Poll of the Day > Stand Your Ground Shooter who was PROUD to KILL A MAN is found GUILTY!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

49 y/o Michael Drejka, the man who said was PROUD when he killed an unarmed man who SHOVED him to the ground after he was arguing with his gf over a parking spot has been found GUILTY of manslaughter!!

He used the STAND YOUR GROUND defense in the 2018 murder as he admited to shooting Markeis McGlockton as his defense unsuccessfully tried to argue it was self defense that reignited the national debate on the controversial law

The gunman will be sentenced on October 10 and faces 9 to 15 years in Prison!!

The 49 y/o was arguing with his gf over a parking spot in a disabled bay outside a foodstore in Clearwater as Michael is NOT disabled himself but said he sees people abusing the handicap spot and it "upset him"

McGlockton emerged from the store and pushed Drejka over that caused him to reach out for his gun and shoot him SEVERAL times even as McGlockton was escaping

Jury took just 6 hours to make a decision that the pig is guilty

Family members of McGlockton wept as the verdict was read and hugged and shook hands with the prosecutors

Monica Robinson, McGlockton's mother said "This conviction doesn't bring ourson back, but it does give us some sense of justice beause far too often criminal justice system fails usby allowing peope who take lives of unarmed Black people to walk free as though their lives meant nothing. We're thankful the jury got it right. We're thankful the jury saw what we saw, that a parking lot vigilante with an axe to grind,murdered Markeis"

Attorneys for Drejka argued he thought he was in danger of being KICKED even though McGlockton hadn't approached him further when he shoved him.

Scott Rosenwasser said "Did Michael Drejka reasonably believe he was about to die? Did he believe he was about to be beaten to a pulp? No.You cannot shoot an unarmed retreating man, regardless if he's pushed you"

Prosecutors thought of him as a "vigilante enforcer" who had a "pet peeve" about able bodied people in disabled spots

They tried to use the Stand Your Ground defense that any kind of violence should assume harm and a right to kill someone but the jury didn't buy his defense, nor his lack of awareness after he said he was PROUD he killed him and that he told witnesses that the "surveillance footage" speaks for itself..

More than 17 witnesses took the stand as a video Drejka was played where he said "I shoot to save my own ass. And that's that"

When asked why he kept shooting even though McGlockton was running away, he said he had to NEUTRALIZE the attacker much like policeman and that he had to "finish what he started"

Stand Your Ground Law has been controversial since the death of Trayvon Martin when George Zimmerman opened fire on the young teen after he accused him of "suspicious behaviour" in the neighborhood and claimed he was attacked by the teen and had to use deadly force.

Do you support "Stand Your Ground"?

Drejka - Going Down







McGlockton - Deceaased



McGlockton's family & girlfriend -






---

Shame that manslaughter was the worst charge they pursued on him, but better than nothing.

I hope they included testimony from the other people this psycho has threatened in the past, I recall at least one other guy interviewed by the news who said Drejka yelled he was going to shoot him and went to his vehicle to presumably retrieve his gun (the guy left in his car before he could).

This was NOT his first instance of doing this.

Thats the problem with stand your ground laws, they just get abused by psychos who get a free pass as long as they claim they felt their life was in danger

---

streamofthesky posted...

Shame that manslaughter was the worst charge they pursued on him, but better than nothing.

I hope they included testimony from the other people this psycho has threatened in the past, I recall at least one other guy interviewed by the news who said Drejka yelled he was going to shoot him and went to his vehicle to presumably retrieve his gun (the guy left in his car before he could).

This was NOT his first instance of doing this.

Manslaughter doesn't require them to engage in intent. So I can understand why they went that route to maximize their chance at a conviction.

Stand your ground laws need to be struck down, we already have a right to defend ourselves. Stand your ground laws just seem to exist to allow people to initiate a conflict and then murder someone.

BlackScythe0 posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Shame that manslaughter was the worst charge they pursued on him, but better than nothing.

I hope they included testimony from the other people this psycho has threatened in the past, I recall at least one other guy interviewed by the news who said Drejka yelled he was going to shoot him and went to his vehicle to presumably retrieve his gun (the guy left in his car before he could).

This was NOT his first instance of doing this.

Manslaughter doesn't require them to engage in intent. So I can understand why they went that route to maximize their chance at a conviction.

Stand your ground laws need to be struck down, we already have a right to defend ourselves. Stand your ground laws just seem to exist to allow people to initiate a conflict and then murder someone.

