serve the entire minimum.



I'll be rooting for him to get shanked while he's in there.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 24, 2019)

rgp said:


> Only the opinion of the seated jury should matter......That is our system, and i hope & prey that we will return to it.
> 
> *October 1995 ?*



OJ
Nice that you respected that jury; not everyone did.


----------



## Trade (Aug 24, 2019)

Deleted.


----------



## rgp (Aug 24, 2019)

Trade said:


> I'll be rooting for him to get shanked while he's in there.




 So it's OK....to "shank" him just because? But it was wrong of Drejka to "shoot' due to fear ? 

 That is exactly the kind of vigilante justice i am speaking of, and the exact kind i would hope, as a society we can avoid.


----------



## 911 (Aug 24, 2019)

Well, it saddens me to say that there are no winners here. We have a young man trying to take care of his family now dead and another man going to prison for several years. Two families torn apart that will now probably struggle to put their lives back together, so that they may be able to move on.


----------



## rgp (Aug 24, 2019)

Mob rule, public opinion, vigilante justice ...... is exactly the kind of thing that caused young black guys to hanged during the turn of the last century, and beyond. Some groups [notably the KKK] & others were associated with this, and I'm sure way too many individuals were part of it as well.

Young black guys that were accused of walking on the _wrong_ street ...*opinion*. Black guys that were accused of looking at a white woman the _wrong _way ... *opinion *. Black guys that had the audacity to request a loan, at the _white bank_ ... again* opinion.*

This is just a small example of why  a properly selected and seated jury are the only ones that should sit in judgement of the accused. After a fully disclosed and complete preponderance of evidence presented.

When [what should be secured evidence] is shared with the public ...... individuals & special interest groups start putting pressure on the prosecution arm of our system, and as such the system starts to break down.


----------



## Trade (Aug 24, 2019)

rgp said:


> So it's OK....to "shank" him just because? But it was wrong of Drejka to "shoot' due to fear ?
> 
> That is exactly the kind of vigilante justice i am speaking of, and the exact kind i would hope, as a society we can avoid.



You already lost the "vigilante justice" argument when you endorsed Drejka appointing himself as a vigilante, and an armed one at that, in charge of enforcing parking lot violations. What kind of psycho does something like that?


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 24, 2019)

_"...What kind of psycho does something like that?"_

An unemployed psycho who has no family of his own and has a long history of confrontations, brandishing his gun, and road rage.


----------



## Trade (Aug 24, 2019)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florid...-finds-man-guilty-of-manslaughter-2019-08-23/


> The lengthy statute generally says Drejka could shoot McGlockton if a reasonable person under those circumstances would believe they are in danger of death or great bodily harm. But it also says the shooter could not have instigated the altercation.



This is a no brainer. Number one, Drejka was clearly the instigator by getting in McGlockton's girlfriends face over a parking violation. Number two, the video clearly shows McGlockton taking a step back after Drejka drew his gun.


----------



## rgp (Aug 24, 2019)

Trade said:


> You already lost the "vigilante justice" argument when you endorsed Drejka appointing himself as a vigilante, and an armed one at that, in charge of enforcing parking lot violations. What kind of psycho does something like that?




 There.... you say vigilante I say self protection so............


----------



## rgp (Aug 24, 2019)

Trade said:


> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florid...-finds-man-guilty-of-manslaughter-2019-08-23/
> 
> 
> This is a no brainer. Number one, Drejka was clearly the instigator by getting in McGlockton's girlfriends face over a parking violation. Number two, the video clearly shows McGlockton taking a step back after Drejka drew his gun.



 The _instigator_ was the girlfriend, who parked the car where it did not belong.


----------



## Trade (Aug 24, 2019)

rgp said:


> The _instigator_ was the girlfriend, who parked the car where it did not belong.



As usual you and I disagree. I'm proud of that.


----------



## Knight (Aug 24, 2019)

Suppose we take race out of this.

The video shows a man looking for a handicap plate or placard on the parked vehicle. Seeing none he confronts the driver. The driver doesn't re park in any of several open spaces in front of the establishment.

Next in the video is a man coming out of the store. That man confronts the man that was talking to the driver, shoves the man to the ground. The man that did the shoving turns slightly & appears to be taking a step away. Meanwhile the man on the ground draws a gun points and shoots the man that did the shoving.

Without sound all we have to go on is a driver illegally parked. A citizen confronting that driver. A man exiting a store then confronting and shoving the man confronting the driver to the ground.

The man on the ground shoots and hits & the attacker somewhere in the front ending with the attacker dying. In order for that to happen the attacker had to turn at least a little towards the man on the ground. With what intention?

A jury found the shooter guilty of manslaughter. We'll know when the sentence is handed down if justifiable use of deadly force to defend against a felony committed against a person or property will be discarded or mitigate the decision for long term incarceration.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 24, 2019)

@Knight 

"Man" is a gender.  But, what's your point?
McGlocklen was backing up when Drejka shot him. We don't need audio to see that.
The trial is over; you/we can't take anything out of anything.


----------



## AnnieA (Aug 24, 2019)

Knight said:


> Suppose we take gender & race out of this.
> 
> The video shows a man looking for a handicap plate or placard on the parked vehicle. Seeing none he confronts the driver. The driver doesn't re park in any of several open spaces in front of the establishment.
> 
> ...



Your second sentence is where it all went wrong.  Drejka became a vigilante the moment he confronted the driver.  He was not LEO, did not attempt to contact LEO.   In Florida, parking illegally in a handicapped spot is a misdemeanor, not a felony.  Florida citizens are allowed by law to make a citizen's arrest, but only to detain someone until LEO arrives if they've witnessed the person committing a felony.


----------



## 911 (Aug 24, 2019)

None of what any of you are stating now matters. The case has now been adjudicated, unless o/t on appeal. 

