SYG Shooter Found Guilty of Manslaughter

[davidsog]

In his dazed condition and from the ground,

How did he get in that dazed condition on the ground? Was he suddenly sick??

NO, he as attacked with extreme violence.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It is classic ability, opportunity, jeopardy, preclusion. You need to be able to demonstrate that a reasonable person, who knew what you knew, would have reached the same conclusion.

Is it is possible his retreat was to gain a better advantage for attack? Sure; but if you can’t explain why you believed that in a way that sounds reasonable to the average joe, you are probably going to be convicted.

 

[manta49]

davidsog
Senior Member

Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 945
Quote:
In his dazed condition and from the ground,
How did he get in that dazed condition on the ground? Was he suddenly sick??

NO, he as attacked with extreme violence

You really need to stop exaggerating he was pushed, if that is your view of extreme violence you have lead a very sheltered life. This is a example of extreme violence.

The death toll in Saturday's mass shooting in Texas has risen to seven, police in the US state say. The shooting, Texas' second in August

.

What would he have being charged with probably as bellow.

Simple assault, usually charged as a misdemeanor, is the least serious form of assault. It involves minor injury or a limited threat of violence.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

You really need to stop exaggerating he was pushed, if that is your view of extreme violence you have lead a very sheltered life. This is a example of extreme violence.

That was no exaggeration. Drejka was pushed violently enough that he was displaced laterally at least six or eight feet, knocked off his feet, and rolled over due to the momentum of the shove. Frankly, if you DON'T think that was extreme violence, then I don't want to ever live in your world.

What would he have being charged with probably as bellow.

Simple assault, usually charged as a misdemeanor, is the least serious form of assault. It involves minor injury or a limited threat of violence.

I provided a link to the Florida statutes several posts above. Under Florida law, harsh words = assault. As soon as physical contact is made, it becomes battery.

 

[manta49]

That was no exaggeration. Drejka was pushed violently enough that he was displaced laterally at least six or eight feet, knocked off his feet, and rolled over due to the momentum of the shove. Frankly, if you DON'T think that was extreme violence, then I don't want to ever live in your world.

For me mass shootings stabbings rape murders are extreme violence, even in law that would not be seen as extreme violence. Most people would see shooting dead someone for pushing them as extreme excessive violence, including the jury in this case.

if you DON'T think that was extreme violence, then I don't want to ever live in your world.

I find that a bit ironic, i live in world were extreme violence was a normal every day event. But i think i feel safer here than i would in a country were pushing somewhere could get you a death sentience, and what i find more disturbing is the number of people that support the shooter.

The post-1968 violence dwarfs any previous conflict in scale, intensity and duration. More people have died in communal violence in the past quarter century in Northern Ireland — 3,289 by the end of 1999. In addition, over 40,000 people have been injured, representing almost 3 percent of the population. Further extrapolating the deaths to the United States, some 526,000 would have died, more than died during the Second World War (405,000) and nine times the American war dead in Vietnam.

 

[USNRet93]

That was no exaggeration. Drejka was pushed violently enough that he was displaced laterally at least six or eight feet, knocked off his feet, and rolled over due to the momentum of the shove. Frankly, if you DON'T think that was extreme violence, then I don't want to ever live in your world.

Watch the video again..he was pushed, he fell down. Extreme violence? Not IMHO..

But i think i feel safer here than i would in a country were pushing somewhere could get you a death sentience, and what i find more disturbing is the number of people that support the shooter

agree...

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Whether a push, or even this particular push, is “extreme violence” is irrelevant. One of the factors that must usually be met is the other person must use or threaten to use force likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.

Pushing someone, just by itself, has caused both death and serious bodily injury. Pushing someone in a parking lot with parking curbs to bounce your head off or passing vehicles to stumble in front of is a very dangerous thing for people to be doing.

Had the pusher kept advancing, I think a competent case can be made for self-defense under Florida law. Would it have succeeded? Maybe.

There are still lots of people (as demonstrated in this thread) who think themselves wise to the ways of the world and who are unaware of the regularity with which a grown adult male slamming his fist into your head or pushing a 200lb guy down onto concrete causes serious injury and sometimes death. Those people won’t think it was OK to shoot until the other guy seriously injures you, and then maybe. If they are on your jury, you’ve got a hard sell.

Here you’ve got a harder sell because with no apparent weapon and having created space, it is difficult to argue opportunity existed even before the problems with preclusion.

 

[ligonierbill]

And there are many people, as evidenced by this thread, that are already putting their case together for shooting someone. Jury? Folks like us, who carry pistols for self defense, are going to be questioned in detail during voir dire. Pretty good chance we won't make the cut. The jury pool here in the north end of Appalachia is pretty familiar with various forms of violent behavior. Most have known of, seen or participated in a parking lot shoving match. I personally know of two cases where someone was killed or injured (brain damage) by a single punch or hitting their head on the curb. It happens. But if you start the fight and then escalate it from empty hands to gunfire, your odds of acquittal are poor indeed.

 

[zincwarrior]

And there are many people, as evidenced by this thread, that are already putting their case together for shooting someone. Jury? Folks like us, who carry pistols for self defense, are going to be questioned in detail during voir dire. Pretty good chance we won't make the cut. The jury pool here in the north end of Appalachia is pretty familiar with various forms of violent behavior. Most have known of, seen or participated in a parking lot shoving match. I personally know of two cases where someone was killed or injured (brain damage) by a single punch or hitting their head on the curb. It happens. But if you start the fight and then escalate it from empty hands to gunfire, your odds of acquittal are poor indeed.

