SYG Shooter Found Guilty of Manslaughter

Status
Not open for further replies.
MTT TL said:
The question was what would he "likely be charged with", not what he could be charged with.
Click to expand...
Understood. Since the language of the Florida statute is clear that misdemeanor assult does not involve physical contact, it's unlikely that he would have been charged with misdemeanor assault if the actual offense is a perfect fit for the charge of battery (be it misdemeanor or felony).

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.03.html

784.03 Battery; felony battery.—
(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who commits battery commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(2) A person who has one prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery and who commits any second or subsequent battery commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For purposes of this subsection, “conviction” means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo contendere is entered.
Click to expand...

By contrast, the Florida statute on Assault reads:

784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an 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.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
Click to expand...

In Florida, "assault" is a threat to commit harm. As soon as matters progress to actual physical contact, it crosses into "battery" territory. It doesn't have to be as violent as the shove in this case; it just has to be intentional physical touching that's against the will of the touchee.
 
zxcvbob said:
Does he have a basis for appeal?
Click to expand...
Only someone who was in the courtroom for the entire trial can answer that. He could argue that he didn't have effective counsel; he could argue that the judge either overruled his attorney's objections on key points, or DIDN'T overrule the prosector's objections on points his attorney made; or he could argue that the judge misapplied the law and explained it incorrectly to the jury.

Or something else.
 
manta49 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Healthy 40 year old man dies after being pushed to the ground. That’s unquestionably a violent physical attack that has the potential to cause serious bodily injury.

In this case it didn’t cause any serious injury and the attacker appears to have broken off the attack.

But I wouldn’t be so quick to discount the ol’ schoolyard push. Aside from the ever popular method of pushing someone down and stomping their head flat, people get pushed in front of vehicles with some regularity as well.
 
A few things:

This wasn't Drejka's first rodeo. In 2018, he had a similar confrontation, at the same convenience store, in which he threatened to shoot a man for using the handicapped spot. Racial slurs were used. He was also investigated for a 2012 road rage incident in which he admitted to flashing a gun out the window of his car.

Is that relevant to the case at hand? Ehhh, yeah. A jury is going to take that into account.

Then there's the difference between a strict reading of statute and what a jury thinks. By the letter of the law, Drejka might have had a defense, but a person is dead, and attorneys start splitting some pretty fine hairs when that happens.

Thing is, this isn't a test of the SYG law. That law allows for a defendant to call a pre-trial motion to dismiss charges based on a preponderance of evidence. I'm not clear whether or not Drejka's attorney tried to invoke it, but it wasn't successful.

(It's also worth mentioning that George Zimmerman didn't invoke the SYG defense. For some reason, he chose a jury trial.)

Lastly, there's the question of how much danger Drejka was really in. At one point, his attorney tried to claim that Drejka's injuries had affected his ability to make snap decisions. That claim was rejected. SYG law or not, the jury is going to be asked if a person in Drejka's circumstances had a reasonable fear for his life. His attacker had not inflicted meaningful damage and had disengaged.

This isn't a test of the SYG laws. It's just another case of a hothead playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes.
 
Is that relevant to the case at hand? Ehhh, yeah. A jury is going to take that into account.
Click to expand...

I'm no lawyer (didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night) but I seem to recall that a jury is not allowed to consider that in the trial but that a judge can consider prior actions during sentencing.
 
I'm no lawyer (didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night) but I seem to recall that a jury is not allowed to consider that in the trial but that a judge can consider prior actions during sentencing.
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing prior convictions with patterns of behavior. Since he was never convicted of anything in the previous instances it certainly can be brought in. Also the behavior relevant to the matter at hand. Even if he had been convicted his lawyer would have to work overtime to keep it out. Evidence rules vary a lot from state to state but most states it would be admissible.
 
Tom Servo said:
This wasn't Drejka's first rodeo. In 2018, he had a similar confrontation, at the same convenience store, in which he threatened to shoot a man for using the handicapped spot. Racial slurs were used. He was also investigated for a 2012 road rage incident in which he admitted to flashing a gun out the window of his car.

Is that relevant to the case at hand? Ehhh, yeah. A jury is going to take that into account.
Click to expand...

IF they get to hear the evidence. You may recall that Harold Fish’s appeal came down to a similar issue. His attacker in that case had a history of aggression; however because Fish couldn’t have been aware of that history, the trial court ruled the prior examples were inadmissible and the jury convicted Fish.