None of you are going to win your argument, but keep on trying as you may. 

No winners here.


----------



## AnnieA (Aug 24, 2019)

Trade said:


> Dayum!
> 
> I'm in agreement with a cop!
> 
> I'll try not to do that too often.



I'm not a cop, lol.  Nor am I even kin to one. My college boyfriend's brother was a criminal justice major who when on to become a highway patrolman.    That's as close a connection I can think of.  But I do appreciate what the good ones do, and I do think the good outweigh the bad.


----------



## rgp (Aug 24, 2019)

Trade said:


> As usual you and I disagree. I'm proud of that.



 As am I..........


----------



## win231 (Aug 24, 2019)

rgp said:


> Correct....and the truth is that Drejka had every right to shoot !
> 
> And I for one am glad that the thug is no longer with us, and the one that started it all was the thug's girlfriend, when she chose to park in the handicapped space. Had she not?...we would not be having this debate.


True, but an intelligent person who wants to "Right a Wrong" calls police instead of confronting someone.  Mr. Thug would not have assaulted a police officer, so no one would have been hurt.


----------



## Knight (Aug 24, 2019)

I edited my post to remove man, to read.  Suppose we take race out of this. as for felony

*Felony assault*, also called *aggravated assault*, is a legal term used to describe a specific type of crime. The *definition* of *assault* varies by state but is typically *defined*as the intentional act of causing another person to fear immediate physical harm.May 6, 2018 

I don't know about what others think but being attacked & pushed to the ground doesn't sound like a friendly gesture. 

Otherwise what part of the events in the video were wrong?


----------



## Butterfly (Aug 24, 2019)

rgp said:


> Mob rule, public opinion, vigilante justice ...... is exactly the kind of thing that caused young black guys to hanged during the turn of the last century, and beyond. Some groups [notably the KKK] & others were associated with this, and I'm sure way too many individuals were part of it as well.
> 
> Young black guys that were accused of walking on the _wrong_ street ...*opinion*. Black guys that were accused of looking at a white woman the _wrong _way ... *opinion *. Black guys that had the audacity to request a loan, at the _white bank_ ... again* opinion.*
> 
> ...



I don't see how public opinion equates to mob rule and vigilante justice.  The constitution guarantees a free press with the right to report on what is happening in the country.

We also have open trials so the public can see the process of justice being carried out in whatever way it is.  A free society doesn't allow secret trials and secret evidence once a matter is on its way to trial.  Secret trials and secret evidence  are the way of totalitarian states.

By the way, the burden of proof in a criminal trial is beyond an reasonable doubt, NOT preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence is the burden in a civil trial.

Finally, the treatment of black people to which you refer is not public opinion, it is flat out racism and white supremacy at its most ugly.


----------



## Butterfly (Aug 24, 2019)

rgp said:


> Correct....and the truth is that Drejka had every right to shoot !
> 
> And I for one am glad that the thug is no longer with us, and the one that started it all was the thug's girlfriend, when she chose to park in the handicapped space. Had she not?...we would not be having this debate.



Upon what do you base your opinion that the deceased was a thug?  That he was black?  That his girlfriend parked illegally?  Lotta thugs out there if illegal parking is thug-defining behavior.   

If Drejka had just minded his own business we wouldn't be having this discussion either.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 24, 2019)

@Butterfly 

Yeah, both rgp and win231 call a black victim a thug - in the convicted killer Michael Drejka case and also the (former) police officer convicted killer Michael Slager.


----------



## win231 (Aug 24, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> Upon what do you base your opinion that the deceased was a thug?  That he was black?  That his girlfriend parked illegally?  Lotta thugs out there if illegal parking is thug-defining behavior.
> 
> If Drejka had just minded his own business we wouldn't be having this discussion either.


Nice try at the race card, but the deceased thug has a long rap sheet - mostly for violent assaults.  Good thing he won't be raising his son.
https://florida.arrests.org/Arrests/Markeis_Mcglockton_2709475/


----------



## win231 (Aug 24, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> Upon what do you base your opinion that the deceased was a thug?  That he was black?  That his girlfriend parked illegally?  Lotta thugs out there if illegal parking is thug-defining behavior.
> 
> If Drejka had just minded his own business we wouldn't be having this discussion either.


You're absolutely correct about Drejka - he should have minded his own business.  So should Zimmerman have minded his own business.
But as soon as you put your hands on someone during a verbal dispute, you are a thug.  And he has a criminal record for assault:
https://florida.arrests.org/Arrests/Markeis_Mcglockton_2709475/


----------



## rgp (Aug 25, 2019)

win231 said:


> True, but an intelligent person who wants to "Right a Wrong" calls police instead of confronting someone.  Mr. Thug would not have assaulted a police officer, so no one would have been hurt.




   I agree ......


----------



## rgp (Aug 25, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> I don't see how public opinion equates to mob rule and vigilante justice.  The constitution guarantees a free press with the right to report on what is happening in the country.
> 
> We also have open trials so the public can see the process of justice being carried out in whatever way it is.  A free society doesn't allow secret trials and secret evidence once a matter is on its way to trial.  Secret trials and secret evidence  are the way of totalitarian states.
> 
> ...




 First, I never mentioned the press.

 Second, I never mentioned [secret] trials , I said evidence should be held secure, to be entered @ trial.

 "By the way, the burden of proof in a criminal trial is beyond an reasonable doubt, NOT preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence is the burden in a civil trial."

 Wrong, reasonable doubt, [guilt/acquittal] is arrived at following the preponderance of evidence.

  "Finally, the treatment of black people to which you refer is not public opinion, it is flat out racism and white supremacy at its most ugly."

 Wrong again, it was the *opinion *of these white supremacist you noted that led to the hangings , etc.


