I think that's the biggest lesson to take away from this case; that you can be justified in drawing your weapon without using it. I don't know how common the idea that "if you draw it, you have to use it" is, but you sure see an awful lot of people saying how "you should only draw your weapon if you're justified in using it", which isn't quite the same, but pretty close.
Marc Grundfest Agreed theybare telling people to hesitate. They have not even thought about the scenerio where this guy backs off blades his draw and then turns and shoots Draco. They are putting mire responsibility on the victim to take chances with life, than the agressor who ran up and violently assaulted a guy so forcefully he flew off his feet and slide as he landed to put his life in jeopardy in order to hope the guy doesnt want to harm him and that they guy is not armed.
*_>"I think that's the biggest lesson to take away from this case; that you can be justified in drawing your weapon without using it."_* True, but I generally disagree with not firing when you draw. In most American jurisdictions, the only time you can pull out a gun in public is when you reasonably fear that your life is in immediate jeopardy or that your body is about to suffer a grave injury. If that threshold isn't met, you will likely be charged with brandishing and aggravated assault. If that threshold is met, why would you waste your time threatening someone when your life or body is on the line? That is incredibly foolish. You are right that there is no legal obligation to fire a drawn gun. However, it's generally not a good idea. As it applies to this case, however, the shooter took a few seconds to draw his gun and aim it. In that time frame, the deceased backed off and altered the dynamic of the confrontation. If the shooter was faster at employing the gun, his case for self-defense would be a lot better than it is. People can debate if he was justified in pulling out the gun at all; I don't think the shove was violent enough and moving toward him on the ground was threatening enough to instill a reasonable fear that either death or grave bodily injury were imminent.
@ oziumzx *_>"If you’re carrying a gun you shouldn’t instigate a confrontation that could escalate uncontrollably unless someone’s life is in danger."_* He didn't "instigate a confrontation" by saying something about the illegal parking job. However, he was foolish for how he handled the situation and engaging in a shouting war. He should have walked over to the car and said _"Hello, ma'am. I noticed you are parked in a handicapped spot without displaying the proper credentials. There are many disabled people who shot here who rely on that spot being open to them. I know you are here for just a few minutes, but could you please move to a normal parking spot? Thank you."_
Oziumzx is right. Remember, the 2a clearly states we have right to bear arms so long as you let everyone treat you like shit and never stand up for yoursel the rest of your life.
I've had to pull a gun on someone threatening me 3 times and all 3 times didn't have to fire. They stopped immediately and took off. This is why I carry a firearm: because it solves problems without having to pull the trigger quite often.
This case is so important for all ccw holders to learn from. You can't prevolk a fight and then shoot an unarmed man. Then it becomes murder. Its sad that we have to learn from real life scenarios but this stuff is helping me to know when or when not to present arms. Sad situation.
John I want to thank you and the whole ASP team. I am a lawful CCW owner in Florida. This is a very useful video as is all of your videos are. I have learned more on your two channels than I have anywhere else period. FAN FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!
You know, John always talks about situational awareness. If the shooter had not been so blinded by anger, he would have been aware of the approaching boyfriend.
I’m really glad you brought this back up again John. I really feel as though this is a perfect case of murder disguised as a self defense situation. This man seems as though he had an itchy finger and makes other responsible gun owners look bad. I also think that by the Panellus County Sheriff falsely claiming that this was a stand your ground case, it jeopardizes the law for all us Florida gun owners that need the Stand your ground law. I counted from when he got pushed till he shot and it was almost 3 seconds. During those 3 seconds Mr McLaughlin doesn’t make a second advance after his primary attack. 3 seconds in a self defense situation is a long time. It’s was enough time for Drejke to recuperate from the initial attack, draw his gun, mentally check off 4 fundamental rules of firearms safety and pull the trigger. To me that was long enough to have determined that the threat was stopped and no lethal force was needed. Florida law allows us to stop the threat. My prayers to the McLaughlin Family.
There is also the aspect of if the shooter could even discern the step back from his visual perspective on the ground. It seems real clear to us looking laterally and we can see that creation of distance very obviously. Also there are several aspects of disparity of force at play here.
As a retired Florida cop, (25 years), I can assure you that this state is full of people who, for some reason, feel the need to control everyone else's life. The vast majority aren't from here, but from some northeastern cesspool. As a result, I've seen many dozens go to jail (or prison) for simply being incapable of minding their own business and let a stupid, insignificant matter go.
Florida law does not allow Markeis McGlockton to assault Michael Drejka especially when he and his family was not assaulted at all it was only a verbal argument nothing physical. The State of Florida issued Michael Drejka a conceal carry permit for his defense and for the defense of others this does not make Michael Drejka a feelance policeman now McGlockton was backing away from Michael Drejka like maybe three feet away so Drejka Attorney still have to prove in court that the threat has to be imminent and rumors is circuling in town that Michael Drejka has a history of paper trail with the authorities which the people of the Anti Gun world is going to say that Michael Drejka has a pattern of bad behavior.
Smith that all sounds good but remember the Supreme Court has ruled that they want you to use deadly force as a last resort not as a first resort it’s conflicting because Florida laws say one thing and the Supreme Court says another. I always used to tell conceal carry holders just carry your weapon for your defense and for the defense of others because you start playing cop out their and something seriously happens your not shielded by any civil liability but guys like Michael Drejka don’t know how to stay under the radar.
I see people running stop signs and it pisses me off. But I don’t have the authority to pull them over and give them a ticket. This guy had no authority to walk up to this people because they were parked there. At the time he shot him he was clearly not in danger for his life.
Here is an idea for a video John. Set up a scenario, maybe similar to the topic of this video. Make it simple, then have terry walk us through exactly what will happen if we have to use firearms legal protection. For example u get arrested and you make a call to firearms legal protection while in jail. Are they sending someone? How do you arrange bond with FLP? etc. Hope that is clear? but I think it would be a good topic.
I filmed this with Terry on Saturday. On Monday, Michael Drejka was charged with manslaughter: abcnews.go.com/US/shooter-florida-stand-ground-case-charged-manslaughter/story?id=57151343 Here's the charging affidavit for anyone who wants to read: www.scribd.com/document/386120319/Drejka-Charging-Affidavit-180813
I see on the Firearms Legal Protection web site that terms like "legally use a firearm" and "lawfully uses a firearm" are part of the definition of the services provided. I find that a bit confusing. "Firearms Legal Protection provides uncapped legal defense coverage for its members who legally use a firearm in self-defense or defense of others. Firearms Legal Protection is a legal service plan that provides its members with peace of mind that they can protect themselves and their loved ones." This statement from the web site seems to say that a person may be covered or not covered. Who determines if the person is covered? Also, what if the company initially decides to cover a defendant but the defendant is ultimately found to be guilty of "unlawfully" using the firearm. Does Firearms Legal Protection then seek to recoup their expenses against the guilty party they initially defended? It all sounds like a good idea as John discusses it with his friend but I hear them using the "qualifying" terms while they are talking and I just feel like those "qualifying" terms are red flags. Sincerely, am I the only one who eyes these types of plans dubiously? Am I missing something? God knows, if you ever end up in a situation like that, it would be great to have someone come to your defense. But how terrible would it be if it turned out to NOT be what you expected?
I want to let you know I love these legal discussions. I think they are just as helpful as the self defense videos. The fight after the fight. I would like to see more.
John, there's a lot of virtue signaling going on here. As adults we don't always have to agree 100% on everything, I think you have a ton of good advice. You absolutely provide a one of a kind genuine service to the community at large. Terry spent a lot of this episode trying to minimize what this attacker did to Mr Drejka. How many videos have you personally seen of people getting pushed or knocked to the ground and never getting back up? Kicked or stomped in the head, I'm sure it's plenty. We have to put ourselves in Mr. Drejka's shoes at that brief moment in time, from the angle he was in.. looking up at someone in that stance who just violently attacked you, standing over you. From the comfort of our comfy chairs, Monday morning quarter backing, it's easy to say.. oh there was a pause, he took a step back. We don't see the guy's face or attitude in any great detail, we don't hear what's being said after the push. What must it have been like to see, feel and experience all of that through Mr. Drejka's eyes and senses. I have a strong feeling, had Mr. Drejka not been armed, he would have been stomped into a greasy spot in that parking lot, and no one would have given a second thought about him.
There is zero virtue signaling going on here. We established early and completely that the assault that McGlockton committed on Drejka was wrong. He would have faced charges for it if he had lived and rightly so. That's a moot point because he's dead.
I don't think it was his intent. but the attorney seemed to suggest you need to be in immediate fear and not Imminent fear in order to act... that is false. Imminent threat is where force begins in most instances, and definitely this one.
I walked into a taco bell yesterday in Florida and saw a crackhead threatening people with a broom handle. I had my gun on me and felt no need to even talk to her. She was swinging it everywhere and almost hit me. She eventually just walked out. If I was a hothead, I could have legally pulled my gun on her in Florida, but I didnt. IF YOU CARRY A GUN ON YOU, AVOID CONFLICT AT ALL COSTS!!!
It was very clear that the simple presentation of the gun defused the confrontation. We don’t shoot to spite each other. The man backed away with his hands up. Nobody can honestly say from that point that the other was in any danger. Had he continued his assault in any physical form then it would be different. If you can’t come to that same conclusion from this then you are simply not responsible enough to carry a gun.
So just for academic discussion I didn't come away with an exact understanding of how FLP decides if a member's shooting incident qualifies for plan benefits. Terry said in this case the shooter would indeed be covered because his actions "could be" viewed as self defense. Define "could be". Both John and Terry clearly express opinions during the video that this shooting was not justified. Terry said it "does not rise to the level" that justifies lethal force. Also, the FLP website states coverage is for "members who legally use a firearm in self defense". Terry explains that a premeditated robbery of a 7-11 is obviously not covered under an FLP plan. That much is easy to understand but it doesn't help me understand where covered departs from not covered. Does FLP apply specific criteria in making the pay out vs don't pay out decision? If so, what are they? Maybe that matter is defined in the plan documents but it isn't on the website as far as I know.
Who appointed that guy disabled parking police. If he would have minded his own business that man would be still alive. I think he shot him because he was pissed.
I agree with this lawyer here entirely. If I were in McGlockton’s shoes, I wouldn’t like to see some asshole shouting down my girlfriend/wife in the parking lot, either. I might have shoved that fucker, too. Pushing doesn’t call for a deadly force response especially not when the other guy backs down after seeing a gun. You don’t brandish a weapon just to ward off an attacker, but if an attacker is warded off then you don’t shoot them.
"Gun goes on, ego goes off" Not the grammar but a good axiom and you get the point. And definitely, you do not want to be the defender of handicapped drivers or traffic enforcement just because you are armed.
Definitely hear a lot of people say if you gotta draw you gotta shoot. I do wonder if that 2 sec pause was him thinking about it or not. He clearly was not justified with that 2 second pause. I wonder how it would go without that pause.
