SYG Shooter Found Guilty of Manslaughter

[MTT TL]

BG was verbally assaulting victim's wife.

I don't recall any such charges being made. Unless he was communicating a threat Florida Law does not allow for such a "defense". The code reads:

intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

There were no such charges made nor was anything like this implied.

Victim took the defense too far, but would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

I have to disagree here as well.

If what you are saying were indeed correct and the shooter was threatening the baby mama then the victim's actions would actually have been correct within the law. Shoving someone away who is a clear threat would likely be seen as a very reasonable response. However; if the victim just decided to shove the shooter because the shooter was being a jerk than the victim was in the wrong to instigate a physical confrontation.

I assume the court really did not focus on that and instead looked at what happened after the shove.

Personally, I don't see how anyone can take the side of the shooter after the shove. To look at it another way supposed the shooter had been a police officer? The standard is supposed to be the same for self defense. I think the public would have looked at it quite differently.

 

[zukiphile]

For me it was murder, i know that was not what he was charged or found guilty of. Only in America could someone be gunned down in a argument after being pushed, and some see it as justified use of force.

Sometimes it is a justified use of force. Being pushed to the ground can be the first step in a fatal beating. In the Zimmerman case he had been pushed to the ground as well. That was a justified shooting.

That a putative attacker turns away isn't an unambiguous signal that he is no longer a threat. If he is walking away to drive away, that's great. If he is walking back to his car for a shotgun, that could indicate a problem.

That a jury convicted in this case doesn't mean it was clear in the moment or that this was so clear that resolving this was easy for the jury.

The police have questions to IMO for not immediately arresting him and investigating what happened. Again only in America could that happen, and IMO that is not a good thing.

Clearly, this was investigated and prosecuted.

 

[MTT TL]

The police have questions to IMO for not immediately arresting him and investigating what happened. Again only in America could that happen, and IMO that is not a good thing.

Why should the police immediately arrest him? Should they not investigate first? Clearly you are incorrect about the police not investigating because that is exactly what happened. Very seldom do the police arrest someone right away when a homicide takes place. Often times it is days, weeks, months, years later. It is much more important to be right in such cases than to be fast.

Why could it only happen in America? Are there no other countries in the world with a presumption of innocence? Why is protection of civil rights a bad thing? Your post seems a lot of rhetoric without being grounded in facts.

 

[zincwarrior]

victim was in the wrong to instigate a physical confrontation.

That does not mean you get to shoot them as the court confirmed. Juries also don't look kindly when you start the initial confrontation, someone reacts and then you blow them away.

Thats not self defense, thats gangsterism.

 

[manta49]

Why could it only happen in America? Are there no other countries in the world with a presumption of innocence? Why is protection of civil rights a bad thing? Your post seems a lot of rhetoric without being grounded in facts

Yes, but i can't think of any that where someone was shot dead, and the shooter would not be immediately arrested / detained so the police could investigate what happened. And yes people are presumed innocent until found guilty, that does not mean that they should be on some occasions arrested and questioned. That's sort of how police investigations work.

Probable cause generally refers to the requirement in criminal law that police have adequate reason to arrest someone, conduct a search, ... This requirement comes from the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that: ... person to believe criminal activity was at hand and further investigation was required.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

That does not mean you get to shoot them as the court confirmed. Juries also don't look kindly when you start the initial confrontation, someone reacts and then you blow them away.

I don't see any "assault" against which McGlockton was "defending" his girlfriend (NOT wife). Drejka was standing more than an arm's length away from the car, as can be seen at 1:30 and 1:40 of the version of the video that's on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6eZCh4iP6U). There was nothing going on that required McGlockton to initiate an unprovoked, violent physical assault on Drejka. McGlockton didn't make any attempt to find out what was happening -- he came out of the store and went immediately into attack mode.

McGlockton's attack was not a continuation of the discussion between Drejka and the female. McGlockton was not at any time a party to that discussion. He launched a violent, unprovoked, physical attack. The laws of every state DO allow you to use deadly force to defend against just such physical attacks. The only question here, as I see it, is whether it's reasonable that Drejka could/should have seen that McGlockton had definitely broken off the attack after seeing that Drejka had a gun.

 

[jmr40]

I still believe that temporal and spatial disorientation as a result of the adrenaline rush that would follow McGlockton's attack need to be taken into account.

We see exactly the same thing in hunting related accidents. Hunters, in an adrenaline rush convince themselves they actually see a deer or other big game animal. I've had it happen to me. I spent over an hour stalking a bear, that turned out being a stump.

But that isn't accepted as an acceptable defense if the hunter shoots another hunter. His brain literally saw a deer because that is what he expected to see, but his brain lied. Happens all the time. The law in GA says if you point your rifle at another hunter and pull the trigger you're guilty of a crime.

If you're going to carry a gun in a SD mode or as a hunter you have to train yourself to not allow that to happen.

The guy caught a break as far as I'm concerned. He was guilty.

 

[manta49]

jmr40
Senior Member He launched a violent, unprovoked, physical attack.

I suppose it depends what you see as a violent unprovoked physical attack. What i saw a push, if some see that as violent physical attack they have lived a very sheltered life.

 

[zincwarrior]

So what is the expected event when someone, with a history of threatening to shoot others, starts yelling at someone's girlfriend? Thats starting a confrontation.

The victim over reacted according to the law.

The BG then kills him.

 

[zincwarrior]

I suppose it depends what you see as a violent unprovoked physical attack. What i saw a push, if some see that as violent physical attack they have lived a very sheltered life.