----------



## rgp (Aug 25, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> Upon what do you base your opinion that the deceased was a thug?  That he was black?  That his girlfriend parked illegally?  Lotta thugs out there if illegal parking is thug-defining behavior.
> 
> If Drejka had just minded his own business we wouldn't be having this discussion either.




 No my opinion about him comes from the follow up reports about him, his criminal record . There are thugs of all races ,creeds , colors & religions.

 IMO, yes parking in a handicapped parking spot without need & permit designation, ..... is bordering on thug behavior.

 Granted, perhaps Drejka should have minded his own business , but ! is it not the business of us all to protect & speak out on behalf of those less able?

 And the bottom line still is, had the girlfriend *not *parked there , we would for sure, .... not be having this debate.


----------



## Camper6 (Aug 25, 2019)

Knight said:


> I edited my post to remove man, to read.  Suppose we take race out of this. as for felony
> 
> *Felony assault*, also called *aggravated assault*, is a legal term used to describe a specific type of crime. The *definition* of *assault* varies by state but is typically *defined*as the intentional act of causing another person to fear immediate physical harm.May 6, 2018
> 
> ...


No it's not a friendly gesture but does it merit losing your life? That's what it's all about in law.


----------



## rgp (Aug 25, 2019)

applecruncher said:


> @Butterfly
> 
> Yeah, both rgp and win231 call a black victim a thug - in the convicted killer Michael Drejka case and also the (former) police officer convicted killer Michael Slager.




   McGlockton was not the victim, he was the first physical aggressor in the incident.

   As for officer Slager , his job was to stop fleeing suspects , that is what he did. 

  That suspect, any suspect that succeeds in eluding the police can go on to commit any number of crimes, perhaps heinous in nature. There is no way of knowing what the suspect has done, or is capable of doing.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 25, 2019)

Drejka was first to confront (instead of calling the police).
Or, he could have just snapped a picture of the vehicle and license plate and filed a police report.


----------



## Trade (Aug 25, 2019)

AnnieA said:


> I'm not a cop, lol.  Nor am I even kin to one. My college boyfriend's brother was a criminal justice major who when on to become a highway patrolman.    That's as close a connection I can think of.  But I do appreciate what the good ones do, and I do think the good outweigh the bad.



Yeah, I screwed up there. I thought that was 911's post. My bad. As for cops, I have met a few good ones. It's just that 98% of them make the other 2% look bad.


----------



## rgp (Aug 25, 2019)

applecruncher said:


> Drejka was first to confront (instead of calling the police).
> Or, he could have just snapped a picture of the vehicle and license plate and filed a police report.



 True.... he confronted verbally . The first physical confrontation / attack was made by McGlockton .


----------



## Trade (Aug 25, 2019)

It appears that Drejka has a number of supporters. 

Such people are in my opinion extremely dangerous and bear considerable watching. And their existance, while grotesque and incomprehensible to me, is one of the main reasons why I will never give up my guns.


----------



## Trade (Aug 25, 2019)

applecruncher said:


> Drejka was first to confront (instead of calling the police).
> Or, he could have just snapped a picture of the vehicle and license plate and filed a police report.



Or you could do what most reasonable people including myself do. 

Ignore it.


----------



## Knight (Aug 25, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> No it's not a friendly gesture but does it merit losing your life? That's what it's all about in law.


No one merits loss of life. due to the wrongful action by another. Looking at the video at no time did Drejka use anything but words to address the situation of a person parking illegally. Like him or not he did have the right to address what he saw as a violation of what society deems necessary to help those less fortunate. After being attacked I can understand why Drejka would feel  fear of continued immediate physical harm.

I don't know how anyone can know that the attacker would not continued.  Certainly not Drejka.

Sadly it's come down to excusing or ignoring the needs of others less fortunate.


----------



## win231 (Aug 25, 2019)

applecruncher said:


> Drejka was first to confront (instead of calling the police).
> Or, he could have just snapped a picture of the vehicle and license plate and filed a police report.


One important detail.  Drejka was first to confront - VERBALLY.  Mr. Thug was first to confront - PHYSICALLY.  That's what makes him a thug.
Yes, an intelligent person doesn't confront anyone period.  Not worth the possibility of tragedy.


----------



## Knight (Aug 25, 2019)

Snapping a picture assumes he has some way to do that. Another assumption is the police would have responded in time to write out a ticket.

I guess I'm of the opinion decent people would NOT PARK in a handicap parking space, but if confronted would express their regret & immediately re park.


----------



## Camper6 (Aug 25, 2019)

Knight said:


> Snapping a picture assumes he has some way to do that. Another assumption is the police would have responded in time to write out a ticket.
> 
> I guess I'm of the opinion decent people would NOT PARK in a handicap parking space, but if confronted would express their regret & immediately re park.


What world do you live in?

What if all the handicap spots are taken?  Do I have a conniption fit if a handicap parks in the regular spots reserved for us mere mortals?

Usually anyone parking in a handicapped spot is a quick run in and out.

I would just ignore it. It happens all the time here and there are lots of cars with stickers but the driver is not handicapped.


----------



## Trade (Aug 25, 2019)

Knight said:


> Snapping a picture assumes he has some way to do that. Another assumption is the police would have responded in time to write out a ticket.
> 
> I guess I'm of the opinion decent people would NOT PARK in a handicap parking space, but if confronted would express their regret & immediately re park.



I'm of the opinion that decent people wouldn't be trying to rationalize what Drejka did.