On the “firearms legal protection” side of things... If the shooter is found guilty of unlawfully using force (whatever crime that turns out to be), does FLP still cover the costs of legal representation?
@ActiveSelfProtectionExtra - Are you sure about that? I may not have specialized in contract law, but I know how to read a contract. The one on FLP's website states: _The following Legal Services Benefit and Other Benefits will be provided to a Member in the event a Use of Weapon Incident occurs in the state the Member is a resident, and other states to the extent allowed by Applicable Law, during the term of this Contract._ and _We will provide a Member the Legal Services Benefit described in this Section 2.1 by a Contracting Attorney for a criminal investigation or proceeding or civil lawsuit arising from a Use of Weapon Incident_ That sounds nice, but what does a "Use of Weapon Incident" mean? _For the purposes of this Contract, the following definitions apply: . . . “Use of Weapon Incident” - means any incident where a Member either displays or utilizes any Legal Weapon, including a Firearm, for the purpose of using the Legal Weapon in Self-Defense or as a weapon to address a threat of serious bodily harm to a Member or others, or the protection of Member’s lawfully owned or possessed property, _*_but only to the extent the use of the Legal Weapon in that manner is allowed by Applicable Law._*_ A Use of Weapon Incident does not include any event or incident caused by the application or use of Physical Force._ If you are found guilty in court, then your actions are illegal and FLP is not required to pay. (To be fair, almost no company provides a benefit to someone for committing a crime because that it generally unlawful and opens them to civil torts.) To drive this point further, the contract also states that FLP gets to determine what benefits to pay out. _We reserve the right to accept or refuse any Member’s right to benefits in this Contract. We will give you written notice of our acceptance or rejection of your application._ As I said at the beginning though, I'm not an expert in contract law.
The reason it's not being spoken of, is that it's not pertinent to the discussion. His ACTIONS were illegal, and unless Drejka had prior KNOWLEDGE of McGlockton's behavior and past it couldn't have affected his decision making. He can only reasonably make decisions from the knowledge that he actually possessed in that moment.
John, you are right, it’s not cut and dry. If I was on the jury I wouldn’t go with manslaughter or murder but I might be convinced with a lesser charge. The criteria of avoidance or innocence are the questionable issues in my mind. Once he is knocked to the ground I think the self defense claim is viable especially beyond a reasonable doubt. BUT, the guy had been told not to play parking lot cop and yet he did and went there with a gun and again played parking lot cop. That means he’s not innocent in my mind and he could have avoided the encounter by just calling the police. He inserted himself in a situation he had no business being in. Once you put a gun on your standard of behavior needs to increase because you can now inflict more damage. What if a bystander had been hurt by a miss or a pass through? Just my $.02 w/respect to others opinions.
This is a tough call. He had all three components for the use of deadly force. 1) Ability - the attacker was younger, stronger and in a position of advantage; 2) Opportunity - the attacker was in striking distance to get to him before drawing the gun (less than 21 feet). He could have been advancing on him to kick him in the head and stomp him; 3) Jeopardy - the attacker had assaulted him and was moving toward him. Although the guy appears to back off when the gun is drawn, there is typically a 2 second delay in reaction time to unanticipated stimulus (backing off), especially when under stress. The fact that he only shot one round seems to corroborate this. A very unfortunate incident for all involved. Initial errors in judgment led to lethal consequences.
*_>"Ability - the attacker was younger, stronger and in a position of advantage"_* #1. Age and size is pretty irrelevant here. Drejka is an able-bodied, 47 year-old man. McGlockton is an able bodied, 28 year-old man. #2. McGlockton gave up his position of advantage when he stepped back before the shot was fired. *_>"Opportunity - the attacker was in striking distance to get to him before drawing the gun (less than 21 feet). He could have been advancing on him to kick him in the head and stomp him."_* #1. The Tueller Drill-where the twenty-one feet thing comes from-is irrelevant here. That is about a knifeman running at a victim with with a holstered gun. Even if Drejka was justified for drawing his gun (which would likely fall under reasonable doubt territory), he may not have been justified in pulling the trigger given the two second delay. If he was a faster gun-handler, he should have shot then while McGlockton was standing over him as that would have helped his case. #2. It's clear that McGlockton moved away from him. I don't know how that _reasonably_ means he could have been "advancing on him" as you say. *_>"Jeopardy - the attacker had assaulted him and was moving toward him"_* Yes, a simple assault which is a second degree misdemeanor. I fail to see why that created a _reasonable_ fear in Drejka that he would be _killed._ And I am using "killed" specifically because that's what he told police. He wasn't afraid of getting severely hurt; he was afraid of dying. This is just another example of how "anything you say can and will be used *_against_* you." It would have helped his case if he said he was afraid of being very seriously injured or worse. Being afraid of murder weakens it.
Ability - According to Massad Ayoob, the Ability factor in a justifiable homicide is defined as use of a weapon or disparity of force. Disparity of force is defined as disparity of size and strength, which McGlockton seemed to have and position of disadvantage (Drejka's being on the floor)Opportunuity - The Tueller Drill illustrates that an average attacker can be upon you in 1.5 seconds if he is 21 feet away. If you watch the video again, you will see McGlockton walking towards Drejka after he pushes him. He only backs up after the gun is drawn. A kick to the head could have easily rendered Drejka unconscious and potentially subjected him to a lethal stomping. Only McGlockton knows what his own intent was prior to when the gun was drawn. Jeopardy - It was a misdemeanor assault up to that point. We don't know what McGlockton planned to do next and a fatal stomping is not out of the question when your attacker is unknown to you.
*_>"Ability - According to Massad Ayoob, the Ability factor in a justifiable homicide is defined as use of a weapon or disparity of force. Disparity of force is defined as disparity of size and strength, which McGlockton seemed to have and position of disadvantage (Drejka's being on the floor)"_* #1. The differences between Drejka and McGlockton are minimal and pretty irrelevant. Both of them are physically capable men. (People with Drejka's age and weight service as police and soldiers everyday.) The disparity only becomes an issue when there is a major difference. My grandmother (78y/o, 95#) up against McGlockton would be a perfect example. #2. Drejka couldn't retreat once he was knocked down. We agree on that point. However, it means nothing because McGlockton retreated. *_>"Opportunity - The Tueller Drill illustrates that an average attacker can be upon you in 1.5 seconds if he is 21 feet away. If you watch the video again, you will see McGlockton walking towards Drejka after he pushes him. He only backs up after the gun is drawn. A kick to the head could have easily rendered Drejka unconscious and potentially subjected him to a lethal stomping. Only McGlockton knows what his own intent was prior to when the gun was drawn."_* #1. As I said the Tueller drill is irrelevant because that deals with a holstered gun. Drejka already had his gun drawn and on target for a few seconds when he decided to murder.. #2. McGlockton backed away. Why does that mean he is going to go forward? Using Google Maps, it looks like he is about ten feet away. At that distance, McGlockton will never land any blows with his fists or legs. He has to come forward just to touch Drejka let alone seriously hurt him. Since you keep bringing up the Tueller drill, let's use that as a model. McGlockton is only half the distance so I will give him half the time: 0.75 seconds. How quickly can someone recognize a visual stimulus and shoot an aimed gun. Drejka needed to wait until there was forward movement to shoot. *_>"Jeopardy - It was a misdemeanor assault up to that point. We don't know what McGlockton planned to do next and a fatal stomping is not out of the question when your attacker is unknown to you."_* That's not a _reasonable_ fear in any sense of the word. I don't know what anyone is going to do at any given time. At my local gas station, I saw an open carrier with a gun on his hip get into a very heated verbal confrontation with the store clerk. Suddenly, he reached toward his hip. Should the clerk or I have been afraid that the gun is coming out. No, pulling a gun is exceptionally rare in our society. And as it turns out, he was only reaching for his wallet.
Let me tell you how I see this case. There are two separate decisions that the prosecutors and jury-if it ever gets that far-will need to process. FIRST DECISION McGlockton walks forward and shoves Drejka to the ground. McGlockton keeps coming squarely toward Drejka who is still rolling around. Drejka plants himself and sees the McGlockton approaching him. He reaches for the gun. At the exact instant his hand starts moving to the gun, is Drejka reasonably in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm at this time at the hands of McGlockton? There are only two answers: yes or no. If you choose no, then Drejka is attempting to commit brandishing and aggravated assault. If you choose yes, then Drejka is clear at this point. (If you are undecided, you should side with "yes" because that is what juries are required to do.) _Note: great bodily harm it's defined in Florida. However the state's Supreme Court has thrown out convictions were people suffered broken bones, small scars, and other injures that don't majorly impact a victims life._ SECOND DECISION POINT As Drejka reaches for the gun, McGlockton keeps advancing. The gun comes out of Drejka's holster, but he hasn't aimed it yet because has some sort of difficulty on the draw. McGlockton sees the gun and steps back. Drejka points the gun at McGlockton without aiming it. McGlockton steps back again and slightly turns away with his hands at his sides. Drejka aims the gun at McGlockton without firing. Time stands still for a one or two seconds. Drejka pulls the trigger. At the exact instant the firing pin goes forward, is Drejka reasonably in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm at this time at the hands of McGlockton? If you answered no last round or you choose no for this round, then Drejka is committing aggravated battery (which turns into murder when McGlockton dies in a few minutes). If you choose yes to this round, then Drejka is clear of any criminal wrongdoing. _Note: it is possible to pick "yes" for round one and "no" for round two but it isn't possible to pick "no" for round one and "yes" for round two._ Personally, I'm a soft "no" for the first round and a hard "no" for the second round. I don't see how any able-bodied person could _reasonably_ fear imminent death (what Drejka told police) from that push (misdemeanor battery which doesn't rise to the level of great bodily harm). Even if that push was violent enough to cause the type of injuries required and I switch to a "yes" for the first round, I'm still a hard "no" on the second round. The steps backwards and the pause indicate that a reasonable person should not have feared what was claimed. Granted: this is set up exclusively using the video. If the evidence changes, I'll consider changing my judgement.
Great subject and great discussion. The guilty verdict came down late Friday Night. Key points I saw in the case, McGlockton retreated as soon as he saw the gun ending the threat and further if you look at the video closely when he's turning away his feet are pointing towards the camera, not at Drejka. With that being the case and his totally defensive posture there just wasn't any way to justify the shooting.
The first time I saw this shooting I thought the man who pulled the gun definitely deserved to be charged. I don't think he deserves to be treated like a cold blooded murderer or like it was a biased crime. He doesn't deserve a life sentence, but he deserves at least a decade
It may not have been warranted to shoot him, but a lot of people are tired of certain people thinking they can shove, punch, beat up others whenever they feel like, and have 0 consequences. Think twice about being violent, you may get shot.
