SYG Shooter Found Guilty of Manslaughter

[davidsog]

Or another lesson could be don't shoot someone for laying hands on you

Absolutely you should defend yourself if someone perpetrates physical violence against you.

It means they are willing to cross a line and remove the veneer of civilization then the step from non-lethal to lethal is a much smaller step to take....

 

[davidsog]

The defense questioned Kelly on why he waited to come forward with that information.

Kelly's boss, John Tyler, also testified about how Drejka called him to complain about Kelly.

"He told me that I was lucky," Tyler said. "He said if I had a gun, he said I could've shot him. I said, 'I feel sorry that you would feel that way.' I said 'I carry a gun and my training I was taught to remove yourself from those situations.'"

This guy should have had his CCW removed and he obviously was not fit to handle the responsibility. Why didn't Tyler report him for conveying a threat? Threatening someone with a gun especially if you have the means to carry that threat out is a crime.

This whole situation could have been prevented. Now the next guy who gets violently assaulted and defends his life is going to have a much harder time because of this case.

Again, poor legal representation all around on this one.

 

[MTT TL]

I'd encourage anyone with an interest in that case to read the final report.

That is a good idea. The media reporting of the Brown shooting was a travesty of inaccurate reporting, false witnesses and lies. Many of them designed to stoke the follow on riots.

, the victim moved back and was shot, and it was successfully considered self defense.

I can get you more than halfway there.

I have seen a video of shooting where a LEO shot a man in the back and the shoot was justified. The police were questioning him while they were arresting several other subjects in the same gang. The BG suddenly turns away and starts walking off apparently unarmed. Several seconds later the officer puts three rounds in his back. When the body is checked BG has a gun in his hand that he was concealing up front. The whole thing was captured on video. The officer had seen the reflection in the glass of a nearby building of the BG pulling it out while he was "walking away".

That clearly wasn't happening here. But yes in rare and exceptional cases a threat may fake a retreat to gain some advantage.

 

[zincwarrior]

Yes, but if he was to continue the attack, he would then need to move toward the guy on the ground..he did not..he was shot first. If the attacker had started to change directions, toward the guy on the ground then the SYG law would have more legs..but he was moving away..


Irrelevant..direction of travel is what's important and whether or not he 'may' go to his car and get a gun..also irrelevant..not part of this case.

Exactly!

 

[zukiphile]

I would resist a simple test that concludes that an attack has stopped soley based on an assailant's direction of travel. That a person is walking away from me doesn't mean that he is done attacking me.

Andrew Brannan walked away from a PO...to his truck, from which he retrieved a carbine he use to kill the PO. I don't recommend watching the dashcam video, but it does exist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsrC5QV_Yrc

Yes, but if he was to continue the attack, he would then need to move toward the guy on the ground..he did not..he was shot first.

That an attack does not persist because the attacker is shot is the point of self defense rather than an unambiguous indicator that an attack has ended.

If the attacker had started to change directions, toward the guy on the ground then the SYG law would have more legs..but he was moving away..
...
Irrelevant..direction of travel is what's important and whether or not he 'may' go to his car and get a gun..also irrelevant..not part of this case.

Whether an attacker is moving away as a part of the attack or because he has discontinued the attack cannot be irrelevant to whether a defendant believes he is in continuing danger of grave injury or death at the hands of the attacker.

That doesn't make the jury here wrong, it just doesn't mean that a momentary and slight increase in distance between the parties isn't fatal to a legitimate self defense claim.


If you believe that it is not possible for an attacker to move away from his target momentarily as a part of the attack itself, there are already examples of just that in this thread.

 

[zincwarrior]

Again, please cite a legal example not involving LEO where the aggressor backed up, was shot while doing so, and the jury found the shooter not guilty.

 

[zukiphile]

Again, please cite a legal example not involving LEO where the aggressor backed up, was shot while doing so, and the jury found the shooter not guilty.

You mean a not guilty jury verdict in a case in which the defendant shot while an attacker was backing up.

Why?

In Florida, the current self defense statute, i.e. the law on the subject, in pertinent part reads:

A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

You'll note that no part of that is "unless the threat takes a step back". That's because it isn't an element of the law.

The issue presented by the incredulity that anyone could disagree with the jury's conclusion is whether a jury could conclude that a defendant reasonably believed that using or threatening to use such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself where an attacker has increased the distance from his victim.

We already know that a grave physical threat can involve momentary retreat. It isn't unreasonable to believe that something that has happened in the past can happen again.

If you concede that fact finder could conclude that a defendant reasonably believed that using or threatening to use such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm where an attacker has increased the distance from his victim, then you cannot believe that simply increasing distance from a victim invalidates a self-defense claim.