----------



## AnnieA (Aug 25, 2019)

This "thug" thing is just arguing for the sake of arguing in this case since the meaning of the word is "a violent person, especially a criminal."  McGlockton  and Drejka both fit the definition based on prior behavior.  

https://www.tampabay.com/news/publi...in-stand-your-ground-shooter-s-past_170719109


----------



## Trade (Aug 25, 2019)

AnnieA said:


> This "thug" thing is just arguing for the sake of arguing in this case since the meaning of the word is "a violent person, especially a criminal."  McGlockton  and Drejka both fit the definition based on prior behavior.
> 
> https://www.tampabay.com/news/publi...in-stand-your-ground-shooter-s-past_170719109





> The Clearwater man who shot and killed a father of three outside a convenience store in a parking dispute last month — setting off a stand your ground debate that has swept Florida and the nation — has a history of road rage.
> 
> Since 2012, according to records and interviews, 47-year-old Michael Drejka has been the accused aggressor in four incidents. Investigators documented three cases in police reports.
> 
> ...



That's interesting. I wonder if the Drejka apologists will have anything to say about this? 

Howabout it rpg, Knight, Win231? What do you have to say about your boy Drejka now?


----------



## Buckeye (Aug 25, 2019)

As an aside, I wonder if the posts that support Drejka could be used as a basis for a "red flag" action to take away any guns owned by those posters?  And why did Drejka still have a gun?  He would be the poster boy for red flags.


----------



## AnnieA (Aug 25, 2019)

Buckeye said:


> .....And why did Drejka still have a gun?  He would be the poster boy for red flags.



He shouldn't have imo.   If someone brandishes a gun in a road rage incident, that should be the end of gun ownership for that person.   Counting myself.   I carry, but should lose the right to own guns if I pull my gun in anger to intimidate.


----------



## Knight (Aug 25, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> What world do you live in?
> 
> What if all the handicap spots are taken?  Do I have a conniption fit if a handicap parks in the regular spots reserved for us mere mortals?
> 
> ...


----------



## rgp (Aug 25, 2019)

Trade said:


> That's interesting. I wonder if the Drejka apologists will have anything to say about this?
> 
> Howabout it rpg, Knight, Win231? What do you have to say about your boy Drejka now?




 Sure, I'll turn on him, just as soon as you turn on McGlockton  .

   My argument really has not been to defend one man in one incident , as much as to argue in favor of & defend the stand your ground law. Which this is going to shred. [SYG] is something *any of us *might need *at any time. *To defend ourselves, & or our loved ones.

 And once again, we need to take "public" "nit-picking" concerning evidence _out _of the equation. Let the system we have in place do it's job. If we feel it falls short ? Enact legislation to change the system.


----------



## Knight (Aug 25, 2019)

Trade said:


> I'm of the opinion that decent people wouldn't be trying to rationalize what Drejka did.



 In the video I saw a citizen verbally confront a person parked in a handicap parking space. I saw a man exit the store and attack him. If by pointing out that McGloughlin shoved Dreika to the ground and Drejka could not know what more McGloughlin might do to him is rationalizing then yes I'm rationalizing. 

What I would do or anyone else might do is irrelevant. What both men did in  their past I did not know, and matters not to me. I base my posts on what I saw. I've read the various posts dredging up their pasts, mentioning race. Most disgusting to me is excusing the ignorance of the driver. How long to run in and grab what ever as an excuse to park illegally is lame at best. I suggest looking at the open parking directly in front of the store. 

Being handicapped I've confronted people a few times that didn't have a license plate or placard & they apologized and moved their car. So yes I have a comparison between people ignorant enough to park illegally but decent enough to move. The video clearly shows the driver was ignorant and didn't move.

Condoning & or excusing the physical attack by so many posting here amazes me. Wanting to deny Drejka's right to confront the driver illegally parked amazes me.

Simple fact if the driver had parked legally this would never have turned into what it has.


----------



## Olivia (Aug 25, 2019)

Deleted


----------



## rgp (Aug 25, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> What world do you live in?
> 
> What if all the handicap spots are taken?  Do I have a conniption fit if a handicap parks in the regular spots reserved for us mere mortals?
> 
> ...





"Usually anyone parking in a handicapped spot is a quick run in and out."

 So it's OK to break the law "a little bit" ?


  You ask ..."Do I have a conniption fit if a handicap parks in the regular spots reserved for us mere mortals?"

 Yes I have a fit .... at the _mere mortals_ that filled all the handicapped spots!

  "I would just ignore it. It happens all the time here and there are lots of cars with stickers but the driver is not handicapped."

 I have seen that as well .........and it irk's me just as much.


----------



## Butterfly (Aug 25, 2019)

rgp said:


> First, I never mentioned the press.
> 
> Second, I never mentioned [secret] trials , I said evidence should be held secure, to be entered @ trial.
> 
> ...





Having worked a lifetime in law, I can assure you that preponderance of the evidence is NOT the burden in a criminal trial.  Preponderance of the evidence is "more likely than not."  Beyond a reasonable doubt is exactly what it says it is.  The terms are defined in law, and the burdens are imposed by the law.  The two are very unlike. 

Here's a little primer on standards of proof from _Justia_:

*    Evidentiary Standards in Civil Cases *

*Preponderance of the Evidence *

    The plaintiff must satisfy the burden of persuasion. This burden determines which standard of proof the plaintiff must follow in presenting evidence to the judge or jury. A standard of proof determines the amount of evidence the plaintiff or defendant needs to provide in order for the jury to reach a particular determination. In most civil cases, the burden of persuasion that applies is called “a preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires the jury to return a judgment in favor of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is able to show that a particular fact or event was more likely than not to have occurred. Some scholars define the preponderance of the evidence standard as requiring a finding that at least 51 percent of the evidence favors the plaintiff’s outcome.
* 
Clear and Convincing Evidence *

    In some civil cases, the burden of proof is elevated to a higher standard called “clear and convincing evidence.” This burden of proof requires the plaintiff to prove that a particular fact is substantially more likely than not to be true. Some courts have described this standard as requiring the plaintiff to prove that there is a high probability that a particular fact is true. This standard sets a higher threshold than the preponderance of the evidence standard, but it does not quite rise to the widely recognized standard used in criminal cases, known as “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

* Substantial Evidence *

    In administrative law proceedings, the standard of proof that most commonly applies is the substantial evidence standard. This standard requires the plaintiff or moving party to provide enough evidence that a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to support a particular conclusion.