What about what the woman was saying or screaming at him? Were there any verbal threats being lobbed at the downed man when he used the gun? I only hear criticisms against the shooter but we must EQUALLY evaluate the couple to know how vile they were as well. We cannot judge everything as if there were no words going down concurrently. Now, is the threat over if they verbally threatened him or menaced him off camera? This has to be examined.
Seems he instigated an incident that escalated into a deadly encounter. Slow motion shows the man standing STOPPED his attack when he saw the firearm drawn and began to step back than the man on the ground fires a shot into him..... Hmmm
The duty to retreat depends on one's ability In a stand your ground state? I thought there was no do duty to retreat if the other criteria can be met? "...reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm "
+Active Self Protection Extra not to worry. I live in NY. I'd probably only be able shoot if I'm being hung by the leg out my window. I completely understand that there are other factors, but I took the line directly from the Florida legal site (www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html). (1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use: (b) 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.
I carry a gun almost every day as part of my job. It is my prayer that I will never have to shoot anybody. If I have somebody pull a knife on me, it is my plan on telling them to retreat because the cops are on their way. I would rather a bad guy get away then me being forced to shoot somebody in self defense because I value the sanctity of human life because I believe that we are created in the image of God and I believe that its God's desire to save the bad guy if they repent in Jesus' name. I will do what I have to do to protect my life or to protect the lives of innocents around me. But a firearm is a tool of LAST RESORT to be used after every other option-including letting the bag guy getting away if they take that option-has been exhausted.
One problem with your scenario is -- if the guy with the knife is only 2-3 feet from you -- that he can have that knife in your heart ALMOST as fast as you can pull the trigger. Trying to have a "conversation" can inhibit you enough to lose before you even had a chance to defend yourself. In other words, in my opinion, pointing and talking in a self-defense situation where the other person or persons do NOT have a gun is practical ONLY when the potential attacker is far enough away (given the state of the speed of your reflexes) for you to effectively act before the person can reach you, if they decide to in fact rush you.
Thank you, GetMeThere1 for raising the issue. My scenario is contingent upon my having 7 yards plus between me and the burglar. If the burglar is an imminent, deadly threat then I am going to put as many shots on target that I have to in order to stop the threat because he has destroyed any chances that I am going to give him by closing the distance with me. If the burglar is rushing me then I am not going to be negotiating with him I am going to be stopping the threat with whatever means are necessary. I am not going to just pull on him and not follow up with deadly force if he gives me no choice. Whenever I draw my non-lethal duty weapons at work, or whenever I draw my non-lethal duty weapons at home I do not draw unless I am willing to use it if and when it becomes necessary. If and when it becomes necessary for me to use my deadly force tools I am not going to present the weapon, and issue my commands to retreat I am not going to issue my commands to retreat in vain but with the solid determination to use whatever force is necessary if the bad guy presses the issue and meets the Immanency pillar of the deadly force elements.
I agree, James. As for myself -- someone who likes to spend their money more on guns than homes, lol -- most homes I've lived in during my 65 years have a relatively few areas with 7+ yard spans, so that would put adversaries in my home in the "instant shoot" situation. The one time I in fact DID draw down on a burglar in my home, he was a mere 3-4 feet from me -- when he saw the muzzle of my 1911 pointed directly at his chest he turned, ran, and dove out the window (lol), so I didn't have to pull the trigger on that one.
At my job I have had to reach for my gun a few times, but before I could draw it the subjects I was stopping dropped their knives/machetes before I was drawing down on them. And I praise God that it hasn't yet escalated beyond that. And I pray that it never will, but if it does I believe that I can do what is necessary to end whatever threats come my way. Without getting into the specifics of the layout of my house which I don't want to publicly disclose on the internet, there are areas of my house where I have the option. There are other areas where I am automatically in imminent risk if an intruder where to come in upon me at that point. But there are a few scenarios I have run through-mostly where there is a midnight break in-where I will have the opportunity-I hope-to issue a few commands before going to work.
@@GetMeThere1 What I don't understand is why police officers get so afraid of knives! YOU CAN ONLY STAB OR SLASH! 2 EASILY PREDICTED MOVES TO COUNTER! Any military trained man can remove a knife from anyone in seconds! I never understood why police panic and start screaming incoherently while emptying their clip!!!!! If someone has a knife the only two things they can do with it are stab or slash you which should be easily predicted and easily countered if you are trained
The girl in the car was in fear of her life. She called 911. Drama Drakja instigated the whole event. Sitting in that car minding my own business and some asshole approaches me that aggressively. I call my friend in the store. I call 911. If I have a gun I prepare to use it. If I have pepper spray, I prepare to spray it. I have no idea if that person at my car has a weapon or not. Or what his real intention is. Could it all be a ruse to rob me? Kidnap me? NOBODY KNOWS! She was saved by her boyfriend. And it cost him his life. Too bad Drajka wasn't knocked TF out with a single punch. IMO he should be in prison the Maximum amount of time.
I had a question. You said you think he would be justified in shooting the guy if he drew his weapon and the guy continued to walk towards him, but could he really shoot an unarmed person legally? Don't they have to be a deadly threat?
Can you make the case that a person advancing on an armed man who is specifically ordering you back, means you deadly harm and if they get within arms length can take your gun and use it against you?
@@ASPextra I don’t know is not that easy just to take a gun away, like you guys said: is about moments, if he make some sort of gesture of going for your gun then that is definitely a moment that you should fear for your life.
great conversation, John. that was a vengeance shoot. a murder. an amateur with a gun is looking for a problem that needs a guy with a gun. i personally don't think that any yayhoo should be able to carry. i think this kind of scenario is going to become commonplace. and, i know it's a cliche, but many smaller men carry a lifelong grudge that can result in just such a vengeance killing.
The one thing that gets me about this entire incident is the shooter caused it, and what he was doing is a crime in many states. I’m not sure of Florida Law, but In many states including where I live (Ohio) the shooter could have been charged with a inciting to violence, even if he never shot the guy. Inciting to violence-No person shall knowingly engage in conduct designed to urge or incite another to commit any offense of violence, when either of the following apply: The conduct takes place under circumstances that create a clear and present danger that any offense of violence will be committed; The conduct proximately results in the commission of any offense of violence. Since he was yelling at the guys girlfriend this incited the boyfriend to come out if the store and push the guy down. The boyfriend has committed aggravated assault, but the guy yelling at the girl over the parking spot has committed inciting to violence-because his behavior is what caused the assault. It should also be noted that if the aggravated assault is charged as a felony, the inciting to violence is also a felony and actual one tier higher. So you can get more jail time for inciting violence than aggravated assault in Ohio. As I stated I don’t know Florida law but many states have a similar law on the books.
*_>"The one thing that gets me about this entire incident is the shooter caused it, and what he was doing is a crime in many states."_* It's irrelevant who caused the incident. The only thing the law in any state looks at is who escalated force and if it was justified. Blame McGlockton for that. Before he walked outside, there was no threat of violence; even his girlfriend acknowledged she wasn't threatened. McGlockton would be in jail right now if he wasn't dead. *_>"I’m not sure of Florida Law, but In many states including where I live (Ohio) the shooter could have been charged with a inciting to violence, even if he never shot the guy. Inciting to violence-No person shall knowingly engage in conduct designed to urge or incite another to commit any offense of violence, when either of the following apply: The conduct takes place under circumstances that create a clear and present danger that any offense of violence will be committed; The conduct proximately results in the commission of any offense of violence."_* #1. I don't think you are getting the purpose behind the law. "Inciting violence" means literally calling for violent action to occur either through issuing threats ("I'm going to kill you so what are you going to do about it?") or encouraging harm ("someone should kill you"). Your state requires the prosecutors to prove that the speaker knew his words had the potential to produce an intended, violent outcome. This incident doesn't come close. #2. As a historical note, these incitement laws were written in the 1910s to prevent communists from advocating a violent overthrow of the government. In the late 1960s, your state was involved in a groundbreaking freedom of speech case at the US Supreme Court: _Brandenburg v. Ohio._ The state arrested, charged, and convicted a man at a KKK rally for saying that white people should seek revenge against blacks and Jews if the government gets more pro-civil rights. The justices threw out his conviction because his ideas were abstract and not specific enough to incite imminent lawless behavior even though many people-including blacks and Jews-were rightly incensed at the hate speech. If he said "now is the time to seek revenge," then he could be charged. *_>"Since he was yelling at the guys girlfriend this incited the boyfriend to come out if the store and push the guy down. The boyfriend has committed aggravated assault, but the guy yelling at the girl over the parking spot has committed inciting to violence-because his behavior is what caused the assault."_* #1. Actually, the public accounts differ on the yelling. The girlfriend says the shooter started yelling first while the shooter and one other witness say the woman started yelling first. Either way, she was a willing and active participant. #2. You're blaming the victim. I guess we should arrest women in short skirts who fight their rapists or tourists wearing blue who fight Crips members when they attack.
Just because you carry, it doesn't give you any power or authority to go around correcting other people. In fact, it is likely much better to myob. Dreyka has a history of aggression, threats and gun display. He seemed to be looking for a reason. The guilty verdict is justified.
If Drejka was a part of a legal protection insurance coverage company he would still be charged fees even tho he pays dues for this exact situation? I dont think I understood the explanation very well. Is this because his defense isnt so clear cut and he may be guilty in the eyes of his defense attorneys?
John, not a shooting I would have been involved in. When I am out and about, I do my best to not engage feral people (it's a condition not a color). If I am forced to engage, I am polite, I watch my back and do my best to get out as quick as possible. I like you 3 rules. Most of all, I do my best to avoid stupid people in stupid places at stupid times. Please keep up the good job and discuss these legal issues. I believe everyone that Carrying should have carry insurance. I would rather pay for coverage and never need it that defend myself in a righteous shoot and be bankrupted by someone's family looking for a payday.
The guy didn't run away after the gun was drawn. There was like a two to three second delay where the two were just staring at each other. It was weird.
Thanks for the breakdown sir! When the guns come out, the egos turn off. Also, do not force people to defend their significant other's honor. People need to learn to mind their business unless it is truly warranted. As stated frequently in this video, trainers need to emphasize and explain “moments matter.”
The shooters previous conduct will be brought up and so should the deceased and his girl friends priors. Multiple felonies including battery of a LEO, home invasion, strong arm robbery, other assaults etc. We only have anecdotal evidence re the shooters previous parking lot escapades.
And Drejkas previous parking escapades shouldn't matter either. He committed no crime by trying to educate the woman on her poor choice of parking spot. The way i see it was that he was blindsided and shoved violently and forcefully, the woman had already stepped out of the car and there was a second guy behind Markeis. He may very well have been informed he was about to get an ass kicking and we will never know what the woman said in return before she texted her man to come out.
No THAT matters because it speaks to what his mindset was. What McGlockton's mindset was is irrelevant to what Drejka does; Drejka's mindset is imminently relevant to what Drejka did.