On appeal, the defense argued that they weren’t trying to show that Fish knew of the prior aggression, they were just trying to show that the behavior Fish described was consistent with his attacker’s character. The appeals court agreed the evidence was admissible and sent the case back for retrial; however the prosecutor declined to pursue the case again.

I’m not aware of whether the past behavior here was successfully excluded by the defense (not that it mattered much given the widespread publication); but it does go to show an aspect of self-defense shootings I don’t think many people appreciate. The jury doesn’t hear “your side of the story.” They hear what your lawyer can get admitted as evidence (and they (mostly) don’t hear what your lawyer can block the other side from admitting as evidence).

I think in this case, admitting evidence of the previous conflicts was proper for the same reason it was proper in Fish’s case. I also think even if it had been excluded the jury could still reasonably conclude the attack had broken off before he fired.
 
Originally Posted by manta49
What makes you think that. ?
What makes you think it was murder when the applicable law clearly establishes that it wasn't?
Click to expand...

Because after seeing the video IMO it was murder. That's my opinion, what he was charged with and found guilty of is irrelevant to my view that it was murder. PS Have you never disagreed on what someone was charged with and the verdict. ? While i am at it i am surprised a staff member did not challenge the post that the jury was racist.

As i said i based that on seeing the video, my question still stands what does he base his opinion on.
( I agree. I think the jury was racist and reactionary) Does he know the jury, was he in court to form that view etc.
 
Last edited:
manta49 said:
What makes you think it was murder when the applicable law clearly establishes that it wasn't?
Click to expand...
Because after seeing the video IMO it was murder. That's my opinion, what he was charged with and found guilty of is irrelevant to my view that it was murder. PS Have you never disagreed on what someone was charged with and the verdict. ?
Click to expand...
Just to be clear then, your position is that your opinion overrides applicable law. Your opinion counts, and the applicable law is "irrelevant."

We'll keep that in mind when reading future posts from you.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Just to be clear then, your position is that your opinion overrides applicable law. Your opinion counts, and the applicable law is "irrelevant."

We'll keep that in mind when reading future posts from you.
Click to expand...
I believe Manta is using "murder" in the common usage and not the legal description of the actual crime charged.

Lets also remember, his view is in line with the jury's that found the shooter guilty. Your opinion is not. It is incumbent on you to support that your opinion is superior to the determination of the actual jury, guided by the actual judge, judge's instruction of the law and questions to the jury, and charging documents. Impugning his opinion, which again is in line with what happened in reality vs your opinion, is probably not the most supportable position to have.
 
Just to be clear then, your position is that your opinion overrides applicable law. Your opinion counts, and the applicable law is "irrelevant."

We'll keep that in mind when reading future posts from you.
Click to expand...

No the law is the law, my opinion is just that my view on what happened. My or other peoples opinions override nothing, but we are still allowed to have them are we not.
 
Manta are you saying, from your view the shooter is guilty as charged, guilty of shooting the victim, and that it was not self defense?
 
Manta are you saying, from your view the shooter is guilty as charged, guilty of shooting the victim, and that it was not self defense?
Click to expand...

Yes guilty as charged, pushing him back would have being self defence in my book. But it doesn't really matter what i think, what matters is what the jury thought and they found him guilty. Personally i would be glad that someone that quick to use lethal force, after what i saw as a minor assault is off the streets.
 
manta49 said:
Yes guilty as charged, pushing him back would have being self defence in my book. But it doesn't really matter what i think, what matters is what the jury thought and they found him guilty. Personally i would be glad that someone that quick to use lethal force, after what i saw as a minor assault is off the streets.
Click to expand...
Thats what I thought. Thanks. I think Aquila is discussing more of the legal definition of murder. In criminal law murder is often a higher level crime than manslaughter, which is what he was charged with.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by manta49 View Post
Yes guilty as charged, pushing him back would have being self defence in my book. But it doesn't really matter what i think, what matters is what the jury thought and they found him guilty. Personally i would be glad that someone that quick to use lethal force, after what i saw as a minor assault is off the streets.
Thats what I thought. Thanks. I think Aquila is discussing more of the legal definition of murder. In criminal law murder is often a higher level crime than manslaughter, which is what he was charged with.
Click to expand...

Yes i could be wrong, but i assume they could have charged him with murder. What was more likely to get a convection would be part of the decisions making, when deciding what he was charged with i would think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top