*    Evidentiary Standards in Criminal Cases *

*    Beyond a Reasonable Doubt *

    The “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is the highest standard of proof that may be imposed upon a party at trial, and it is usually the standard used in criminal cases. This standard requires the prosecution to show that the only logical explanation that can be derived from the facts is that the defendant committed the alleged crime, and that no other logical explanation can be inferred or deduced from the evidence. The United States Supreme Court in _Victor v. Nebraska_, 511 U.S. 1 (1994), described this standard as “such doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty, raised in your mind by reasons of the unsatisfactory character of the evidence or lack thereof . . . . What is required is not an absolute or mathematical certainty, but a moral certainty.”


As someone on the news always says, "you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."


----------



## rgp (Aug 25, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> Having worked a lifetime in law, I can assure you that preponderance of the evidence is NOT the burden in a criminal trial.  Preponderance of the evidence is "more likely than not."  Beyond a reasonable doubt is exactly what it says it is.  The terms are defined in law, and the burdens are imposed by the law.  The two are very unlike.
> 
> Here's a little primer on standards of proof from _Justia_:
> 
> ...





And you do not see that as a preponderance of evidence ? A consideration of the evidence entered ? Then why is it even offered into evidence ? This is the gun/knife, whatever , that killed the victim, etc. All of this is the_ preponderance_ of evidence.



"As someone on the news always says, "you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."

   Back at'cha


----------



## Trade (Aug 25, 2019)

Knight said:


> In the video I saw a citizen verbally confront a person parked in a handicap parking space. I saw a man exit the store and attack him. If by pointing out that McGloughlin shoved Dreika to the ground and Drejka could not know what more McGloughlin might do to him is rationalizing then yes I'm rationalizing.
> 
> What I would do or anyone else might do is irrelevant. What both men did in  their past I did not know, and matters not to me. I base my posts on what I saw. I've read the various posts dredging up their pasts, mentioning race. Most disgusting to me is excusing the ignorance of the driver. How long to run in and grab what ever as an excuse to park illegally is lame at best. I suggest looking at the open parking directly in front of the store.
> 
> ...



Well Knight, Clearwater Florida is my home town. I was born and raised there. And I am happy as a pig in slop that Drejka is no longer free to roam the streets of my home town packing heat and looking for trouble.
Kudos to the jury for finding him guilty.


----------



## Trade (Aug 25, 2019)

rgp said:


> Sure, I'll turn on him, just as soon as you turn on McGlockton.



I've never even suggested that I condoned what McGlocklin did. 

You on the other hand have been an ardent defender of Drejka thoughout this thread.


----------



## rgp (Aug 25, 2019)

Trade said:


> I've never even suggested that I condoned what McGlocklin did.
> 
> You on the other hand have been an ardent defender of Drejka thoughout this thread.




Wrong .... i have been an ardent defender of a man protecting himself.

  As for those involved in general ......... I want nothing to do with any of them.


----------



## Trade (Aug 25, 2019)

rgp said:


> Wrong .... i have been an ardent defender of a man protecting himself.
> 
> As for those involved in general ......... I want nothing to do with any of them.


----------



## win231 (Aug 25, 2019)

Trade said:


> That's interesting. I wonder if the Drejka apologists will have anything to say about this?
> 
> Howabout it rpg, Knight, Win231? What do you have to say about your boy Drejka now?


Hi, again.  I already said Drejka was STUPID.  Anyone who confronts anyone about anything that's not a life/death matter is stupid.  But Mr. Stupid Drejka did not put his hands on anyone.  Mr. Stupid Thug McGlockton did.  That's why he is where he is.


----------



## win231 (Aug 25, 2019)

Knight said:


> Snapping a picture assumes he has some way to do that. Another assumption is the police would have responded in time to write out a ticket.
> 
> I guess I'm of the opinion decent people would NOT PARK in a handicap parking space, but if confronted would express their regret & immediately re park.


A decent person would never need to express regret or re-park because a decent person would never park in a handicap space to begin with.


----------



## terry123 (Aug 25, 2019)

I am so thankful that my brother was able to retire last year in Miami alive and well.  He had his share of arresting thugs and having them back on the street in a few weeks to deal with again.  
I have handicapped license plates and have a problem with folks parking in handicapped spots running in stores with 2 good legs and not thinking twice about it. Before my stroke I would never consider parking in those places. Now I thank God when I can get one at Krogers and do my shopping by myself.


----------



## Butterfly (Aug 26, 2019)

rgp said:


> And you do not see that as a preponderance of evidence ? A consideration of the evidence entered ? Then why is it even offered into evidence ? *This is the gun/knife, whatever , that killed the victim, etc. All of this is the preponderance of evidence.
> 
> *
> "As someone on the news always says, "you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."
> ...



Nope, that's the weight of the evidence.

You cannot change the legal definition of legal terms at will.  You can call it whatever you want to -- but the law defines what the term means in a trial court, and that's all that matters in a court of law.   A criminal trial verdict must be reached to a reasonable doubt, by law -- that's the legal standard, like it or not.  


*
*


----------



## jerry old (Aug 26, 2019)

EVIL
Richard Speck (Chicago), remember he was not arrested for a few days-How, Why...
The Texas Tower (Austin), Nah, impossible,   not in Tx.
These two incidents are bookmarks of when the world went to hell.  
Then Mason, Jonestown 
Serial Killers-   Nah, couldn't be

The killing of children in schools
Not my world, if not my world-then whose?
There are several threads on this site that mention, discuss evil (The state trooper discussing the Amish killings is particular chilling)               Evil,is there any doubt something is wrong, wrong, wrong!
If these events are beyond comprehension,  what then?
Each person has an explanation...Terminating this post, the topic is overwhelming


----------



## Pepper (Aug 26, 2019)

"Evil", Jerry, is hardly a new invention of modern times.


