Sorry to say, @JHS, practically all of those allegations will be inadmissible as improper character evidence or “prior bad acts” evidence.
This is as it should be. No doubt there is all sorts of prior evidence attesting to the bad character of McGlockton and of his girlfriend - I mean, as just one example, leaving your 5 year old kid in a store to go beat up someone in front of your 4 year old and infant is not too cool… The legal system affords many protections to all parties.
Even if some of it were to be deemed admissible, I’m not sure it helps the prosecution’s case. He didn’t waive any gun here at the girlfriend, or at McGlockton. And in all those other prior instances in which he allegedly showed a gun or threatened to “blow someone’s head off,” he didn’t. That can be construed as evidence that in fact he had control over his actions, only discharging his weapon when he feared for his life and limb.
Basically, people want to convict him because he seems to be a hothead. But remember who initiated the violence in this incident, and who in the past has actually been arrested for violence and apparently served time in jail (and that’s not the defendant). Would you be ok with introducing all sorts of evidence about what a thug McGlockton has been in the past? (Not saying the evidence exists, of course, but only assuming it does.)
The evidentiary rules are there for a reason. No doubt McGlockton used them in the past in connection with his multiple arrests. I can’t find any arrest record for Drejka prior to this incident, at least in Pinellas and surrounding counties, and even if it existed it probably could not be introduced.
He was looking for an opportunity to shoot someone, and he found it. He may get off, for all the reasons you say, but that doesn’t make him any less abhorrent a human being.
I agree that the prior conduct is not likely to be admissible unless he testifies in his own defense. If he testifies, it’s probably admissible in part because it’s a record of his lying to police.
This is incredibly ironic. There is a gun store literally right across the street from the Circle A parking lot where the shooting took place. I can’t embed the link, so google map “1201 Co Rd 576, Clearwater, Florida.”
Look at the Circle A, note the size of the parking lot. You could probably put more than a few box trucks in there.
Take a look at the overhead shot. Google measurement tools suggest at least 70 feet of asphalt between the store curb and sidewalk. You could park 3 maybe 4 cars end to end if you had to.
The girlfriend was in the driver’s seat the whole time and could have moved the car at any time (there were plenty of open non-handicapped spots, as shown on the video). There is literally parking all over the place.
Google around through street view. This is not the kind of neighborhood most cc posters live in I bet!
I saw the video clip, and I understand the fellow knocked down would have no absolute knowledge of what might happen next. Similarly, we hear of cases of a burglar getting shot in a home. “He only wanted to steal property” they sometimes say. But how would a homeowner know that?
What other info does JHS have beyond the clip, to document that the shooter was "looking for an opportunity to shoot someone? Was there something that happened before the clip I saw?
I have suggester in this thread, twice, that maybe additional, stricter laws on parking control and on physical assault control might have prevented this. I find it intriguing that a whole bunch of posters have not joined me in indicating they feel stricter laws controlling those actions might be the answer.
@younghoss The criminal complaint the prosecutors filed described four prior incidents involving the shooter that were more or less road rage or parking rage. In three of them, people had called the police because he threatened them with his gun (something he denied in each case); in the fourth he deliberately caused an accident.
These things are already against the law. Why do you think “stricter” laws would “prevent” this? The problem as to people parking in handicapped spaces isn’t the lack of laws, it’s the lack of enforcement. There can’t be parking enforcers in every parking lot in America. I have felt similar frustration when I see able bodied people with no handicapped parking tags or documentation parking in handicapped spots. But I also know that LE or parking enforcement cannot be in all places at all times.
I couldn’t find exact specifics, but the Florida fine for parking in a handicapped spot without a tag seems to be around $250 with possible additional costs for towing to a legal spot. I doubt the little McGlockton family could afford much more than that. I also doubt that police in that neighborhood spend much of their time on parking lot enforcement. Can you actually even call 911 or the local police number to report something like that and get a response beyond “yeah, sure, lady”?
Here’s an extended analysis by a big gun-rights advocate, that also includes a lot more of the video than I have seen to date. I agree with almost all of what he says: Legally a toss-up, probably no conviction (this was recorded after the sheriff said he would not be charged, and before the prosecutor charged him); morally wrong.
I measured the parking lot at the Circle A using google tools, and there appear to be roughly 10,000 square feet of paved parking lot surrounding that small store (50’ by 60’). That’s almost a quarter of an acre!
Why didn’t the girlfriend simply park somewhere else?
Do people really think Drejka - who had a licensed gun with concealed carry permit, had never been arrested (permit would likely have been revoked if he had, at least for anything violent), and had survived for 48 years in a low rent and fairly dangerous place - just walked up to a black woman with kids and started screaming?
