SYG Shooter Found Guilty of Manslaughter

[Aguila Blanca]

Yes i could be wrong, but i assume they could have charged him with murder.

I don't now what you do in Northern Ireland but, in the U.S., we typically charge a suspect with the offense that most closely fits the circumstances of the incident. The Florida statute on murder is too long for me to attempt to quote it here, so here's the link:

https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/0782.04

I don't see anything in the law that would fit the incident. If you disagree, feel free to explain exactly what part of the law applies to this case, and why.

 

[zincwarrior]

One could argue Murder in the Second Degree. (2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
I don't think evidence is sufficient to support a depraved mind absent a firm grasp of the adjudicated definition of that in Florida, and the DA didn't go for that.

Me personally, clearly its First degree. Clearly there was aircraft piracy involved. Never trust someone with an eyepatch and a parrot on their shoulder.

 

[manta49]

I don't now what you do in Northern Ireland but, in the U.S., we typically charge a suspect with the offense that most closely fits the circumstances of the incident. The Florida statute on murder is too long for me to attempt to quote it here, so here's the link:

Same here in the UK. As for self defence the force used has to be proportionate to the threat. It would then be up to the court if charged to decide if the force used in self defence was proportionate. Firearms are not allowed for self defence in most of the UK so in a similar situation, you would just have to deal with best you can.

 

[zincwarrior]

Same here in the UK. As for self defence the force used has to be proportionate to the threat. It would then be up to the court if charged to decide if the force used in self defence was proportionate. As for self defence firearms are not allowed in most of the UK so in a similar situation, you would just have to deal with best you can.

Manta how does that work if the person being attacked is infirm, etc.?

For example in this instance, what if the shooter was the proverbial grandmother?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Same here in the UK. As for self defence the force used has to be proportionate to the threat. It would then be up to the court if charged to decide if the force used in self defence was proportionate. As for self defence firearms are not allowed in most of the UK so in a similar situation, you would just have to deal with best you can.

But we're in the U.S., not the UK. In the U.S. the level of force does not have to be proportionate to the threat. Each state's laws spell out what constitutes deadly (or "lethal") force within that state, and each state spells out under what circumstances a person may use deadly (lethal) force in self defense. The general rule is that use of deadly force is allowed when in the view of the victim of the attack the victim is in imminent danger of death or serious ("grievous") bodily harm.

Once I have been attacked under circumstances in which I have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm, I am authorized to use deadly force. Period. I'm a senior citizen. I have a mechanically repaired heart, a bad back, a bad knee, and I'm facing the need to replace my hip. Being shoved to the ground by anyone, and certainly as hard as Drejka was in the case we're discussing, could very definitely cause me some very serious damage. So that attack is complete justification to draw a firearm.

Then we get to whether or not Drejka should have shot his attacker. Immediately after the shove, McGlockton began to advance toward Drejka as Drejka was rolling around on the ground and trying to orient himself to the reality of a sneak attack. McGlockton broke off his advance only when he saw that Drejka had a gun. That's where the question of temporal distortion and tunnel vision come in.

We have the luxury of watching the events unfold on a screen, in the comfort of our homes or offices. Drejka was lying on the ground, wondering what the heck just happened. He looks up, he sees a big, angry dude advancing on him, so he draws his gun to defend himself. Once that action had been set in motion, the question is how reasonable it is to think that -- in the heat and confusion of the moment -- he could have recognized that McGlockton had stopped advancing in time to arrest the firing of the gun.

There must be a few other people here who are old enough to remember the shooting of Amadou Diallo in 1999. Diallo was approached late at night by four plainclothes NYC cops who thought he matched the description of a rapist. He reached into his pocket to take out a wallet with his ID, and four cops opened fire. The fired 41 shots, with 19 of them striking Diallo. Needless to say, he died.

The cops were acquitted of murder. Shouldn't they have been able to stop themselves from shooting? Shouldn't they have been able to stop after one or two rounds each -- why did they all have to unload their magazines into the guy?

Stress alters anyone's perceptions of both time and space. If you don't accept that, you're living in a fantasy world.

 

[manta49]

Once I have been attacked under circumstances in which I have a reasonable fear of death [o]or serious bodily harm[/i], I am authorized to use deadly force. Period.

Yes that's what he thought he might be thinking diffidently now. You saying you had reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm might not be enough, if charged it would be the jury that decided if that was the case not you. I don't think its as clear cut as you are making it out to be, this case sort of shows that.

 

[manta49]

Manta how does that work if the person being attacked is infirm, etc.?

For example in this instance, what if the shooter was the proverbial grandmother?

They would not have a firearm, so If attacked and they were infirm or not, they can use any force including lethal force hit them with a brick whatever. But they would have still have to show they force they used was proportionate to the threat.

UK law. What is the situation if the intruder dies?

It is still lawful to act in reasonable self-defence, even if the intruder dies as a result. However, prosecution could result from "very excessive and gratuitous force", such as attacking someone who is unconscious. For instance, the CPS decided not to prosecute one woman who snatched a baseball bat from an intruder and smashed him over the head. Had the woman continued to beat the man to a pulp, after he had already fallen and posed no threat, that would probably be considered as unlawful.

 

[MTT TL]

Amadou Diallo

There is too much false equivalency there.

The police department backed the officers. Stated that their actions were reasonable for police officers. This makes it much easier to create reasonable doubt in a few jurors. The officer WERE charged with murder 2nd, not manslaughter. They might have lost a manslaughter case in Florida.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I don't think its as clear cut as you are making it out to be, this case sort of shows that.