Exactly.

 

[reynolds357]

At the time of the incident, I watched and rewatched the video numerous times -- at normal speed and at reduced speed. Having experienced both temporal distortion and spatial distortion ("tunnel vision") in more than one crisis situation in my life, I remain of the opinion that Drejka (the shooter) was not guilty of anything more than trying too hard to be a defender of handicapped parking spaces. Having seen discussions of the case on TFL and on other forums, a hung jury would not have surprised me at all. That every single member of the jury voted to convict I find absolutely astonishing.

I think (and hope) the conviction will be overturned on appeal.

It was an emotional, not legal decision. What he did was clearly allowed by the stand your ground statute.

 

[reynolds357]

For me mass shootings stabbings rape murders are extreme violence, even in law that would not be seen as extreme violence. Most people would see shooting dead someone for pushing them as extreme excessive violence, including the jury in this case.



I find that a bit ironic, i live in world were extreme violence was a normal every day event. But i think i feel safer here than i would in a country were pushing somewhere could get you a death sentience, and what i find more disturbing is the number of people that support the shooter.

Pushing someone? Pushing someone down on concrete. Concrete is an impact weapon.

 

[manta49]

Pushing someone? Pushing someone down on concrete. Concrete is an impact weapon

I would agree if he hit him with a Concrete block or slammed his head on the concrete after he was down, then you would be using the ground as a weapon. He pushed him he fell down he was uninjured, the jury fund him guilty.

 

[zukiphile]

It was an emotional, not legal decision.

That's always a risk of a jury evaluation. A case can be won by picking the right fact finder.

What he did was clearly allowed by the stand your ground statute.

That it made its way to a jury suggests to me that it wasn't clear. You've a defendant who makes a hobby of being a weird busy body about handicapped spaces. You've an assailant whose attack isn't provoked, so a defender's calculation about the assailant's plan isn't going to benefit from a clear and simple motive, like wanting the defendant's wallet. Top it off with an assailant who appears to continue to approach the defendant right up until the defendant draws and points the pistol, but the presentation gave the assailant pause. That doesn't even reach the issue of how or whether the surprise of being blindsided would influence what one would reasonably assess as a grave threat.

 

[zincwarrior]

It was an emotional, not legal decision. What he did was clearly allowed by the stand your ground statute.

Again can you cite a similar case that went the other way?

 

[manta49]

Originally Posted by reynolds357 View Post
It was an emotional, not legal decision. What he did was clearly allowed by the stand your ground statute.

Its clearly not, or he would not have being charged found guilty and be in jail.

 

[zincwarrior]

Its clearly not, or he would not have being charged found guilty and be in jail.

Exactly. Those arguing it was legal would have more support if they were able to show a plethora of similar cases that found self defense.

 

[zukiphile]

That is incorrect.

Again can you cite a similar case that went the other way?

That you pose the question again after it has been explained why the question isn't pertinent indicates that you either didn't, or don't care to, grasp the irrelevance of the answer to that question. That another jury in another place would acquit where self defense is asserted and the attacker is fleeing doesn't explain the law of the matter to anyone.

Below is a link to an article on a CA case in which the attackers were fleeing, not advancing on the defendant at the time she drew to shoot, but the defendant perceived a threat, and was acquitted by a jury.

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/0...-her-over-a-jury-acquitted-her-in-40-minutes/

What do you think that says about the state of the law?

 

[zincwarrior]

That is incorrect.



That you pose the question again after it has been explained why the question isn't pertinent indicates that you either didn't, or don't care to, grasp the irrelevance of the answer to that question. That another jury in another place would acquit where self defense is asserted and the attacker is fleeing doesn't explain the law of the matter to anyone.

Below is a link to an article on a CA case in which the attackers were fleeing, not advancing on the defendant at the time she drew to shoot, but the defendant perceived a threat, and was acquitted by a jury.

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/0...-her-over-a-jury-acquitted-her-in-40-minutes/

What do you think that says about the state of the law?

Completely inapplicable. She shot the tire of a truck coming towards her.

The state of the law is what courts and juries decide it is. What's funny is the case is an exact scenario we discussed in my first CHL class. The conclusion was while the aggressor could still be a threat, you should not shoot, but remain ready to defend yourself.

If the shooter had not shot but only pointed the weapon, they should have been just fine.

 

[zukiphile]

Completely inapplicable. She shot the tire of a truck coming towards her.

The state of the law is what courts and juries decide it is.

As I explained for you previously, juries do not decide what the law is. In both of these cases, it is the legislature that makes the law.

Note that the truck was pulling out heading away from the defendant. She employed deadly force and articulated her reasonable fear of harm despite the unambiguous flight of the attackers after having assaulted her.

It isn't that this acquittal isn't applicable. It has the same salient elements. It's what you requested, a jury verdict that went the other way.

If that isn't "applicable", then asking for it isn't a brilliant question.

 

[manta49]

Its not even the jury's verdict. If it was that clear cut legal under the sates self defence laws then the prosecutors would not have supported a prosecution i assume they know the law better than us, they would have had no grounds.