Look at the video again at 1:02 - 1:10. Does he really look like he’s irate and “berating” the girlfriend? Does he look like he’s threatening her or approaching the car window in a provocative manner? Look at him pointing out the spots that are open at 1:09ff - does he really appear to be yelling?
It’s pretty clear what happened. The girlfriend went from 0-100 and started yelling because she thought no one had the right to question her, even though what she did was clearly thoughtless and technically illegal. Although she could have easily remedied the situation, as she was in the driver’s seat and there were spots open, she didn’t care to. Again, this is a minor sort of inconvenience that normal people are expected to handle. If you can’t, you shouldn’t be driving in Florida.
No doubt the situation escalated and Drejka may have started yelling, perhaps even likely started yelling. However, dollars to donuts when the whole tape comes out we are not going to see anything threatening. And the girlfriend couldn’t have really been afraid, or else she would never have exited the car or she would have driven away. Pride goeth before the fall, but I bet she still feels ZERO remorse at all for the role she must have played here.
Watch the video again at those indicated points and see if you agree.
Watch the video I just posted. It shows much more of Drejka’s interaction with the girlfriend, from the time Drejka arrives and continuing after the shooting when he stands up and is waving his gun around. The commentator discusses how he’s clearly being inappropriately aggressive before the shooting. Obviously, there’s no sound, so we don’t know what he is saying. The girlfriend will be testifying about that. Anyone want to bet that her testimony will be consistent with @SatchelSF 's “pretty clear”? I wouldn’t.
I also wouldn’t bet “she still feels ZERO remorse at all for the role she must have played here.” (I don’t know where this poster gets his information about people. I have said, repeatedly, where I got mine. There’s an awful lot of stereotyping going on, and it’s not appropriate.) There’s plenty of remorse for everyone to feel here.
I watched your video, @JHS, very helpful. Good guy talking, very knowledgeable about firearms. However, he is an advocate and a teacher; be aware that he is going to err on the side of caution for obvious political reasons, as well as just common sense. No one who knows anything about guns is going to say, “Great Shoot!” because they are aware of the responsibility they have to try to get people to deescalate. On the other hand, as you must have noticed, whenever there is an interracial aspect to any incident, it seems that there is no caution whatsoever on the other side to try to tamp down tension (and there isn’t here, either). Very irresponsible.
For instance, back to your video, he mentions that Drejka had a “bob” in his neck, which indicates aggressiveness. How does he know Drejka doesn’t walk like that normally? Also, note that the commentator does not address the obvious, that I have asked a number of times. If Drejka had been acting aggressively for up to two minutes (we don’t see the missing footage, and neither has the commentator), why in the world would the girlfriend have exited the car? Do you have an answer, @JHS? Everyone appears ready to infer Drejka’s intent from a grainy, silent tape that has been edited, but why no inference based on the girlfriend’s actions?
The super slow motion video and freeze shot clearly shows the deceased to have started to back off and retreat at the moment he was shot. For anyone that has had any of these self defense/firearms courses the doctrine is that people facing down a firearm tend to stare at the weapon, while people who are trained in firearms focus on center body mass (lesser trained will make eye contact). In this case as soon as the weapon was drawn the fight was over and the attacker turned to flee.
He did not however turn to run but focused on the weapon. Based on this viewpoint and point of focus the shooter will have a compelling argument that he thought his attacker represented a continued threat given his prone position. I don’t think he will be convicted but once again he is morally completely wrong given several instances to deescalate.
Let’s also not forget once you have argued with someone for more than 15 seconds to move their car and nothing has happened you are just indulging your own desire to fight. They aren’t moving and you are a continued irritant.
@JHS - No inappropriate stereotyping on my part. I always try to give my reasons, perhaps not as clearly and completely as I could.
I infer that she does not feel any remorse for her role in the events from her statement on the video that “I have my right to park anywhere I wanna park.” Again, why is only Drejka the one who is expected to deescalate?
You’re right that if she testifies, she will likely offer a different version than what I inferred. You made the assumption in one of your posts that Drejka “lied to the police,” presumably to further his interests, while you accept apparently that the girlfriend’s testimony will be truthful?
I can tell you that if she takes the stand she is going to have a difficult time on cross explaining why she felt safe enough to exit the vehicle within reach of a man who was supposedly threatening her for a few minutes. Did she know her boyfriend was coming onto the scene and felt empowered to join in what was going to happen? As I said, witness preparation is going to be a bear!
No need of course for you and I to quarrel. It’s just a forum and we are all here to interact civilly, exchange ideas and learn from each other!
thanks you for asking, Nrdsb4. There have been other topics on this board, that when a bad act happened many people were quick to jump on the idea that additional, stricter, laws controlling one’s behavior, or controlling what one may possess would be the answer to preventing similar events from repeating in the future.