This case also shows that it's not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. You're the guy who still says it was murder, not manslaughter. You haven't answered my question as to how you justify calling it murder based on the Florida statute.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

There is too much false equivalency there.

No, because I'm only citing the Diallo case to illustrate the fallacy of being able to stop the act of shooting once the brain has said "SHOOT!"

 

[manta49]

Originally Posted by manta49
I don't think its as clear cut as you are making it out to be, this case sort of shows that.
This case also shows that it's not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. You're the guy who still says it was murder, not manslaughter. You haven't answered my question as to how you justify calling it murder based on the Florida statute.
__________________

My earlier answer bellow post 56 that's as good as it gets. I did not say it was murder under Florida statute, i said it was murder IMO.

Aguila Blanca 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.

Manta. No the law is the law, my opinion is just that my view on what happened. I or other peoples opinions override nothing, but we are still allowed to have them are we not.

 

[MTT TL]

I don't think the police were actually interested in stopping. There is no way they could have made out what was in his hands and they heard word "gun". In that day and age firing to slide lock was kind of the rule.

I will say in this case the shooter was pretty slow (probably due to just being knocked down). I wonder if had been faster and the pusher had not yet retreated when he started throwing lead if the outcome would have been different?

 

[zincwarrior]

I would leave out examples involving LEOs for obvious reasons. The Diallo case is particularly notorious.

IN this instance I am with you on the fact pattern until he is on the ground. At that point the victim disengages. You'll have to site case law where a non LEO is given the benefit of temporal distortion / tunnel vision etc. This case certainly does not support that.

 

[Ruga Booga]

Whether or not the initial aggressor uses lethal force is not the determining factor in whether the defender can legally use lethal force. The determining factor is whether the defender has reason to fear that he is in imminent danger of suffering death or serious bodily harm. The attacker was younger, bigger, and probably stronger. Judging from how far he shoved the defandant, he very certainly was violent.

After the defendant was on the ground, the attacker clearly started toward him. Also, the security video doesn't have audio, and I haven't seen any reports of what the attacker may or may not have been saying while the defendant was on the ground and the attacker started toward him. The attacker didn't break off his advance until after he saw the gun. By that time, due to temporal and spatial disorientation (tunnel vision), the defendant was already in shoot to defend mode and IMHO it's entirely reasonable that things unfolded too fast for him to flip the mental switch from SHOOT to DON'T SHOOT.

You think he shot out of anger. I think he shot out of fear.

He was already angry about the parking space. He definitely fired in anger.

 

[Ruga Booga]

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.

An hour stalking a stump? Do you have glasses or at least binoculars?

 

[USNRet93]

McGlockton broke off his advance only when he saw that Drejka had a gun. That's where the question of temporal distortion and tunnel vision come in.

I'll ask again..did that 'question' come up in this trial? If it did, was it answered? By some psychologist or other 'expert'??
I suspect not..the jury saw the victim back away after the shooter drew his gun, and the shooter shot him anyway..regardless of 'temporal distortion or tunnel vision'..

 

[ligonierbill]

Some of the discussion here reminds me of a B-Western. The evil cattle baron hires a gunfighter to pick a fight with the guy whose land he wants. Florida has another case, still ongoing, of a self-appointed rule enforcer picking a fight with a rule breaker and then trying to justify his killing. If we support such actions, ultimately we threaten our own rights. Believe me, the voting public absolutely considers it murder. It's not murder in the legal sense, you say? Just give it a few years.

 

[davidsog]

Given the 21 foot rule, violent attack knocking the victim to the ground, and the vulnerability to death/serious bodily injury I am sure any reasonable jury in possession of the facts and without prejudice or emotion will find this was self defense.

Any expert in unarmed combat recognizes that man was in a very dangerous position irregardless of the few feet the perpetrator backed up. In fact, that creation of room could be seen as a threat. The most powerful and deadly attack that could be made on a victim on the ground is well placed kick, followed by a heel strike. You need room to effectively deliver that killing blow.

 

[zincwarrior]

Given the 21 foot rule,

Thats not a "rule." Thats a internet video. Please cite stare decisis that that has mattered in a Florida court in the US for nonLEO.

violent attack knocking the victim to the ground

Thats a past act. Self defense is for an attack that is continuing. Punishment is the job of the state. The test is if that test is continuing.

, and the vulnerability to death/serious bodily injury

Only if the attack is continuing.

I am sure any reasonable jury in possession of the facts and without prejudice or emotion will find this was self defense.

Except of course, they did not.

In fact, that creation of room could be seen as a threat.

That defies logic.

The most powerful and deadly attack that could be made on a victim on the ground is well placed kick, followed by a heel strike. You need room to effectively deliver that killing blow.

Calm down Bruce Leroy.* The victim was actually walking away when shot.


*I am the Last Dragon!

 

[davidsog]

Thats not a "rule." Thats a internet video.

Wow. It is a well established principle. Yes, the SCOTUS has ruled each encounter is unique and the factors that dictate the 21 foot rule assume someone who is ready to draw their weapon, trained, as well as aware of the impending attack.

Anything outside of Tueller's original scenario only increases the distance. It does not shorten it and the perpetrator who assaulted the SYG shooter was well within distance to close the gap and deliver a killing blow.

That defies logic.

All unarmed combat is about creating space to deliver an attack.

The victim was actually walking away when shot.

The perpetrator was shot in the chest backing away after violently knocking down the victim.

Backing away is NOT walking away.