 

[zincwarrior]

So...you can't.

 

[zukiphile]

Did you read and understand the post above?

So...you can't.

That's a poorly reasoned conclusion.

It's easier to explain what the law says than engage in review of fact patterns in jury cases. If you believe the explanation is false in some way, you should feel free to explain how. If you believe producing a case citation is required to support a point, then I invite you to produce the Florida case that holds that a successful self-defense claim requires a closing assailant.

 

[zincwarrior]

You are making a statement without stare decisis support.

 

[MTT TL]

I said a case where the defendant was attacked, the victim moved back and was shot, and it was successfully considered self defense.

Not yet, but soon. I'll wager ten internets that Rojanai Alston either gets the rest of her charges no billed or she is found not guilty. The PA system is a little different so it will take a while to wend through the courts though.

She was clearly shooting at her fleeing attackers who suffered a sudden lack of firmness of resolve when they went from hunting to being hunted.

I know the case didn't make big news because no one can virtue signal and call her a racist but it is still a pretty important case.

 

[USNRet93]

That an attack does not persist because the attacker is shot is the point of self defense rather than an unambiguous indicator that an attack has ended.

He was shot while moving away from the guy on the ground, not toward him..if he was standing still..yes, maybe the SYB would have legs but he was moving away, when shot.

Whether an attacker is moving away as a part of the attack or because he has discontinued the attack cannot be irrelevant to whether a defendant believes he is in continuing danger of grave injury or death at the hands of the attacker.

How can a 'reasonable man' feel that he is still in danger when the attacker is greater than arms length, is not armed and that distance is increasing?

If you believe that it is not possible for an attacker to move away from his target momentarily as a part of the attack itself, there are already examples of just that in this thread.

BUT, in THIS instance, he was moving away, the attack was over, and he was then shot. Sure there are a ton of 'what if's' but those are not pertinent to THIS case...guy thrown to ground, lotsa yelling and swearing, guy on ground pulls gun...guy moves backwards and is shot..at more than arms length from guy on ground...no need to tell the future(he's going to go get his own gun)..because the future ended for the guy standing.

 

[zukiphile]

You are making a statement without stare decisis support.

I am explaining the issue to you without professional argot that might confuse you, like stare decisis.

Stare decisis isn't a feature of jury verdicts. It mean that the decision of a court on a matter of law should be left to stand. So, if Buckley v. Valeo stands for the proposition that the 1st Am. protects campaign contributions as speech, but allows for some regulation, observing the same proposition the next time a campaign contribution is litigated would be an example of stare decisis in the area of campaign financing and free speech.

Jury verdicts don't do that because they aren't decisions about what the law is. If you really doubt that, consider whether the OJ jury verdict means as a matter of law that if you are an ex football player and actor, if the police find your bloody footprints near your ex-wife (killed with a knife) and your bloody gloves and have a photograph of your hand just after with a cut, and have your house guest as a witness, you are a free man. Of course, it doesn't.

Juries don't make laws to which other courts must adhere; they do determine facts on a specific case. That Drejka shot not while the attacker was advancing and was found to have killed without the benefit of legitimate self-defense is not a legal precedent to which subsequent fact finders in other case have any obligation to adhere.

I hope that makes that clearer.

The law in this case is Florida statute. It is explained to a jury in instructions, but the law itself isn't made by the jury.


I'd ask you to read post 127 and let me know if it was clear as well.

 

[zukiphile]

Whether an attacker is moving away as a part of the attack or because he has discontinued the attack cannot be irrelevant to whether a defendant believes he is in continuing danger of grave injury or death at the hands of the attacker.

How can a 'reasonable man' feel that he is still in danger when the attacker is greater than arms length, is not armed and that distance is increasing?

Foresight.

If you believe that it is not possible for an attacker to move away from his target momentarily as a part of the attack itself, there are already examples of just that in this thread.

BUT, in THIS instance, he was moving away, the attack was over, and he was then shot.

Here, if you were to conclude that the fight at that time had ended and not shot, you would also be exercising foresight. As suggested in the text you've already read, the point of foreseeing a terrible beating isn't to take the beating to validate the accuracy of the foresight, but to act so as to avoid the beating.

 

[USNRet93]

Not foresight but observation of what was happening at the time of trigger squeeze..

the point of foreseeing a terrible beating isn't to take the beating to validate the accuracy of the foresight, but to act so as to avoid the beating.