@@ASPextra I don't understand... If the shooters history speaks to his mindset at the time, couldn't it also be argued the same for the dead guy??? His history of intense violence could speak to his mindset as well showing he had NO problem violently attacking others & SERIOUSLY injuring them Implying he most likely was NOT going to stop after shoving him & if he had not been shot he would have continued to assault the shooter... His history could also show his mindset of not being concerned about consequences when upset & that he is comfortable inflicting extreme violence on strangers in public places He has done it before... I would think that would be important because it could portray the feeling he gave the shooter of his intentions His lack of reguard for consequences for beating a stranger in public if felt by the shooter might be relevant I would think It would play into the level of fear he would have felt in the moment... Thank you
Active Self Protection Extra I know you did, still should’ve put a clip of the video in with your discussion. It would’ve added more insight, and depth to what you were talking about in this video. Also, you eliminate the viewers playing hunt and find for the original video clip to try and tie in the visuals to your discussion. It was a very good conversation, and some good points the two of you made but, the video clip would have made this video more complete and easier for viewers to understand what’s going on.
Anytime a not black person is in an altercation with a black person, the claim is always made they "used racial slurs" whether they did or not. It's used to justify the violent attack of innocent people all the time. And yes, it can be a very bad idea to inject yourself into a situation, but we should not admonish those who do so in order to make society a better place. The constant refrain of "don't get involved" is a big part of why so much antisocial behavior has thrived.
I've had strangers yell at my wife before, I didn't feel the need to assault them. Everyone is in the wrong here. Dont park illegally. Don't assault people for yelling at you or your S.O. And don't shoot people when they don't pose an immediate deadly threat.
He was less than arms length away from the dudes wife/partner. I honestly think in a moment I might have done the same. It would take less than a second for the old man to knock the women out if he chose to and we've seen it happen on this channel before, like John says "never ignore your creep alarm", mine would have been going off in this situation. Would you take that chance having someone that close to your significant other?
I want you take a moment and think about deleting your account on youtube because you clearly lack the ability to form a reasonable thought. His wife was in the car. She could've rolled up her window or even backed away and left. But instead, she chose to exit the vehicle as her hubby rolled up on this guy to attack him. Almost like they've done this before. She wasn't in danger until she put herself into danger.
@@BB-eu5gt theres no evidence that McGlockton and his girlfriend made a habit of assaulting people in parking lots. Drejka on the other hand is known for accosting, and even assaulting, people in that very parking lot. Drejka as a ccw holder has a responsibility to avoid starting confrontations over petty matters. In fact, being the instigator of any confrontation is off the table.
The real problem with this case is that there is a VIDEO. Everyone can analyze every detail to the max -- which the person actually on the scene CANNOT do. If we had only the information that an older guy was knocked to the ground by a felonious assault and battery from a much younger and bigger man, the situation would be a lot easier to talk about (and probably side with the shooter). Another way to look at this is: 1) For the sake of argument assume that the guy on the ground is not up to defending himself physically -- that fits me, being 65. It could easily fit this situation, if the guy had some arthritis, especially in his knees or hips. It can be hard for such a person to even get up AT ALL from that situation. 2) So the guy knocks you down HARD (as happened here). What are you SUPPOSED to do? Wait to see if he's going to get on you again? Keep in mind he can do that MUCH faster than you can draw, if he wants to. Given all that plus the fact that the man attacked for no apparent reason and without warning, the very LEAST that would be absolutely justifiable is to POINT the gun at the guy and be INSTANTLY ready to pull the trigger. At that point, a shooting is only a small fraction of a second from happening, and it's hard for any judging body to fairly discuss the attacker's body position, etc. The shooter -- unexpectedly and without provocation (as far as he knew) -- was knocked to the ground HARD, and he looked up to see a much bigger and younger assailant standing over him. Shooting at that point (especially for an older person) is NOT out of the question. Which is why..... YOU MUST BE POLITE AND NON-CONFRONTATIONAL at all times when you're carrying. In this case, the truth is that if the shooter had NOT been arguing with the woman (which is definitely a FAILURE of being polite and non-confrontational), he wouldn't be getting charged.
In some states (as I understand it), if he, say, broke his ankle in the fall, it would become a felony. I think it would be safe to say it was a "vicious" battery. You very well COULD die or be severely injured from such a violent shove, if you hit your head on the pavement; you could also get a neck injury from that kind of shove when you're not expecting it and haven't tightened your muscles in anticipation. It was a really nasty shove. From the video it appeared that it was his INTENTION to "catch him cold," in order to have the greatest effect. Also, I just watched the video again: after he shoves him down to the ground he takes a further THREE STEPS toward him, which the shooter would have seen, and which could reasonably induce him to draw his gun. He could EASILY have not taken those steps as if to further attack the man on the ground, but he did. Watch the video.
And if that half a step back was cocking his leg to kick him in the head it’s a different conversation of “Well he drew his gun but didn’t fire and got kicked in the head and Jo’s and the bad guy took his gun and shot and killed him.”
Couldn't have kicked him in the head from the distance he was at. Shot went off, according to the charging affidavit, at 10-12 feet according to the shooter.
I’m a throwback person. So this would have never been me on either end. (1) I’m a man. A large man. I don’t threaten, raise my voice , or initiate arguments with women under any circumstances. They’re women. But also these days if you’re in an altercation, assume the person you’re in conflict with is armed. Just assume it. I understand the man protecting his woman. I may have put myself between the parking police vigilante and her, but I wouldn’t shove. Why? I understand that he may be armed and also that men are cowards now. Also, I’m more tactical in my approach. If I was truly upset with this man, I would find out who he is and deal with him on my terms at my time of choosing. But I doubt I would invest that type of energy on a parking space dispute.
To bad the video in this case shows a violently stunned victim responding to a deadly threat by a thug who took a step back but *DID NOT RETREAT* C Collins!
@HappyDee *_violently stunned victim responding_* *_took a step back but DID NOT RETREAT_* You love contradictions, don't you? Stunned people don't react because they're stunned. Stepping back is retreating.
You mean to tell me that someone backing up from 0 to 10 feet and turning to go even farther away with his hands at his side isn't retreating from hand-to-hand combat? That's warped.
I love how you use harsh words like childish for the crazy old guy complaining about a parking spot but not the cowardly young guy pushing a frail old guy who isn't threatening anyone. And the guy is still close enough to do harm if he was to put the gun down.
Well I am sure you know already but he was convicted yesterday. And thanks for all the videos I just recently stumbled on to your channel and have fell in love with it
We have to be sane. Stand your ground means you are not causing any trouble. Trayvon is another clear case of minding your own businesses and someone else is accussing you of robbing. Now, if you have no idea what this private individual is talking about and threating you stand your ground, but this was the plan along. He should have followed trayvon to see where he is going.
i agree but whats lost is the deceased fam nor his supporters, not even the judge acknowledge the devilishness or wrongness of the assault and it was clear if he didnt have a gun he wouldve been even more viciously assaulted or worse as he was stepping forward before he saw the gun.
As a Florida resident(since 2000), NRA member, CCW-W license holder, US military veteran: four/4 years active duty, I feel the county Sheriff & FL states attys office were wrong to charge the FL ccw user with Manslaughter. Florida changed the law last year: RE stand your ground. The burden of proof is now on law enforcement & state attys. Florida gun owners & 2A supporters should be upset over the actions of the States Attys office. Stand Your Ground & castle doctrine are worthless if prosecutors are not going to follow Florida statues.
*_>"I feel the county Sheriff & FL states attys office were wrong to charge the FL ccw user with Manslaughter."_* #1. The sheriff didn't do anything; he washed his hands of this three weeks ago. He only arrested the shooter because a judge told him he had to by issuing an arrest warrant. #2. If a charge is even appropriate, manslaughter is the right one. Murder will most likely result in a mistrial or outright acquittal even though manslaughter is a lesser included offense. *_>"Florida changed the law last year: RE stand your ground. The burden of proof is now on law enforcement & state attys."_* Wrong. The burden of proof has always been on the government to prove a crime happened. Now, the government has to prove it-to a lesser degree-at a civil trial before the criminal trial gets underway. *_>"Stand Your Ground & castle doctrine are worthless if prosecutors are not going to follow Florida statues."_* This isn't a "stand your ground" or castle-doctrine case. The shooter had no safe escape from the violence which triggers a traditional self-defense justification.
I believe that fool was charged. That guy was looking for someone to shot. He happened to find someone who was willing to accommodate him. You can't look at that incident without seeing what it was.
Why does the fault lie with the person who made a snap judgement in the span of 1.5 seconds after attacked from behind and facing multiple attackers instead of the person who made a calculated assault? Yes it's possible the man shoved (Drejka) made an error and McGlockton was retreating but if Drejka was never assaulted he wouldve never been in that situation. It's not like he shot McGlockton 5-10 seconds later after he retreated completely.
Because we're all responsible for how we respond. If you choose to carry a firearm, you are 100% responsible at all times for all actions you take with that firearm.
Of course. I guess a better way to phrase is why does no one give any respect to the fact we're not robots and while we may make a decision in error when attacked violently; the burden of that lies with our attacker because we never asked to be in a fight for our lives. Drejka may 100% believe he was in danger of his life at that moment and it's not fair of us to microanalyze seconds of footage with clear and calm minds detached from the situation.
*_>". . . facing multiple attackers . . ."_* In what world were there multiple attackers? The only two people involved were the shooter and the deceased.
Oh really? Because if you watch the video the wife gets out of the car as her husband approaches and drejka is facing her before he gets shoved in his back. So in any reasonable persons mind you think that multiple people are now going to attack you.
I like to think of myself as a reasonable person, and I didn't see her attack or prepare to attack anyone. Looking at the worst case scenario is is not reasonable in this case.
I think that's the biggest lesson to take away from this case; that you can be justified in drawing your weapon without using it. I don't know how common the idea that "if you draw it, you have to use it" is, but you sure see an awful lot of people saying how "you should only draw your weapon if you're justified in using it", which isn't quite the same, but pretty close.
Marc Grundfest
Agreed theybare telling people to hesitate. They have not even thought about the scenerio where this guy backs off blades his draw and then turns and shoots Draco. They are putting mire responsibility on the victim to take chances with life, than the agressor who ran up and violently assaulted a guy so forcefully he flew off his feet and slide as he landed to put his life in jeopardy in order to hope the guy doesnt want to harm him and that they guy is not armed.
*_>"I think that's the biggest lesson to take away from this case; that you can be justified in drawing your weapon without using it."_*
True, but I generally disagree with not firing when you draw. In most American jurisdictions, the only time you can pull out a gun in public is when you reasonably fear that your life is in immediate jeopardy or that your body is about to suffer a grave injury. If that threshold isn't met, you will likely be charged with brandishing and aggravated assault. If that threshold is met, why would you waste your time threatening someone when your life or body is on the line? That is incredibly foolish. You are right that there is no legal obligation to fire a drawn gun. However, it's generally not a good idea.