I refer to SYG laws as "murder the witnesses" laws.
They seem to be most effective at saving a murderer from justice when he just so happens to have "defended himself" from the only other person or persons who witnessed the events that transpired.
Still blows my mind that in the Trayvon Martin trial, so much debate was on whether Zimmerman had a legal right to defend himself w/ lethal force...
And yet not once was it brought up that Martin was effectively standing HIS ground w/ non-lethal force...cause from his perspective, he's an unarmed minor walking home in the dark and a stranger with a gun is stalking him...
But b/c he wasn't alive to present things from his perspective, the narrative (and the timeline of the supposed events themselves) was told solely from Zimmerman's claims, with no other witnesses to challenge his statements as possibly being false or exaggerated/misleading, beyond what could be proven to not match up in time w/ the call logs to the dispatchers he spoke with. Did Trayvon even approach him vs. the other way around? We just have to take George's word for it!

Another psycho racist claiming self defense...
---

As a general rule of thumb, if you're shooting a fleeing man in the back, it's usually not self-defense. The guy definitely assaulted him, but as soon as the guy started running away, it was over.

streamofthesky posted...

Shame that manslaughter was the worst charge they pursued on him, but better than nothing.

...probably because it started off as a self-defense? If they wanted to go with murder, the bar would have been far higher and he might have walked.

streamofthesky posted...

I hope they included testimony from the other people this psycho has threatened in the past, I recall at least one other guy interviewed by the news who said Drejka yelled he was going to shoot him and went to his vehicle to presumably retrieve his gun (the guy left in his car before he could).

Sounds like the kind of thing Trump's red flag laws could have addressed.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Stand your ground laws need to be struck down, we already have a right to defend ourselves. Stand your ground laws just seem to exist to allow people to initiate a conflict and then murder someone.

SYG *is* your right to defend yourself. In areas without it, even unarmed self-defense can be prosecuted. States without it have duty-to-retreat laws where you have to prove that you made every possible effort to escape the confrontation which, in a life or death situation, can get you killed. The big exception to duty-to-retreat laws in the US is the Castle Doctrine, but that *only* removes the duty to retreat within the home.

While SYG can be abused, it's not the kind of carte blanche you seem to think it is. A person can't punch somebody, get attacked in response, and then reasonably attempt to claim SYG (well, maybe barring maybe his opponent escalating the conflict with a lethal weapon or something).

streamofthesky posted...

I refer to SYG laws as "murder the witnesses" laws.
They seem to be most effective at saving a murderer from justice when he just so happens to have "defended himself" from the only other person or persons who witnessed the events that transpired.

lolwut? SYG cases generally involve the defendant and ONE victim. They don't kill everybody else around so nobody sees it. And it's not unreasonable in self-defense for there to only be two people involved.
---

streamofthesky posted...

And yet not once was it brought up that Martin was effectively standing HIS ground w/ non-lethal force...cause from his perspective, he's an unarmed minor walking home in the dark and a stranger with a gun is stalking him...

Uh, what? Among other problems with your mischaracterization, Trayvon didn't know that Zimmerman had a gun, which we know because he wouldn't have gone back to confront a guy with a gun. Otherwise, Trayvon had managed to lose Zimmerman before going back to find him so, if anything, that would be the kind of abuse you're complaining about.

ZBug_ posted...

Another psycho racist claiming self defense...

....and you're claiming racism based on what exactly?
---

Crazy that our resident left leaning centrist thinks the white man in this story was entirely justified in killing the unarmed black man

Never expected him to express such a viewpoint

---

Mead posted...

Crazy that our resident left leaning centrist thinks the white man in this story was entirely justified in killing the unarmed black man

Never expected him to express such a viewpoint

Crazy how I say one thing and our resident trouble-maker pretends I said the exact opposite.

Never expected him to deliberately mischaracterize what somebody said. Granted, if it was just mischief, it'd be one thing but there's a more malicious reason for him to be lying about shit.
---

Broken_Zeus posted...

Mead posted...

Crazy that our resident left leaning centrist thinks the white man in this story was entirely justified in killing the unarmed black man

Never expected him to express such a viewpoint

Crazy how I say one thing and our resident trouble-maker pretends I said the exact opposite.

Never expected him to deliberately mischaracterize what somebody said. Granted, if it was just mischief, it'd be one thing but there's a more malicious reason for him to be lying about shit.

Is there any reason you repeatedly copy the post and replace their words with your words?

I mean, I get it if youre not smart enough to just generate your own rebuttal, but dont make it a pattern.

Mead posted...

Thats the problem with stand your ground laws, they just get abused by psychos who get a free pass as long as they claim they felt their life was in danger

This is pretty rare compared to the many instances of people defending themselves or their loved ones. Its also quite apparent this guy (the shooter) was mouthing off and instigated this, and hes pretty much a POS.

Big surprise, Zeus thinks stand your ground laws aren't racist. It is just a total coincidence that they favour white people by a wide margin. It is a good thing this turd got at least some sentence for murdering that poor man.

The guy was looking for a confrontation, so he could shoot someone.

Thank God he got at least partially what he deserved.
---

I dont appreciate being accused of being more malicious than mischievous

---

Broken_Zeus posted...