----------



## Knight (Aug 26, 2019)

jerry r. garner said:


> EVIL
> Richard Speck (Chicago), remember he was not arrested for a few days-How, Why...
> The Texas Tower (Austin), Nah, impossible,   not in Tx.
> These two incidents are bookmarks of when the world went to hell.
> ...


If you want to know or read about evil read the bible. Kids, various people, a son & supposedly the entire human population except for Noah were wiped out by a loving, caring supernatural being. Good read about  those mysterious ways.


----------



## jerry old (Aug 26, 2019)

Pepper said:


> "Evil", Jerry, is hardly a new invention of modern times.



 I think what I was attempting to say was evil is proportional to one's personal safety.

Random violence in our times is personal and terrifying:

The mind searches for a reason: if a person can slaughter school children, then how safe am I when I go to Walmarts? Thus, fear has been induced into the general population. We are vulnerable:

I could be kilt and that is terrifying, it’s plumb evil.


----------



## jerry old (Aug 26, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> What world do you live in?
> 
> What if all the handicap spots are taken?  Do I have a conniption fit if a handicap parks in the regular spots reserved for us mere mortals?
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, both of you are correct.  As a gimp I can use a shopping cart as a walker, burns my hinny .

The hawks arecircling


----------



## rgp (Aug 26, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> Nope, that's the weight of the evidence.
> 
> You cannot change the legal definition of legal terms at will.  You can call it whatever you want to -- but the law defines what the term means in a trial court, and that's all that matters in a court of law.   A criminal trial verdict must be reached to a reasonable doubt, by law -- that's the legal standard, like it or not.




  Once again, a consideration/preponderance of evidence, is what takes the jury to "reasonable doubt" . Without evidence, there is nothing for the jury to consider/ponder. As such, reasonable doubt would never be reached . When they do they announce their verdict.


----------



## rgp (Aug 26, 2019)

Knight said:


> If you want to know or read about evil read the bible. Kids, various people, a son & supposedly the entire human population except for Noah were wiped out by a loving, caring supernatural being. Good read about  those mysterious ways.




 Ain't that the truth !!


----------



## win231 (Aug 26, 2019)

AnnieA said:


> This "thug" thing is just arguing for the sake of arguing in this case since the meaning of the word is "a violent person, especially a criminal."  McGlockton  and Drejka both fit the definition based on prior behavior.
> 
> https://www.tampabay.com/news/publi...in-stand-your-ground-shooter-s-past_170719109


The difference between the two is pretty simple.  Being an idiot  (Drejka) is not a violent crime.  Assaulting someone - other than a self defense situation-- is a violent crime.


----------



## Camper6 (Aug 26, 2019)

win231 said:


> The difference between the two is pretty simple.  Being an idiot  (Drejka) is not a violent crime.  Assaulting someone - other than a self defense situation-- is a violent crime.



An idiot with a gun is a crime just waiting to happen. Death is so, so, final.


----------



## win231 (Aug 26, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> An idiot with a gun is a crime just waiting to happen. Death is so, so, final.


Exactly why it is stupid to act like a tough guy & assault someone.  Perhaps Mr. McGlockton's 5 year old son will learn that if he grows up into a different man than his father was.


----------



## Camper6 (Aug 27, 2019)

Parking illegally or being shoved by someone unarmed is not something to lose your life over by a self styled vigilante.The jury doesn't agree with you. 

If you are looking for trouble you came to the wrong place.


----------



## Butterfly (Aug 27, 2019)

rgp said:


> Once again, a consideration/preponderance of evidence, is what takes the jury to "reasonable doubt" . Without evidence, there is nothing for the jury to consider/ponder. As such, reasonable doubt would never be reached . When they do they announce their verdict.



It is clear that you do not understand the legal concepts at work.  Think what you like.


----------



## rgp (Aug 27, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> It is clear that you do not understand the legal concepts at work.  Think what you like.





 It's clear that you do not understand the chain of evidence .  Believe what you will.


----------



## 911 (Aug 27, 2019)

(I’m probably going to hate myself for getting involved, but maybe I can clear up a misunderstanding.) 

rgp———-I think you are misunderstanding Butterfly’s replies. When she speaks about “preponderance of the evidence” she is speaking about when and where it is used in its’ “legal” capacity. 

The term, “preponderance of the evidence” is used during civil trials or generally, when one party is suing another party. 

The term, “beyond a reasonable doubt” in its’ legal form is used during criminal trials.

I think what you are suggesting is that to reach “beyond a reasonable doubt” the jury must hear a “preponderance of the evidence.” 

However, you or anyone else would probably never hear those words (preponderance of the evidence) during a criminal trial. 

Semantics, it will drive a person crazy. 

I’m done here.


----------



## rgp (Aug 27, 2019)

911 said:


> (I’m probably going to hate myself for getting involved, but maybe I can clear up a misunderstanding.)
> 
> rgp———-I think you are misunderstanding Butterfly’s replies. When she speaks about “preponderance of the evidence” she is speaking about when and where it is used in its’ “legal” capacity.
> 
> ...





_verb_
past tense: *pondered*; past participle: *pondered*

think about (something) carefully, especially before making a decision or reaching a conclusion.


Evidence must be pondered/considered before any decision/judgement can be reached in _any_ trial.

 And my point all along has been that evidence should be protected period. IMO viewed by / made available to only the prosecution & defense attorneys , then entered  into evidence at trial before the sworn jury.