As it applies to this case, however, the shooter took a few seconds to draw his gun and aim it. In that time frame, the deceased backed off and altered the dynamic of the confrontation. If the shooter was faster at employing the gun, his case for self-defense would be a lot better than it is. People can debate if he was justified in pulling out the gun at all; I don't think the shove was violent enough and moving toward him on the ground was threatening enough to instill a reasonable fear that either death or grave bodily injury were imminent.
@ oziumzx *_>"If you’re carrying a gun you shouldn’t instigate a confrontation that could escalate uncontrollably unless someone’s life is in danger."_*
He didn't "instigate a confrontation" by saying something about the illegal parking job. However, he was foolish for how he handled the situation and engaging in a shouting war. He should have walked over to the car and said _"Hello, ma'am. I noticed you are parked in a handicapped spot without displaying the proper credentials. There are many disabled people who shot here who rely on that spot being open to them. I know you are here for just a few minutes, but could you please move to a normal parking spot? Thank you."_
Oziumzx is right. Remember, the 2a clearly states we have right to bear arms so long as you let everyone treat you like shit and never stand up for yoursel the rest of your life.
Maybe he did approach the car in this manner and was cut off with "Watchu wan cracka?"
I've had to pull a gun on someone threatening me 3 times and all 3 times didn't have to fire. They stopped immediately and took off. This is why I carry a firearm: because it solves problems without having to pull the trigger quite often.
Glad you had it to protect yourself!
Great conversation here.. Thanks guys..
This case is so important for all ccw holders to learn from. You can't prevolk a fight and then shoot an unarmed man. Then it becomes murder. Its sad that we have to learn from real life scenarios but this stuff is helping me to know when or when not to present arms. Sad situation.
John I want to thank you and the whole ASP team. I am a lawful CCW owner in Florida. This is a very useful video as is all of your videos are. I have learned more on your two channels than I have anywhere else period. FAN FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks Keith!
You know, John always talks about situational awareness. If the shooter had not been so blinded by anger, he would have been aware of the approaching boyfriend.
That's a good point.
It also undermines his characterization that he was calmly talking to the woman(and kids).
Excellent video!
I’m really glad you brought this back up again John. I really feel as though this is a perfect case of murder disguised as a self defense situation. This man seems as though he had an itchy finger and makes other responsible gun owners look bad. I also think that by the Panellus County Sheriff falsely claiming that this was a stand your ground case, it jeopardizes the law for all us Florida gun owners that need the Stand your ground law.
I counted from when he got pushed till he shot and it was almost 3 seconds. During those 3 seconds Mr McLaughlin doesn’t make a second advance after his primary attack. 3 seconds in a self defense situation is a long time. It’s was enough time for Drejke to recuperate from the initial attack, draw his gun, mentally check off 4 fundamental rules of firearms safety and pull the trigger. To me that was long enough to have determined that the threat was stopped and no lethal force was needed. Florida law allows us to stop the threat.
My prayers to the McLaughlin Family.
"Seems as though" is far short of 'Certain beyond a reasonable doubt".
Where is the link to firearms legal protection in the description?
It's in the description. get-asp.com/flp
There is also the aspect of if the shooter could even discern the step back from his visual perspective on the ground. It seems real clear to us looking laterally and we can see that creation of distance very obviously. Also there are several aspects of disparity of force at play here.
As a retired Florida cop, (25 years), I can assure you that this state is full of people who, for some reason, feel the need to control everyone else's life. The vast majority aren't from here, but from some northeastern cesspool. As a result, I've seen many dozens go to jail (or prison) for simply being incapable of minding their own business and let a stupid, insignificant matter go.
Amen GOML, amen my good man.
GOML - great post and perfect Ironic screen name given the comment and attitude.
Florida law does not allow Markeis McGlockton to assault Michael Drejka especially when he and his family was not assaulted at all it was only a verbal argument nothing physical. The State of Florida issued Michael Drejka a conceal carry permit for his defense and for the defense of others this does not make Michael Drejka a feelance policeman now McGlockton was backing away from Michael Drejka like maybe three feet away so Drejka Attorney still have to prove in court that the threat has to be imminent and rumors is circuling in town that Michael Drejka has a history of paper trail with the authorities which the people of the Anti Gun world is going to say that Michael Drejka has a pattern of bad behavior.
Mike Evans be advised that on Friday August 23, 2019 Michael Drejka was found guilty of manslaughter he made his bed now he has to lay in it.
Smith that all sounds good but remember the Supreme Court has ruled that they want you to use deadly force as a last resort not as a first resort it’s conflicting because Florida laws say one thing and the Supreme Court says another. I always used to tell conceal carry holders just carry your weapon for your defense and for the defense of others because you start playing cop out their and something seriously happens your not shielded by any civil liability but guys like Michael Drejka don’t know how to stay under the radar.
This is where shoot/don't shoot scenarios are so important. Find your local video simulation training facility.
Force on force, too.
I see people running stop signs and it pisses me off. But I don’t have the authority to pull them over and give them a ticket. This guy had no authority to walk up to this people because they were parked there. At the time he shot him he was clearly not in danger for his life.
People confuse If you draw the gun be prepared to shoot and don't draw the gun unless you MIGHT have to shoot with "if you draw you have to shoot."
Great video.!
Here is an idea for a video John. Set up a scenario, maybe similar to the topic of this video. Make it simple, then have terry walk us through exactly what will happen if we have to use firearms legal protection. For example u get arrested and you make a call to firearms legal protection while in jail. Are they sending someone? How do you arrange bond with FLP? etc. Hope that is clear? but I think it would be a good topic.
I filmed this with Terry on Saturday. On Monday, Michael Drejka was charged with manslaughter: abcnews.go.com/US/shooter-florida-stand-ground-case-charged-manslaughter/story?id=57151343
Here's the charging affidavit for anyone who wants to read: www.scribd.com/document/386120319/Drejka-Charging-Affidavit-180813
I see on the Firearms Legal Protection web site that terms like "legally use a firearm" and "lawfully uses a firearm" are part of the definition of the services provided. I find that a bit confusing. "Firearms Legal Protection provides uncapped legal defense coverage for its members who legally use a firearm in self-defense or defense of others. Firearms Legal Protection is a legal service plan that provides its members with peace of mind that they can protect themselves and their loved ones." This statement from the web site seems to say that a person may be covered or not covered. Who determines if the person is covered? Also, what if the company initially decides to cover a defendant but the defendant is ultimately found to be guilty of "unlawfully" using the firearm. Does Firearms Legal Protection then seek to recoup their expenses against the guilty party they initially defended? It all sounds like a good idea as John discusses it with his friend but I hear them using the "qualifying" terms while they are talking and I just feel like those "qualifying" terms are red flags. Sincerely, am I the only one who eyes these types of plans dubiously? Am I missing something? God knows, if you ever end up in a situation like that, it would be great to have someone come to your defense. But how terrible would it be if it turned out to NOT be what you expected?
I dont see the link for the discount.
get-asp.com/flp
Active Self Protection Extra thanks
Two smart men with real talk. Love it.
Great video, John. Having worked in the legal field for many years, I always find your legal discussion videos very informative and interesting.
Thanks Justin!
Gold
Thx guys!
I want to let you know I love these legal discussions. I think they are just as helpful as the self defense videos. The fight after the fight. I would like to see more.
We're working on them like mad! :) I am super grateful to Firearms Legal Protection for sponsoring these discussions!!
John, there's a lot of virtue signaling going on here. As adults we don't always have to agree 100% on everything, I think you have a ton of good advice. You absolutely provide a one of a kind genuine service to the community at large. Terry spent a lot of this episode trying to minimize what this attacker did to Mr Drejka. How many videos have you personally seen of people getting pushed or knocked to the ground and never getting back up? Kicked or stomped in the head, I'm sure it's plenty. We have to put ourselves in Mr. Drejka's shoes at that brief moment in time, from the angle he was in.. looking up at someone in that stance who just violently attacked you, standing over you. From the comfort of our comfy chairs, Monday morning quarter backing, it's easy to say.. oh there was a pause, he took a step back. We don't see the guy's face or attitude in any great detail, we don't hear what's being said after the push. What must it have been like to see, feel and experience all of that through Mr. Drejka's eyes and senses. I have a strong feeling, had Mr. Drejka not been armed, he would have been stomped into a greasy spot in that parking lot, and no one would have given a second thought about him.
There is zero virtue signaling going on here. We established early and completely that the assault that McGlockton committed on Drejka was wrong. He would have faced charges for it if he had lived and rightly so. That's a moot point because he's dead.
Where'd the original video go??
It's there.
I don't think it was his intent. but the attorney seemed to suggest you need to be in immediate fear and not Imminent fear in order to act... that is false. Imminent threat is where force begins in most instances, and definitely this one.
I walked into a taco bell yesterday in Florida and saw a crackhead threatening people with a broom handle.
I had my gun on me and felt no need to even talk to her.
She was swinging it everywhere and almost hit me.
She eventually just walked out.
If I was a hothead, I could have legally pulled my gun on her in Florida, but I didnt.
IF YOU CARRY A GUN ON YOU, AVOID CONFLICT AT ALL COSTS!!!
I live by that
“Don’t start none,won’t be none”
do you think the "starting" first occurred by the driver who illegaly parked in the handicap spot?
It was very clear that the simple presentation of the gun defused the confrontation. We don’t shoot to spite each other. The man backed away with his hands up. Nobody can honestly say from that point that the other was in any danger. Had he continued his assault in any physical form then it would be different. If you can’t come to that same conclusion from this then you are simply not responsible enough to carry a gun.
So just for academic discussion I didn't come away with an exact understanding of how FLP decides if a member's shooting incident qualifies for plan benefits. Terry said in this case the shooter would indeed be covered because his actions "could be" viewed as self defense. Define "could be". Both John and Terry clearly express opinions during the video that this shooting was not justified. Terry said it "does not rise to the level" that justifies lethal force. Also, the FLP website states coverage is for "members who legally use a firearm in self defense". Terry explains that a premeditated robbery of a 7-11 is obviously not covered under an FLP plan. That much is easy to understand but it doesn't help me understand where covered departs from not covered. Does FLP apply specific criteria in making the pay out vs don't pay out decision? If so, what are they? Maybe that matter is defined in the plan documents but it isn't on the website as far as I know.
Hey John , do you think pepper spray would have been appropriate in this situation ?
I don't even mind him drawing and pointing the firearm, honestly. That was fine. But OC might have been a good choice.
Good point.
Excellent discussion!
You guys hit on some really good points, thanks for the video guys.
Glad to help!
Who appointed that guy disabled parking police. If he would have minded his own business that man would be still alive. I think he shot him because he was pissed.
