[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Bang / Guns Title: Florida man who claimed self-defense after shooting man over parking spot sentenced A Florida man who claimed he fatally shot an unarmed man in self-defense after the two squabbled over a handicapped parking space was sentenced Thursday to 20 years in prison. Michael Drejka, 49, was found guilty of manslaughter in August in the death of Markeis McGlockton, a 28-year-old man, in the parking lot of a Clearwater convenience store in July 2018. Described by Circuit Court Judge Joseph Bulone as a "wanna-be" police officer and a self-appointed "handicapped parking space monitor," Drejka confronted McGlockton's girlfriend, questioning why she parked in a handicap-reserved parking space without a permit. During the initial encounter, McGlocktown was inside the store with his 5-year-old son. When he left the store, he shoved Drejka to the ground, surveillance video showed. Drejka then pulled out a Glock .40-caliber handgun and shot McGlockton in the chest. He later told investigators he was in fear of a physical threat to his safety. McGlocktown died at a hospital 30 minutes later. The shooting brought national attention to Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law, which, since enacted in 2005, established the right for gun owners to apply lethal force to defend themselves against threats regardless of whether it was possible to retreat first. Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri initially did not arrest Drejka, saying the controversial law precluded him from doing so. Three weeks passed before Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney Bernie McCabe announced that his office was formally arresting and charging Drejka with manslaughter. The case touched on race, given that Drejka was white and McGlocktown was black. Drejka on Thursday was sentenced to two decades in prison, with credit for 92 days served, WTVT reported. He faced up to 30 years behind bars. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5. He would have been able to use the gun and get off under Stand Your Ground if he had waited until the black dude actually tried to attack him again. I think the sentence is excessive and derives from the online political lynch mobs that seem to form regularly. A sentence in the range of 10-15 years would have been more sensible. It may be that the prosecutor had witnesses to support the judge's conclusion that the perp was a cop-wannabe and busybody; our reports haven't included that many details on the case. Politically, Pinellas County does seem to have a decent GOP advantage in mid-term elections. I don't think anyone could call it a Dem powerhouse district.
#5. To: Tooconservative (#3) He would have been able to use the gun and get off under Stand Your Ground if he had waited until the black dude actually tried to attack him again. True, though it's unlikely he'd do that with a gun pointed at him. Apparently he only attacks people and pushes them to the ground when they're not expecting it. I know what the video showed, but we don't know what was going through the defendant's head. If he was stunned by the fall and thought another attack was imminent, self-defense was warranted. After all, the perp was half his age and twice his size and instigated the physical assault. You can't do that and expect everyone to pretend nothing happened. The judge and jury are acting as though there was no provocation. That he shot the guy because they had words.
Replies to Comment # 5. The judge and jury are acting as though there was no provocation. That he shot the guy because they had words. If I were on that jury, I would have taken the sheriff more seriously. I would have voted to acquit or possibly - if the guy was a self-appointed cop or dangerous with a gun - a sentence for 8 years or less. Or I'd let the jury hang itself and let the state prosecute again. I think that juries sometimes think wrongheadedly. Much like voters who are very conservative or very liberal and who will refuse to vote for their party's candidate in some race or will even vote for the other party "to teach 'em a lesson", I think juries also try to "send a message". I don't think "sending a message" works at the ballot box or in criminal justice. It does not do what you hope it will.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 5. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|