In this case the video of the parking lot went viral.....and the judgement was made by the public [immediately] . This put undue pressure on the prosecutor & IMO he felt the need to bring charges against Drejaka . If the tape would have been held in security & not released to the public I believe the charges would have never been brought.

As I have said, we have a system [our legal system] in place. Let's get back to using it , & following it.


----------



## Buckeye (Aug 27, 2019)

AFAIK there has never been a time in our history when all evidence was hidden from the public.  Some evidence is, by its very nature, public.  Contrary to what some may think, prosecutors only bring to trial the cases they believe they can win.  In this case, the police and prosecuting attorney viewed all the evidence and felt they could win the case, then presented said case to a properly impaneled jury, and the jury returned a verdict based on the evidence presented to them.  This is how our system works.  We are free to disagree with the verdict (I personally think OJ was guilty as sin), but in this case, like most folks, I believe the jury got it right.   

Can we just close this thread?  Its over.


----------



## Gary O' (Aug 27, 2019)

rgp said:


> the judgement was made by the public


Too funny
Bet it took a awhile to swear them all in


----------



## rgp (Aug 27, 2019)

Buckeye said:


> AFAIK there has never been a time in our history when all evidence was hidden from the public.  Some evidence is, by its very nature, public.  Contrary to what some may think, prosecutors only bring to trial the cases they believe they can win.  In this case, the police and prosecuting attorney viewed all the evidence and felt they could win the case, then presented said case to a properly impaneled jury, and the jury returned a verdict based on the evidence presented to them.  This is how our system works.  We are free to disagree with the verdict (I personally think OJ was guilty as sin), but in this case, like most folks, I believe the jury got it right.
> 
> Can we just close this thread?  Its over.




 I agree, not all evidence is/can be held secure. But in this case I believe the video surely could have/should have been .

 I also agree, it's over, and rehashing changes nothing ...but. Nothing wrong with a discussion about peoples feelings / opinions about a subject.


----------



## rgp (Aug 27, 2019)

Gary O' said:


> Too funny
> Bet it took a awhile to swear them all in




  LOL...about one weekend.........


----------



## Gary O' (Aug 27, 2019)

Buckeye said:


> Can we just close this thread? Its over.


Yeah, well, the jury is out on that


----------



## rgp (Aug 27, 2019)

Gary O' said:


> Yeah, well, the jury is out on that
> 
> View attachment 75317




Again, LOL!!

A friend that was on a jury [murder trial] said two of their fellow jurors did actually "dose-off" during trial.

I suppose that when it gets to the lengthy "legalize" it [dosing-off] could happen.


----------



## Gary O' (Aug 27, 2019)

rgp said:


> A friend that was on a jury [murder trial] said two of their fellow jurors did actually "dose-off" during trial.


I know I wouldn't make it


----------



## Knight (Aug 27, 2019)

jerry r. garner said:


> I think what I was attempting to say was evil is proportional to one's personal safety.
> 
> Random violence in our times is personal and terrifying:
> 
> ...


You have probably read thru the posts in this thread, your concern is valid because violence is real. The video with no voice shows a story of a reaction to being assaulted.  Many posts amounted to excusing the person committing an assault.   I think what I objected to were the comments about how the shooter would not be charged now with a crime if he minded his own business.  With that kind of logic how will we as citizens ever overcome the senseless deaths that occur. We see it everyday in the kind of murders you posted about. People knew or were concerned about a particular individual but didn't say or do anything.
 Granted Drejka probably had a personal reason for approaching and confronting the driver, but he had the right to do that.  He spoke up about what he knew was wrong & the end result was a death.


----------



## win231 (Aug 27, 2019)

When TWO people do something stupid (like in this incident), the door is open to tragedy.  I wish men would think about this before they play "Tough Guy" & put their hands on someone.  Size, strength & age mean nothing when a gun is involved.


----------



## Trade (Aug 27, 2019)

Knight said:


> Granted Drejka probably had a personal reason for approaching and confronting the driver, but he had the right to do that.  He spoke up about what he knew was wrong & the end result was a death.



Since you seem to see Drejka as some kind of champion for the rights of the handicap perhaps you should send him a nice big donation to help with his legal expenses. Give till it hurts.


----------



## rgp (Aug 27, 2019)

Trade said:


> Since you seem to see Drejka as some kind of champion for the rights of the handicap perhaps you should send him a nice big donation to help with his legal expenses. Give till it hurts.




 OK, so you disagree , got it....But why the nasty remark ? Talk about something that will never help , clarify , or solve.


----------



## Trade (Aug 27, 2019)

rgp said:


> OK, so you disagree , got it....But why the nasty remark ? Talk about something that will never help , clarify , or solve.



I apologize. Like you I am unhappy with the outcome. I would have liked to have seen Drejka be convicted of murder and given the daeth penalty.


----------



## win231 (Aug 27, 2019)

Trade said:


> I apologize. Like you I am unhappy with the outcome. I would have liked to have seen Drejka be convicted of murder and given the daeth penalty.


Well, ya know the possibility of the death penalty would have to mean a 1st degree murder conviction & that usually means proving certain things like premeditation, planning, intent.  
If the manslaughter conviction still stands after the appeal, I don't think you'll be happy with Drejka,s sentence.


----------



## Camper6 (Aug 27, 2019)

Knight said:


> You have probably read thru the posts in this thread, your concern is valid because violence is real. The video with no voice shows a story of a reaction to being assaulted.  Many posts amounted to excusing the person committing an assault.   I think what I objected to were the comments about how the shooter would not be charged now with a crime if he minded his own business.  With that kind of logic how will we as citizens ever overcome the senseless deaths that occur. We see it everyday in the kind of murders you posted about. People knew or were concerned about a particular individual but didn't say or do anything.
> Granted Drejka probably had a personal reason for approaching and confronting the driver, but he had the right to do that.  He spoke up about what he knew was wrong & the end result was a death.