"You might find a lawyer who wants to get his name out there"... BENJAMIN CRUMP.
Yep.
I agree with this lawyer here entirely. If I were in McGlockton’s shoes, I wouldn’t like to see some asshole shouting down my girlfriend/wife in the parking lot, either. I might have shoved that fucker, too. Pushing doesn’t call for a deadly force response especially not when the other guy backs down after seeing a gun. You don’t brandish a weapon just to ward off an attacker, but if an attacker is warded off then you don’t shoot them.
"Gun goes on, ego goes off" Not the grammar but a good axiom and you get the point. And definitely, you do not want to be the defender of handicapped drivers or traffic enforcement just because you are armed.
Definitely hear a lot of people say if you gotta draw you gotta shoot. I do wonder if that 2 sec pause was him thinking about it or not. He clearly was not justified with that 2 second pause. I wonder how it would go without that pause.
On the “firearms legal protection” side of things...
If the shooter is found guilty of unlawfully using force (whatever crime that turns out to be), does FLP still cover the costs of legal representation?
Yes.
@ActiveSelfProtectionExtra - Are you sure about that? I may not have specialized in contract law, but I know how to read a contract. The one on FLP's website states:
_The following Legal Services Benefit and Other Benefits will be provided to a Member in the event a Use of Weapon Incident occurs in the state the Member is a resident, and other states to the extent allowed by Applicable Law, during the term of this Contract._
and
_We will provide a Member the Legal Services Benefit described in this Section 2.1 by a Contracting
Attorney for a criminal investigation or proceeding or civil lawsuit arising from a Use of Weapon Incident_
That sounds nice, but what does a "Use of Weapon Incident" mean?
_For the purposes of this Contract, the following definitions apply: . . . “Use of Weapon Incident” - means any incident where a Member either displays or utilizes any Legal Weapon, including a Firearm, for the purpose of using the Legal Weapon in Self-Defense or as a weapon to address a threat of serious bodily harm to a Member or others, or the protection of Member’s lawfully owned or possessed property, _*_but only to the extent the use of the Legal Weapon in that manner is allowed by Applicable Law._*_ A Use of Weapon Incident does not include any event or incident caused by the application or use of Physical Force._
If you are found guilty in court, then your actions are illegal and FLP is not required to pay. (To be fair, almost no company provides a benefit to someone for committing a crime because that it generally unlawful and opens them to civil torts.) To drive this point further, the contract also states that FLP gets to determine what benefits to pay out.
_We reserve the right to accept or refuse any Member’s right to benefits in this Contract. We will give you written notice of our acceptance or rejection of your application._
As I said at the beginning though, I'm not an expert in contract law.
That guy is a lawyer? He should be doing voiceover or talk radio!
I notice that McGlockton's past hasn't been spoken of and IT TOO is also admissible in court !!! No innocence here, from anyone !!!
The reason it's not being spoken of, is that it's not pertinent to the discussion. His ACTIONS were illegal, and unless Drejka had prior KNOWLEDGE of McGlockton's behavior and past it couldn't have affected his decision making. He can only reasonably make decisions from the knowledge that he actually possessed in that moment.
@Smith-Mundts Modernization Act (Look into it) yea thank god he was guilty.if found not guilty would of been looting,riots
John, you are right, it’s not cut and dry. If I was on the jury I wouldn’t go with manslaughter or murder but I might be convinced with a lesser charge. The criteria of avoidance or innocence are the questionable issues in my mind.
Once he is knocked to the ground I think the self defense claim is viable especially beyond a reasonable doubt. BUT, the guy had been told not to play parking lot cop and yet he did and went there with a gun and again played parking lot cop. That means he’s not innocent in my mind and he could have avoided the encounter by just calling the police. He inserted himself in a situation he had no business being in. Once you put a gun on your standard of behavior needs to increase because you can now inflict more damage. What if a bystander had been hurt by a miss or a pass through? Just my $.02 w/respect to others opinions.
Manslaughter IS the lesser charge.
I've been trained to put two Shots when using handguns so he showed restraint by not shooting in the second time
You've been trained poorly.
Coming from you ASP hole that means less than nothing.
This is a tough call. He had all three components for the use of deadly force. 1) Ability - the attacker was younger, stronger and in a position of advantage; 2) Opportunity - the attacker was in striking distance to get to him before drawing the gun (less than 21 feet). He could have been advancing on him to kick him in the head and stomp him; 3) Jeopardy - the attacker had assaulted him and was moving toward him. Although the guy appears to back off when the gun is drawn, there is typically a 2 second delay in reaction time to unanticipated stimulus (backing off), especially when under stress. The fact that he only shot one round seems to corroborate this. A very unfortunate incident for all involved. Initial errors in judgment led to lethal consequences.
It's a tough call.
*_>"Ability - the attacker was younger, stronger and in a position of advantage"_*
#1. Age and size is pretty irrelevant here. Drejka is an able-bodied, 47 year-old man. McGlockton is an able bodied, 28 year-old man.
#2. McGlockton gave up his position of advantage when he stepped back before the shot was fired.
*_>"Opportunity - the attacker was in striking distance to get to him before drawing the gun (less than 21 feet). He could have been advancing on him to kick him in the head and stomp him."_*
#1. The Tueller Drill-where the twenty-one feet thing comes from-is irrelevant here. That is about a knifeman running at a victim with with a holstered gun. Even if Drejka was justified for drawing his gun (which would likely fall under reasonable doubt territory), he may not have been justified in pulling the trigger given the two second delay. If he was a faster gun-handler, he should have shot then while McGlockton was standing over him as that would have helped his case.
#2. It's clear that McGlockton moved away from him. I don't know how that _reasonably_ means he could have been "advancing on him" as you say.
*_>"Jeopardy - the attacker had assaulted him and was moving toward him"_*
Yes, a simple assault which is a second degree misdemeanor. I fail to see why that created a _reasonable_ fear in Drejka that he would be _killed._ And I am using "killed" specifically because that's what he told police. He wasn't afraid of getting severely hurt; he was afraid of dying. This is just another example of how "anything you say can and will be used *_against_* you." It would have helped his case if he said he was afraid of being very seriously injured or worse. Being afraid of murder weakens it.
Ability - According to Massad Ayoob, the Ability factor in a justifiable homicide is defined as use of a weapon or disparity of force. Disparity of force is defined as disparity of size and strength, which McGlockton seemed to have and position of disadvantage (Drejka's being on the floor)Opportunuity - The Tueller Drill illustrates that an average attacker can be upon you in 1.5 seconds if he is 21 feet away. If you watch the video again, you will see McGlockton walking towards Drejka after he pushes him. He only backs up after the gun is drawn. A kick to the head could have easily rendered Drejka unconscious and potentially subjected him to a lethal stomping. Only McGlockton knows what his own intent was prior to when the gun was drawn. Jeopardy - It was a misdemeanor assault up to that point. We don't know what McGlockton planned to do next and a fatal stomping is not out of the question when your attacker is unknown to you.
*_>"Ability - According to Massad Ayoob, the Ability factor in a justifiable homicide is defined as use of a weapon or disparity of force. Disparity of force is defined as disparity of size and strength, which McGlockton seemed to have and position of disadvantage (Drejka's being on the floor)"_*
#1. The differences between Drejka and McGlockton are minimal and pretty irrelevant. Both of them are physically capable men. (People with Drejka's age and weight service as police and soldiers everyday.) The disparity only becomes an issue when there is a major difference. My grandmother (78y/o, 95#) up against McGlockton would be a perfect example.
#2. Drejka couldn't retreat once he was knocked down. We agree on that point. However, it means nothing because McGlockton retreated.
*_>"Opportunity - The Tueller Drill illustrates that an average attacker can be upon you in 1.5 seconds if he is 21 feet away. If you watch the video again, you will see McGlockton walking towards Drejka after he pushes him. He only backs up after the gun is drawn. A kick to the head could have easily rendered Drejka unconscious and potentially subjected him to a lethal stomping. Only McGlockton knows what his own intent was prior to when the gun was drawn."_*
#1. As I said the Tueller drill is irrelevant because that deals with a holstered gun. Drejka already had his gun drawn and on target for a few seconds when he decided to murder..
#2. McGlockton backed away. Why does that mean he is going to go forward? Using Google Maps, it looks like he is about ten feet away. At that distance, McGlockton will never land any blows with his fists or legs. He has to come forward just to touch Drejka let alone seriously hurt him. Since you keep bringing up the Tueller drill, let's use that as a model. McGlockton is only half the distance so I will give him half the time: 0.75 seconds. How quickly can someone recognize a visual stimulus and shoot an aimed gun. Drejka needed to wait until there was forward movement to shoot.
*_>"Jeopardy - It was a misdemeanor assault up to that point. We don't know what McGlockton planned to do next and a fatal stomping is not out of the question when your attacker is unknown to you."_*
That's not a _reasonable_ fear in any sense of the word. I don't know what anyone is going to do at any given time. At my local gas station, I saw an open carrier with a gun on his hip get into a very heated verbal confrontation with the store clerk. Suddenly, he reached toward his hip. Should the clerk or I have been afraid that the gun is coming out. No, pulling a gun is exceptionally rare in our society. And as it turns out, he was only reaching for his wallet.
Let me tell you how I see this case. There are two separate decisions that the prosecutors and jury-if it ever gets that far-will need to process.
FIRST DECISION
McGlockton walks forward and shoves Drejka to the ground. McGlockton keeps coming squarely toward Drejka who is still rolling around. Drejka plants himself and sees the McGlockton approaching him. He reaches for the gun. At the exact instant his hand starts moving to the gun, is Drejka reasonably in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm at this time at the hands of McGlockton? There are only two answers: yes or no. If you choose no, then Drejka is attempting to commit brandishing and aggravated assault. If you choose yes, then Drejka is clear at this point. (If you are undecided, you should side with "yes" because that is what juries are required to do.) _Note: great bodily harm it's defined in Florida. However the state's Supreme Court has thrown out convictions were people suffered broken bones, small scars, and other injures that don't majorly impact a victims life._
SECOND DECISION POINT
As Drejka reaches for the gun, McGlockton keeps advancing. The gun comes out of Drejka's holster, but he hasn't aimed it yet because has some sort of difficulty on the draw. McGlockton sees the gun and steps back. Drejka points the gun at McGlockton without aiming it. McGlockton steps back again and slightly turns away with his hands at his sides. Drejka aims the gun at McGlockton without firing. Time stands still for a one or two seconds. Drejka pulls the trigger. At the exact instant the firing pin goes forward, is Drejka reasonably in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm at this time at the hands of McGlockton? If you answered no last round or you choose no for this round, then Drejka is committing aggravated battery (which turns into murder when McGlockton dies in a few minutes). If you choose yes to this round, then Drejka is clear of any criminal wrongdoing. _Note: it is possible to pick "yes" for round one and "no" for round two but it isn't possible to pick "no" for round one and "yes" for round two._
Personally, I'm a soft "no" for the first round and a hard "no" for the second round. I don't see how any able-bodied person could _reasonably_ fear imminent death (what Drejka told police) from that push (misdemeanor battery which doesn't rise to the level of great bodily harm). Even if that push was violent enough to cause the type of injuries required and I switch to a "yes" for the first round, I'm still a hard "no" on the second round. The steps backwards and the pause indicate that a reasonable person should not have feared what was claimed. Granted: this is set up exclusively using the video. If the evidence changes, I'll consider changing my judgement.