As some have said here, there are already laws against illegal handicap parking and against physical attacks. Those laws did not stop this from occurring.
I see a parallel and I am trying to show the broader point that sometimes adding more laws may not be the solution here, or for some other common control issues. Those who want and are willing to commit criminal acts are willing to break the law.
Note that “castle” situations (self-defense against an intruder who has illegally entered one’s home) are often treated differently under the law from other situations.
@SatchelSF : Everyone should have de-escalated. No one here has said that the victim was justified in shoving the shooter. I don’t doubt that the world would be a better place if the girlfriend had simply moved to a legal parking spot. There is no automatic exculpation of Black people.
That said, neither of them killed anybody. Neither of them came anywhere close to killing anybody. Drejka shot and killed an unarmed man who was backing away from him. And Drejka started the whole escalation process by appointing himself parking law enforcer, at considerable length. So while everyone should have de-escalated, and the victim should not have shoved Drejka, Drejka bears moral responsibility for starting the fight and for escalating it to an exponential level at a point where, looking at the video, he had no need to do that. Escalating it to the point of killing another human being on purpose with nothing approaching justification.
There’s no moral equivalency between the girlfriend’s failure to be more deferential or to change parking spaces, or the victim’s single, non-damaging shove, and using a deadly weapon to kill someone. You can say, well, the victim did wrong, too, and he did, but so what? The scales are completely different, and it’s offensive to pretend otherwise.
I think the problem you are having, @JHS, is that you cannot accept that in fact and in law, McGlockton is both the “instigator” (the “but for” or proximate cause of the ultimately fatal encounter), as well as the “initial aggressor,” at least on all the facts that have come out so far. There really is no question, honestly. That law review article I linked above is really quite good on these points, I think around pp.110-115 iirc.
Think about this one question. Just suppose that McGlockton actually intended to continue his attack by punching and/or kicking Drejka while he was down (I know you don’t believe this, but assume that it is in fact true). Maybe just a few times, nothing serious or intended as deadly. Say McGlockton connects with a foot or a fist just once after the initial shove. Would Drejka have then been justified morally to shoot him center of mass? Or should Drejka have again waited, and perhaps merely threatened to shoot? I know you don’t believe that McGlockton wanted to do this, but just supposing he did for a moment, would shooting be justified then?
As a policy mater, the law needs to balance the potential costs in waiting for this scenario to unfold (possibly) versus the detriments to allowing the potential victim to avoid injury. In some individual cases we might not like the results, but as a society we judge through our legal system that the determination of initial aggressor and instigator should inform this balancing.
Relatedly, take one last look at the video, which suffers from perspective foreshortening of course, and where exactly Drejka was standing when the girlfriend is exiting the vehicle. He is actually somewhat towards the front of the car, and the girlfriend is exiting somewhat to the rear of his position (note the opening door). That is likely why he didn’t see McGlockton approaching. He was being approached obliquely from both the front and behind, with his attention focused wholly on the girlfriend until the instant before McGlockton connects.
BTW, I’m glad we can have this civil back and forth.
I won’t speak for JHS, but here’s the problem I am having.
A guy goes around starting fights. In one of the fights, he gets shoved to the ground. He shoots the shover dead. Now he is going to get off.
This may be the way the law works in Florida, but it shouldn’t be the way the law works in any state, because it is a bad result. We shouldn’t want armed people to go around initiating fights against unarmed people and then shooting them. Vigilantes should not be able to go around starting arguments and then killing people who escalate the arguments to misdemeanor assault. Death should not be the penalty for misdemeanor assault, and people who are not the justice system should not be administering judicial penalties.
Is this guy going to get off the next time he kills somebody? What if the person is white this time?
Looks like in this thread that the comments mostly align in predictable ways based on the posters’ histories of political leanings and race. Perhaps it is because both Drejka and McGlockton appear at least superficially similar enough to some ugly stereotypes that trigger automatic reactions based on political learnings and race. Throwing in the fearfulness expressed by Florida posters about how “everyone” has a concealed gun there (basically implying that you should either submit to being bullied or carry a gun yourself) means that whatever the actual facts are probably do not matter in what positions people (in the jury or in public opinion) end up taking.
In court, the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Drejka was not under threat of great bodily harm or a forcible felony, and that McGlockton’s shove was no more than a misdemeanor (i.e. below the threshold where use of deadly force is allowed under Florida statue 776.012). But will whatever actual facts brought up in court matter in the minds of the jurors? Or will the case be effectively decided by jury selection?