SYG *is* your right to defend yourself.

No.

I'd like to know how the actual law is worded and how it applies to this case. Without that it sounds like he was acting within the law and should appeal the verdict.
---

Psychopath
---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'd like to know how the actual law is worded and how it applies to this case. Without that it sounds like he was acting within the law and should appeal the verdict.

Nope. Specifically stated he shot the dude in the back. Laws require you to fear for your life that argument cannot be reasonably made in this case.

I wouldn't be surprised if he appealed of course, it's just it seems like you think he should get off which is difficult for me to understand and I don't think he will win if he does.

BlackScythe0 posted...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'd like to know how the actual law is worded and how it applies to this case. Without that it sounds like he was acting within the law and should appeal the verdict.

Nope. Specifically stated he shot the dude in the back. Laws require you to fear for your life that argument cannot be reasonably made in this case.

I wouldn't be surprised if he appealed of course, it's just it seems like you think he should get off which is difficult for me to understand and I don't think he will win if he does.

As you quoted "I'd like to know how the actual law is worded and how it applies to this case". From what was posted by Full Throttle it was argued whether he believed he was in danger but I can't tell from this whether that's a requirement of the law since it was also argued "that any kind of violence should assume harm and a right to kill". If the latter argument is valid then the verdict was unjust.
---

Will he still be proud after tossing salad everyday?
---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

From what was posted by Full Throttle it was argued whether he believed he was in danger but I can't tell from this whether that's a requirement of the law since it was also argued "that any kind of violence should assume harm and a right to kill". If the latter argument is valid then the verdict was unjust.

That's probably why it's manslaughter. He was justified when he started to shoot, but when the guy turned to run, further shots were unlawful but he was panicking.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

From what was posted by Full Throttle it was argued whether he believed he was in danger but I can't tell from this whether that's a requirement of the law since it was also argued "that any kind of violence should assume harm and a right to kill". If the latter argument is valid then the verdict was unjust.

That's probably why it's manslaughter. He was justified when he started to shoot, but when the guy turned to run, further shots were unlawful but he was panicking.

Where are you even getting this information?
---

EvilMegas posted...

The guy was looking for a confrontation, so he could shoot someone.

Where are you even getting this information?
---

The fact that he started a fight and then ahot someone.

He shot the guy once in the chest and no more.
---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'd like to know how the actual law is worded and how it applies to this case. Without that it sounds like he was acting within the law and should appeal the verdict.

Nope. Specifically stated he shot the dude in the back. Laws require you to fear for your life that argument cannot be reasonably made in this case.

I wouldn't be surprised if he appealed of course, it's just it seems like you think he should get off which is difficult for me to understand and I don't think he will win if he does.

As you quoted "I'd like to know how the actual law is worded and how it applies to this case". From what was posted by Full Throttle it was argued whether he believed he was in danger but I can't tell from this whether that's a requirement of the law since it was also argued "that any kind of violence should assume harm and a right to kill". If the latter argument is valid then the verdict was unjust.

Nope.

Never heard of any law that lets you shoot a man in the back.

This happened in florida, and do you not recall anything of the Zimmerman trial? Like you're basically trying to argue, as I see it, "any kind of violence allows me to kill a man in retaliation" which isn't the case. The law requires you to be defending yourself, not retaliating, and you can't prove defense when you shoot someone in the back because no jury is going to reasonably feel you fear for your life in that situation.

Zimmerman got off for shooting as his head was getting pounded into concrete and killing the only witness to counter his story.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Like you're basically trying to argue, as I see it, "any kind of violence allows me to kill a man in retaliation" which isn't the case.

I'm not arguing this. The defense argued this. I'm saying I don't see it being suitably refuted in what was posted. Perhaps it is a valid interpretation of the relevant law. With what has been presented by Full Throttle I can't say with certainty that it isn't.
---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

Like you're basically trying to argue, as I see it, "any kind of violence allows me to kill a man in retaliation" which isn't the case.

I'm not arguing this. The defense argued this. I'm saying I don't see it being suitably refuted in what was posted. Perhaps it is a valid interpretation of the relevant law. With what has been presented by Full Throttle I can't say with certainty that it isn't.

I don't see how you can see that as a valid interpretation of the law.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I don't see how you can see that as a valid interpretation of the law.

I don't know how the law is worded. I can't say that it is, nor can I say that it isn't, a valid interpretation.
Since the juries' verdict indicates that that they could say with certainty (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that it was not a valid defense I would like to know what they were presented to give them this certainty.
---

Is this about that guy that bull rushed that dude at a 7-11?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

I don't see how you can see that as a valid interpretation of the law.

I don't know how the law is worded. I can't say that it is, nor can I say that it isn't, a valid interpretation.
Since the juries' verdict indicates that that they could say with certainty (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that it was not a valid defense I would like to know what they were presented to give them this certainty.

You're being insane.