Great subject and great discussion. The guilty verdict came down late Friday Night. Key points I saw in the case, McGlockton retreated as soon as he saw the gun ending the threat and further if you look at the video closely when he's turning away his feet are pointing towards the camera, not at Drejka.
With that being the case and his totally defensive posture there just wasn't any way to justify the shooting.
Yep. The case was pretty clear.
Fantastic discussion gentleman.
Wow John, so very important to drop my
ego EVERY time I put on my carry weapon.
Thank you so much for these ASP Extra legal briefs.
Be safe.
Randy
NHlocal lmfao
You need to avoid conflicts & de-escalate situations but you can not always avoid critical incidents. Remember: DO NO HARM, but DO KNOW HARM.
NHlocal I agree 100%, I always check my ego at the door.
Thanks for the lesson
Great vid and great discussion
Thanks for the in depth on this scenario John. Great lessons to learn from.
This went down in real time. Seconds. Trying this case here is silly. Seconds.
John, Firearms Legal Protection needs to pick up Nebraska. What the heck!
They're working on it. It's getting certified by different states that takes time.
That cool. Thanks!
The first time I saw this shooting I thought the man who pulled the gun definitely deserved to be charged. I don't think he deserves to be treated like a cold blooded murderer or like it was a biased crime. He doesn't deserve a life sentence, but he deserves at least a decade
It may not have been warranted to shoot him, but a lot of people are tired of certain people thinking they can shove, punch, beat up others whenever they feel like, and have 0 consequences. Think twice about being violent, you may get shot.
If you shoot someone who is not an immediate deadly threat to you, expect to be charged.
Active Self Protection Extra he wasn't
Joaquin, pick up a newspaper. Guy's been charged.
What about what the woman was saying or screaming at him? Were there any verbal threats being lobbed at the downed man when he used the gun? I only hear criticisms against the shooter but we must EQUALLY evaluate the couple to know how vile they were as well. We cannot judge everything as if there were no words going down concurrently. Now, is the threat over if they verbally threatened him or menaced him off camera? This has to be examined.
Seems he instigated an incident that escalated into a deadly encounter. Slow motion shows the man standing STOPPED his attack when he saw the firearm drawn and began to step back than the man on the ground fires a shot into him..... Hmmm
The duty to retreat depends on one's ability In a stand your ground state? I thought there was no do duty to retreat if the other criteria can be met? "...reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm "
I'd really recommend taking a class.
+Active Self Protection Extra not to worry. I live in NY. I'd probably only be able shoot if I'm being hung by the leg out my window. I completely understand that there are other factors, but
I took the line directly from the Florida legal site (www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html).
(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
(b) 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.
I carry a gun almost every day as part of my job. It is my prayer that I will never have to shoot anybody. If I have somebody pull a knife on me, it is my plan on telling them to retreat because the cops are on their way. I would rather a bad guy get away then me being forced to shoot somebody in self defense because I value the sanctity of human life because I believe that we are created in the image of God and I believe that its God's desire to save the bad guy if they repent in Jesus' name. I will do what I have to do to protect my life or to protect the lives of innocents around me. But a firearm is a tool of LAST RESORT to be used after every other option-including letting the bag guy getting away if they take that option-has been exhausted.
One problem with your scenario is -- if the guy with the knife is only 2-3 feet from you -- that he can have that knife in your heart ALMOST as fast as you can pull the trigger. Trying to have a "conversation" can inhibit you enough to lose before you even had a chance to defend yourself. In other words, in my opinion, pointing and talking in a self-defense situation where the other person or persons do NOT have a gun is practical ONLY when the potential attacker is far enough away (given the state of the speed of your reflexes) for you to effectively act before the person can reach you, if they decide to in fact rush you.
Thank you, GetMeThere1 for raising the issue.
My scenario is contingent upon my having 7 yards plus between me and the burglar. If the burglar is an imminent, deadly threat then I am going to put as many shots on target that I have to in order to stop the threat because he has destroyed any chances that I am going to give him by closing the distance with me. If the burglar is rushing me then I am not going to be negotiating with him I am going to be stopping the threat with whatever means are necessary.
I am not going to just pull on him and not follow up with deadly force if he gives me no choice. Whenever I draw my non-lethal duty weapons at work, or whenever I draw my non-lethal duty weapons at home I do not draw unless I am willing to use it if and when it becomes necessary. If and when it becomes necessary for me to use my deadly force tools I am not going to present the weapon, and issue my commands to retreat I am not going to issue my commands to retreat in vain but with the solid determination to use whatever force is necessary if the bad guy presses the issue and meets the Immanency pillar of the deadly force elements.
I agree, James. As for myself -- someone who likes to spend their money more on guns than homes, lol -- most homes I've lived in during my 65 years have a relatively few areas with 7+ yard spans, so that would put adversaries in my home in the "instant shoot" situation. The one time I in fact DID draw down on a burglar in my home, he was a mere 3-4 feet from me -- when he saw the muzzle of my 1911 pointed directly at his chest he turned, ran, and dove out the window (lol), so I didn't have to pull the trigger on that one.
At my job I have had to reach for my gun a few times, but before I could draw it the subjects I was stopping dropped their knives/machetes before I was drawing down on them. And I praise God that it hasn't yet escalated beyond that. And I pray that it never will, but if it does I believe that I can do what is necessary to end whatever threats come my way.
Without getting into the specifics of the layout of my house which I don't want to publicly disclose on the internet, there are areas of my house where I have the option. There are other areas where I am automatically in imminent risk if an intruder where to come in upon me at that point. But there are a few scenarios I have run through-mostly where there is a midnight break in-where I will have the opportunity-I hope-to issue a few commands before going to work.
@@GetMeThere1
What I don't understand is why police officers get so afraid of knives!
YOU CAN ONLY STAB OR SLASH!
2 EASILY PREDICTED MOVES TO COUNTER!
Any military trained man can remove a knife from anyone in seconds!
I never understood why police panic and start screaming incoherently while emptying their clip!!!!!
If someone has a knife the only two things they can do with it are stab or slash you which should be easily predicted and easily countered if you are trained
That guy is now in prison for 20 years over that shooting.
He was the instigator in the situation...he should go to jail...
The girl in the car was in fear of her life. She called 911. Drama Drakja instigated the whole event. Sitting in that car minding my own business and some asshole approaches me that aggressively. I call my friend in the store. I call 911. If I have a gun I prepare to use it. If I have pepper spray, I prepare to spray it. I have no idea if that person at my car has a weapon or not. Or what his real intention is. Could it all be a ruse to rob me? Kidnap me? NOBODY KNOWS! She was saved by her boyfriend. And it cost him his life. Too bad Drajka wasn't knocked TF out with a single punch. IMO he should be in prison the Maximum amount of time.
I had a question. You said you think he would be justified in shooting the guy if he drew his weapon and the guy continued to walk towards him, but could he really shoot an unarmed person legally? Don't they have to be a deadly threat?
Can you make the case that a person advancing on an armed man who is specifically ordering you back, means you deadly harm and if they get within arms length can take your gun and use it against you?
@@ASPextra I don’t know is not that easy just to take a gun away, like you guys said: is about moments, if he make some sort of gesture of going for your gun then that is definitely a moment that you should fear for your life.
great conversation, John.
that was a vengeance shoot. a murder.
an amateur with a gun is looking for a problem that needs a guy with a gun. i personally don't think that any yayhoo should be able to carry. i think this kind of scenario is going to become commonplace.
and, i know it's a cliche, but many smaller men carry a lifelong grudge that can result in just such a vengeance killing.
But if he wins the case doesn't the state have to pay for all the court cost in the state of Florida
That's a separate hearing, but I think he might get get that. But not in the civil case.
The one thing that gets me about this entire incident is the shooter caused it, and what he was doing is a crime in many states. I’m not sure of Florida Law, but In many states including where I live (Ohio) the shooter could have been charged with a inciting to violence, even if he never shot the guy. Inciting to violence-No person shall knowingly engage in conduct designed to urge or incite another to commit any offense of violence, when either of the following apply: The conduct takes place under circumstances that create a clear and present danger that any offense of violence will be committed; The conduct proximately results in the commission of any offense of violence. Since he was yelling at the guys girlfriend this incited the boyfriend to come out if the store and push the guy down. The boyfriend has committed aggravated assault, but the guy yelling at the girl over the parking spot has committed inciting to violence-because his behavior is what caused the assault. It should also be noted that if the aggravated assault is charged as a felony, the inciting to violence is also a felony and actual one tier higher. So you can get more jail time for inciting violence than aggravated assault in Ohio. As I stated I don’t know Florida law but many states have a similar law on the books.
*_>"The one thing that gets me about this entire incident is the shooter caused it, and what he was doing is a crime in many states."_*
It's irrelevant who caused the incident. The only thing the law in any state looks at is who escalated force and if it was justified. Blame McGlockton for that. Before he walked outside, there was no threat of violence; even his girlfriend acknowledged she wasn't threatened. McGlockton would be in jail right now if he wasn't dead.
*_>"I’m not sure of Florida Law, but In many states including where I live (Ohio) the shooter could have been charged with a inciting to violence, even if he never shot the guy. Inciting to violence-No person shall knowingly engage in conduct designed to urge or incite another to commit any offense of violence, when either of the following apply: The conduct takes place under circumstances that create a clear and present danger that any offense of violence will be committed; The conduct proximately results in the commission of any offense of violence."_*
#1. I don't think you are getting the purpose behind the law. "Inciting violence" means literally calling for violent action to occur either through issuing threats ("I'm going to kill you so what are you going to do about it?") or encouraging harm ("someone should kill you"). Your state requires the prosecutors to prove that the speaker knew his words had the potential to produce an intended, violent outcome. This incident doesn't come close.
#2. As a historical note, these incitement laws were written in the 1910s to prevent communists from advocating a violent overthrow of the government. In the late 1960s, your state was involved in a groundbreaking freedom of speech case at the US Supreme Court: _Brandenburg v. Ohio._ The state arrested, charged, and convicted a man at a KKK rally for saying that white people should seek revenge against blacks and Jews if the government gets more pro-civil rights. The justices threw out his conviction because his ideas were abstract and not specific enough to incite imminent lawless behavior even though many people-including blacks and Jews-were rightly incensed at the hate speech. If he said "now is the time to seek revenge," then he could be charged.