Why was he convinced that he was going to take a beating when the guy was moving away and was already out past arms length and wasn't armed? He assumed a beating was imminent, but the actions of the guy shot showed that that possibility was reduced and was possibly non existent. Again, had the guy started moving TOWARD the guy on the ground, the SYG would have had more legs. I think the jury's decision was largely based on the video of the victim backing away. BUT the guy on the ground, went from not being beaten to shooting..as he had done in the past(brandish, not shoot, in past instances..part of the testimony)..shooter was a quick tempered hothead(evidence), he was spring loaded to gun out(evidence), he 'may' have been a racist...the victim was moving away(evidence)..the jury, IMHO, did the right thing

 

[zukiphile]

Not foresight but observation of what was happening at the time of trigger squeeze..

the point of foreseeing a terrible beating isn't to take the beating to validate the accuracy of the foresight, but to act so as to avoid the beating.

Why was he convinced that he was going to take a beating when the guy was moving away and was already out past arms length and wasn't armed?

Yes, you are using your foresight to question his.

I don't know that he was convinced of anything, or if he was.

... the actions of the guy shot showed that that possibility was reduced and was possibly non existent.

None of which forecloses a conclusion that a defendant reasonably believed that using or threatening to use such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

I begrudge no one their agreement with the verdict. The ambiguity if the evidence shouldn't be impossible to see.

 

[USNRet93]

I don't know that he was convinced of anything, or if he was.

Of course he was, otherwise he wouldn't have shot the guy unless his motivations were revenge, racist views, anger or something else..but he 'feared for his life'...as he stated. BUT the jury saw that as unreasonable, since the victim was moving away, backwards, out of arm's length.

to use such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

Except when he squeezed the trigger he wasn't threatened with 'imminent death or great bodily harm'...

The ambiguity if the evidence shouldn't be impossible to see.

Jury deliberation was 5 hours..I suspect that the evidence wasn't impossible to see to those who were on the jury or those who actually observed the entire week long proceedings.
from Tampa Day Times.

The state emphasized that McGlockton moved back once Drejka pulled his gun, rendering the fear of further danger unreasonable.

“He took the life of another human being without any legal justification,” prosecutor Fred Schaub said during his opening statement.

What does this mean to ME? In CO(no SYG law)..if somebody pushes me down..then stands there yelling and screaming..I'm not going to shoot him(I may take my firearm out)..BUT if he takes one step forward..all bets are off.

BUT, I'm also not going to be silent..but yelling at guy who pushed me down to back off(did the SYG shooter say anything before shooting? Don't know)..hope there's video or witness'..or maybe not, if the guy ends up dead.

 

[zukiphile]

I don't know that he was convinced of anything, or if he was.

Of course he was, otherwise he wouldn't have shot the guy unless ...

In other words, your certainty that he was convinced of grave injury isn't certain at all.

BUT the jury saw that as unreasonable, since the victim was moving away, backwards, out of arm's length.

Unless you have a transcript of interrogatories to the jury, you don't know that. A jury could as well believe that the defendant planned to kill the man who attacked him and convict. That the jury convicts doesn't in itself mean they've adopted this "backing away out of arm's length" test found nowhere in the code.

to use such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

Except when he squeezed the trigger he wasn't threatened with 'imminent death or great bodily harm'...

Above, you've omitted an element of the the test which actually is:

…using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

Emphasis added.

The statutory test doesn't require that you agree that death or GBI are imminent.

The ambiguity [o]f the evidence shouldn't be impossible to see.

Jury deliberation was 5 hours..I suspect that the evidence wasn't impossible to see...

Note the difference between the evidence and the ambiguity of the evidence.

The state emphasized that McGlockton moved back once Drejka pulled his gun, rendering the fear of further danger unreasonable.

That's not the court or the jury. It's the prosecution. The prosecution is an advocate, not a trier of fact.

 

[zxcvbob]

What does this mean to ME? In CO(no SYG law)..if somebody pushes me down..then stands there yelling and screaming..I'm not going to shoot him(I may take my firearm out)..BUT if he takes one step forward..all bets are off.

I think for the shooter, drawing the weapon and firing were a single action. Drawing was definitely justified. (If he hadn't, we'd probably be discussing why he allowed himself to be stomped to death when he had the means to stop it) Firing, perhaps not; at least the jury didn't think so.

In his dazed condition and from the ground, could he tell that the threat was probably over and stop before he pulled the trigger? I don't know. Did the jury even consider that? Don't know that either.

 

[davidsog]

Distance. Each technique has a window of effectiveness based upon the amount of space between the two combatants. The fighter must control the distance between
himself and the enemy in order to control the fight.

https://sill-www.army.mil/428thfa/FM 3-25.150 (Combatives).pdf


Backing up in a fight does not mean retreat. It very well could mean the last thing you see before death.