If someone took his spot he had a right. No harm was done to Dreika by the driver. The end result was death but not to him.
His personal annoyance does not justify the results.


----------



## Knight (Aug 28, 2019)

Trade said:


> Since you seem to see Drejka as some kind of champion for the rights of the handicap perhaps you should send him a nice big donation to help with his legal expenses. Give till it hurts.


You seem to be the champion of ignorant, uncaring  people.  And people wonder why there is so much violence in America


----------



## Knight (Aug 28, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> If someone took his spot he had a right. No harm was done to Dreika by the driver. The end result was death but not to him.
> His personal annoyance does not justify the results.


Are you serious? Condoning illegal action by parking & then being attacked is OK with you?  If that driver had parked legally there would be no death.


----------



## Sunny (Aug 28, 2019)

> If that driver had parked legally there would be no death.



Interesting logic there, Knight. So if some paranoid with an itchy trigger finger decides that someone passing him on the street gave him the evil eye, and shoots him dead, it's basically the fault of the guy who was shot?  If he hadn't looked at him, there would be no death.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Aug 28, 2019)

Knight said:


> Are you serious? Condoning illegal action by parking & then being attacked is OK with you?  *If that driver had parked legally there would be no death.*



Right or wrong it did set off a very tragic chain of events.


----------



## Knight (Aug 28, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Interesting logic there, Knight. So if some paranoid with an itchy trigger finger decides that someone passing him on the street gave him the evil eye, and shoots him dead, it's basically the fault of the guy who was shot?  If he hadn't looked at him, there would be no death.


Did you watch the video? Big difference between evil eye & being assaulted. I am not omnipotent I don't now what either man was thinking or was said in the few seconds between being assaulted & the fatal shot being fired. 

Since you posed a hypothetical how about this.

What if the man that was shot approached Drejka & apologized for parking illegally. Then instead of assaulting him turned to his girlfriend and said this man is right, go park in one of those open non handicap spaces.


----------



## Knight (Aug 28, 2019)

Trade said:


> I'll be rooting for him to get shanked while he's in there.



I had to think about that post for awhile.  How are you any better than Drejka?  Drejka hasn't physically assaulted you, hasn't verbally irritated you, hasn't done anything to you except be in a video. Yet you want to see him harmed possibly die from being shanked.  That degree of hatred you have for another human being you don't know personally is IMO far worse than what took place in that parking lot.


----------



## Trade (Aug 28, 2019)

Knight said:


> I had to think about that post for awhile.  How are you any better than Drejka?  Drejka hasn't physically assaulted you, hasn't verbally irritated you, hasn't done anything to you except be in a video. Yet you want to see him harmed possibly die from being shanked.  That degree of hatred you have for another human being you don't know personally is IMO far worse than what took place in that parking lot.


----------



## Butterfly (Aug 29, 2019)

911 said:


> (I’m probably going to hate myself for getting involved, but maybe I can clear up a misunderstanding.)
> 
> rgp———-I think you are misunderstanding Butterfly’s replies. When she speaks about “preponderance of the evidence” she is speaking about when and where it is used in its’ “legal” capacity.
> 
> ...



Thank you, 911.  That is precisely the point.  A jury verdict in a criminal trial reached by a preponderance of the evidence would be thrown out so fast it would make your head swim.


----------



## Butterfly (Aug 29, 2019)

rgp said:


> _verb_
> past tense: *pondered*; past participle: *pondered*
> 
> think about (something) carefully, especially before making a decision or reaching a conclusion.
> ...




"thinking about" doesn't have anything to do with the use of preponderance of the evidence as a legal term.


----------



## rgp (Aug 29, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> "thinking about" doesn't have anything to do with the use of preponderance of the evidence as a legal term.




 I never used it as a legal term, I used it as a conversation term. 

 Are you going to try & tell me /us that a jury does not consider evidence before reaching / coming to a decision/verdict in a criminal trial ??

 I sure as hell wouldn't want you on a jury where my future was dependent on your decision.


----------



## 911 (Aug 29, 2019)

rgp said:


> I never used it as a legal term, I used it as a conversation term.
> 
> Are you going to try & tell me /us that a jury does not consider evidence before reaching / coming to a decision/verdict in a criminal trial ??
> 
> I sure as hell wouldn't want you on a jury where my future was dependent on your decision.



*You are changing your story. *All along, you have been discussing the trial by using the phrase “preponderance of the evidence.” Now, you have dropped the word “preponderance.” It’s facetious to think that people wouldn’t consider the evidence in any trial. You are taking this from a discussion to an argument and to even some degree are making it personal. 

BTW, ponder and preponderance have 2 different meanings. 

I don’t like it much when I find myself contradicting people, so I’m bowing out of this conversation.


----------



## rgp (Aug 29, 2019)

911 said:


> *You are changing your story. *All along, you have been discussing the trial by using the phrase “preponderance of the evidence.” Now, you have dropped the word “preponderance.” It’s facetious to think that people wouldn’t consider the evidence in any trial. You are taking this from a discussion to an argument and to even some degree are making it personal.
> 
> BTW, ponder and preponderance have 2 different meanings.
> 
> I don’t like it much when I find myself contradicting people, so I’m bowing out of this conversation.




* I am not changing anything.......*My position all along has been that the video was evidence, and should not have been made public. *Period

*My other position has been that had the video not been made public ,  the prosecutions decision to charge/not charge, might have been different.

 OK, perhaps i used the incorrect term ? Should have used ponder/consideration of evidence ..........

 From Goggle

 This *preponderance* is based on the more convincing *evidence* and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of *evidence*.

 This is the manner of consideration of the evidence I was noting......the most [convincing] evidence not being held secure, when it should have been.........Perhaps you misunderstood. 

 I'm still discussing , you ? How have I made it personal ?


----------