Exactly. If thats a violent physical attack then our elementary schools are about to become legal slaughterhouses.
So here's the crux of the situation.

BG gets pushed. This is misdemeanor battery.
Does it matter...meh.

What matters is the standard is a reasonable fear of attack to a level of harm to a level required by the local jurisdiction.

When the person doing the harm backs off, the essential question, which was answered in the negative is, is it a reasonable belief that this person is continuing to attack and commit that harm?

If a person knocks you down you can't shoot them. If you reasonably believe the person is going to continue to harm you to X (whatever loval minimum level required by the jurisdiction) then you may employ self defense. However it not reasonable in this circumstance.

 

[MTT TL]

That does not mean you get to shoot them as the court confirmed. Juries also don't look kindly when you start the initial confrontation, someone reacts and then you blow them away.

My point was the shooters actions were legal right up to where he pulled the trigger. The victims actions maybe less so. We will never know for sure the answer to that one.

Yes, but i can't think of any that where someone was shot dead, and the shooter would not be immediately arrested / detained so the police could investigate what happened.

He was immediately detained and questioned.

I can think of lots of cases where the shooter was not arrested the day of the shooting or even till much later. We had case in our town not long ago where the shooter shot his wife in the chest and killed her "accidentally". He was never arrested but his case was presented to the Grand Jury who had a difference of opinion on this matter being an accident.

Merely because you believe there was probable cause does not believe the police believed there was probable cause.

 

[MTT TL]

I don't see any "assault" against which McGlockton was "defending" his girlfriend (NOT wife).

This point is kind of moot since his three minor children were in the vehicle under her care.

McGlockton's attack was not a continuation of the discussion between Drejka and the female. McGlockton was not at any time a party to that discussion.

Sort of, not really. She was texting him in the store. I think an examination of those texts would provide a fascinating input to state of mind. There is no telling what she communicated to him about what was going on outside (short of reading the texts).

So what is the expected event when someone, with a history of threatening to shoot others, starts yelling at someone's girlfriend? Thats starting a confrontation.

The baby mama had no clue that the shooter had a history of threatening to shoot others. This also is a point that was never validated. A "confrontation" is not illegal. If so there could never be discussion anywhere, including here. It is also a highly subjective term.

I suppose it depends what you see as a violent unprovoked physical attack. What i saw a push, if some see that as violent physical attack they have lived a very sheltered life.

This is patenetly untrue. People with health issues can be seriously injured or even die from a fall or being pushed to the ground. Even in a healthy person a simple fall can break bones and seriously injure a person.

 

[manta49]

If a person knocks you down you can't shoot them. If you reasonably believe the person is going to continue to harm you to X (whatever loval minimum level required by the jurisdiction) then you may employ self defense. However it not reasonable in this circumstance.

Is it not what a reasonable person would think not what he thought. I like to think that i am a reasonable person, and IMO that was unjustified and it seems the jury agreed.

What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable person” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm.

This is patenetly untrue. People with health issues can be seriously injured or even die from a fall or being pushed to the ground. Even in a healthy person a simple fall can break bones and seriously injure a person.

If it was just the push and the police were called by the guy that was pushed who had no injuries, what was the guy doing the pushing likely to have being charged with. ?

 

[zukiphile]

I suppose it depends what you see as a violent unprovoked physical attack. What i saw a push, if some see that as violent physical attack they have lived a very sheltered life.

What you saw was a shove that put the other fellow onto the ground. Whether the intent was to injure is disputable, but it's clearly a physical attack, as opposed to the verbal "attack" involved in telling someone they shouldn't be in a handicapped spot.

If you reasonably believe the person is going to continue to harm you to X (whatever loval minimum level required by the jurisdiction) ...

That's the pertinent issue. There are instances in which being pushed to the ground is part of an attack that gives rise to a reasonable fear of grave injury. This jury didn't believe this defendant had that.

 

[zincwarrior]

That's the pertinent issue. There are instances in which being pushed to the ground is part of an attack that gives rise to a reasonable fear of grave injury. This jury didn't believe this defendant had that.

Agreed. Exactly. The push had already happened. This issue is whether the attack had stopped or was continuing, and the jury found it had stopped.

 

[zukiphile]

Agreed. Exactly. The push had already happened. This issue is whether the attack had stopped or was continuing, and the jury found it had stopped.

Emphasis added.

Was the jury interrogated on that? A jury would not need to find that in order to convict.

The jury would only need to conclude that the defendant did not believe that he feared grave injury that would have entitled him to use deadly force. They may have concluded that he lacked that belief at any time.

 

[zincwarrior]

Fair point.

 

[MTT TL]

If it was just the push and the police were called by the guy that was pushed who had no injuries, what was the guy doing the pushing likely to have being charged with. ?

2nd Degree Misdemeanor Assault.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

If it was just the push and the police were called by the guy that was pushed who had no injuries, what was the guy doing the pushing likely to have being charged with. ?

2nd Degree Misdemeanor Assault.

Battery, not assault, under Florida law. In Florida, harsh words constitute assault. Physical contact rises to battery.

And, if the pusher had ever been previously convicted of battery, then the charge would be a felony offense, not a misdemeanor. McGlockton had a rap sheet with 23 arrests for a litany of charges, including domestic abuse. However, I couldn't find anything definitive on whether or not any of those charges had resulted in convictions.

 

[MTT TL]

I am going to say it was likely he was convicted.

The question was what would he "likely be charged with", not what he could be charged with.