*_>"Since he was yelling at the guys girlfriend this incited the boyfriend to come out if the store and push the guy down. The boyfriend has committed aggravated assault, but the guy yelling at the girl over the parking spot has committed inciting to violence-because his behavior is what caused the assault."_*
#1. Actually, the public accounts differ on the yelling. The girlfriend says the shooter started yelling first while the shooter and one other witness say the woman started yelling first. Either way, she was a willing and active participant.
#2. You're blaming the victim. I guess we should arrest women in short skirts who fight their rapists or tourists wearing blue who fight Crips members when they attack.
Thanks for this John
Excellent video! Thank you Terry, thank you John! Finally someone with a reasonable, cool head, puts this into the only possible perspective.
Just because you carry, it doesn't give you any power or authority to go around correcting other people. In fact, it is likely much better to myob.
Dreyka has a history of aggression, threats and gun display. He seemed to be looking for a reason.
The guilty verdict is justified.
If Drejka was a part of a legal protection insurance coverage company he would still be charged fees even tho he pays dues for this exact situation? I dont think I understood the explanation very well. Is this because his defense isnt so clear cut and he may be guilty in the eyes of his defense attorneys?
John, not a shooting I would have been involved in. When I am out and about, I do my best to not engage feral people (it's a condition not a color). If I am forced to engage, I am polite, I watch my back and do my best to get out as quick as possible.
I like you 3 rules. Most of all, I do my best to avoid stupid people in stupid places at stupid times.
Please keep up the good job and discuss these legal issues. I believe everyone that Carrying should have carry insurance. I would rather pay for coverage and never need it that defend myself in a righteous shoot and be bankrupted by someone's family looking for a payday.
Thanks!
The guy didn't run away after the gun was drawn. There was like a two to three second delay where the two were just staring at each other. It was weird.
Thanks for the breakdown sir! When the guns come out, the egos turn off. Also, do not force people to defend their significant other's honor. People need to learn to mind their business unless it is truly warranted. As stated frequently in this video, trainers need to emphasize and explain “moments matter.”
I like the Kevin Dixie's video on the discussion of "If You Pull it, You Better Use it". ruclips.net/video/_SAuPsgG94w/видео.html
The shooters previous conduct will be brought up and so should the deceased and his girl friends priors. Multiple felonies including battery of a LEO, home invasion, strong arm robbery, other assaults etc. We only have anecdotal evidence re the shooters previous parking lot escapades.
His prior conduct only matters if Drejka knew about it, which he didn’t.
And Drejkas previous parking escapades shouldn't matter either. He committed no crime by trying to educate the woman on her poor choice of parking spot. The way i see it was that he was blindsided and shoved violently and forcefully, the woman had already stepped out of the car and there was a second guy behind Markeis. He may very well have been informed he was about to get an ass kicking and we will never know what the woman said in return before she texted her man to come out.
No THAT matters because it speaks to what his mindset was. What McGlockton's mindset was is irrelevant to what Drejka does; Drejka's mindset is imminently relevant to what Drejka did.
Active Self Protection Extra 👍
@@ASPextra
I don't understand...
If the shooters history speaks to his mindset at the time, couldn't it also be argued the same for the dead guy???
His history of intense violence could speak to his mindset as well showing he had NO problem violently attacking others & SERIOUSLY injuring them
Implying he most likely was NOT going to stop after shoving him & if he had not been shot he would have continued to assault the shooter...
His history could also show his mindset of not being concerned about consequences when upset & that he is comfortable inflicting extreme violence on strangers in public places
He has done it before...
I would think that would be important because it could portray the feeling he gave the shooter of his intentions
His lack of reguard for consequences for beating a stranger in public if felt by the shooter might be relevant I would think
It would play into the level of fear he would have felt in the moment...
Thank you
Should’ve added a clip of the video in with your discussion
We linked to the original narration instead.
Active Self Protection Extra I know you did, still should’ve put a clip of the video in with your discussion. It would’ve added more insight, and depth to what you were talking about in this video. Also, you eliminate the viewers playing hunt and find for the original video clip to try and tie in the visuals to your discussion. It was a very good conversation, and some good points the two of you made but, the video clip would have made this video more complete and easier for viewers to understand what’s going on.
Anytime a not black person is in an altercation with a black person, the claim is always made they "used racial slurs" whether they did or not. It's used to justify the violent attack of innocent people all the time. And yes, it can be a very bad idea to inject yourself into a situation, but we should not admonish those who do so in order to make society a better place. The constant refrain of "don't get involved" is a big part of why so much antisocial behavior has thrived.
Big thank you John, this was great!!
The stand your ground law can be taken advantage of, but I do think it is necessary. You shouldn't have to retreat to defend yourself.
Makes perfect sense. Training folks should be detailed to explain “moments matter.”
Keep up the good work!!
Trying! :)
I've had strangers yell at my wife before, I didn't feel the need to assault them. Everyone is in the wrong here. Dont park illegally. Don't assault people for yelling at you or your S.O. And don't shoot people when they don't pose an immediate deadly threat.
He was less than arms length away from the dudes wife/partner. I honestly think in a moment I might have done the same. It would take less than a second for the old man to knock the women out if he chose to and we've seen it happen on this channel before, like John says "never ignore your creep alarm", mine would have been going off in this situation. Would you take that chance having someone that close to your significant other?
Thaaaaank you. You don't have to choose one side or the other. They can be both wrong or both right
I want you take a moment and think about deleting your account on youtube because you clearly lack the ability to form a reasonable thought. His wife was in the car. She could've rolled up her window or even backed away and left. But instead, she chose to exit the vehicle as her hubby rolled up on this guy to attack him. Almost like they've done this before. She wasn't in danger until she put herself into danger.
@@BB-eu5gt theres no evidence that McGlockton and his girlfriend made a habit of assaulting people in parking lots.
Drejka on the other hand is known for accosting, and even assaulting, people in that very parking lot.
Drejka as a ccw holder has a responsibility to avoid starting confrontations over petty matters. In fact, being the instigator of any confrontation is off the table.
Heresay.
The real problem with this case is that there is a VIDEO. Everyone can analyze every detail to the max -- which the person actually on the scene CANNOT do. If we had only the information that an older guy was knocked to the ground by a felonious assault and battery from a much younger and bigger man, the situation would be a lot easier to talk about (and probably side with the shooter).
Another way to look at this is: 1) For the sake of argument assume that the guy on the ground is not up to defending himself physically -- that fits me, being 65. It could easily fit this situation, if the guy had some arthritis, especially in his knees or hips. It can be hard for such a person to even get up AT ALL from that situation. 2) So the guy knocks you down HARD (as happened here). What are you SUPPOSED to do? Wait to see if he's going to get on you again? Keep in mind he can do that MUCH faster than you can draw, if he wants to. Given all that plus the fact that the man attacked for no apparent reason and without warning, the very LEAST that would be absolutely justifiable is to POINT the gun at the guy and be INSTANTLY ready to pull the trigger. At that point, a shooting is only a small fraction of a second from happening, and it's hard for any judging body to fairly discuss the attacker's body position, etc. The shooter -- unexpectedly and without provocation (as far as he knew) -- was knocked to the ground HARD, and he looked up to see a much bigger and younger assailant standing over him. Shooting at that point (especially for an older person) is NOT out of the question. Which is why.....
YOU MUST BE POLITE AND NON-CONFRONTATIONAL at all times when you're carrying. In this case, the truth is that if the shooter had NOT been arguing with the woman (which is definitely a FAILURE of being polite and non-confrontational), he wouldn't be getting charged.
It wasn't a felonious assault. It was assault. that's a misdemeanor.
In some states (as I understand it), if he, say, broke his ankle in the fall, it would become a felony. I think it would be safe to say it was a "vicious" battery. You very well COULD die or be severely injured from such a violent shove, if you hit your head on the pavement; you could also get a neck injury from that kind of shove when you're not expecting it and haven't tightened your muscles in anticipation. It was a really nasty shove. From the video it appeared that it was his INTENTION to "catch him cold," in order to have the greatest effect. Also, I just watched the video again: after he shoves him down to the ground he takes a further THREE STEPS toward him, which the shooter would have seen, and which could reasonably induce him to draw his gun. He could EASILY have not taken those steps as if to further attack the man on the ground, but he did. Watch the video.
And if that half a step back was cocking his leg to kick him in the head it’s a different conversation of “Well he drew his gun but didn’t fire and got kicked in the head and Jo’s and the bad guy took his gun and shot and killed him.”
Couldn't have kicked him in the head from the distance he was at. Shot went off, according to the charging affidavit, at 10-12 feet according to the shooter.
That is why they changed "tap, rack, bang" for cops to "Tap, rack, re-assess, then bang if the situation continues to warrant it.
I’m a throwback person. So this would have never been me on either end. (1) I’m a man. A large man. I don’t threaten, raise my voice , or initiate arguments with women under any circumstances. They’re women. But also these days if you’re in an altercation, assume the person you’re in conflict with is armed. Just assume it. I understand the man protecting his woman. I may have put myself between the parking police vigilante and her, but I wouldn’t shove. Why? I understand that he may be armed and also that men are cowards now. Also, I’m more tactical in my approach. If I was truly upset with this man, I would find out who he is and deal with him on my terms at my time of choosing. But I doubt I would invest that type of energy on a parking space dispute.
I think avoidance is the best bet.
Thank you for this information!
Florida - Where video evidence of murder isn't enough.
To bad the video in this case shows a violently stunned victim responding to a deadly threat by a thug who took a step back but *DID NOT RETREAT* C Collins!
@HappyDee *_violently stunned victim responding_*
*_took a step back but DID NOT RETREAT_*
You love contradictions, don't you? Stunned people don't react because they're stunned. Stepping back is retreating.
No John Galt a step or two back is not retreating.
Only actively leaving and/or trying to end the confrontation might qualify.
You mean to tell me that someone backing up from 0 to 10 feet and turning to go even farther away with his hands at his side isn't retreating from hand-to-hand combat? That's warped.
He did not turn to leave John Galt.
I love how you use harsh words like childish for the crazy old guy complaining about a parking spot but not the cowardly young guy pushing a frail old guy who isn't threatening anyone. And the guy is still close enough to do harm if he was to put the gun down.
Never underestimate the unlimited powers of Florida Man
Well I am sure you know already but he was convicted yesterday. And thanks for all the videos I just recently stumbled on to your channel and have fell in love with it
Thank you once again i have learnd more.
"...that's assault." "It's Assault." "And he would've been charged with Assault. But, he's dead."
We have to be sane. Stand your ground means you are not causing any trouble. Trayvon is another clear case of minding your own businesses and someone else is accussing you of robbing. Now, if you have no idea what this private individual is talking about and threating you stand your ground, but this was the plan along. He should have followed trayvon to see where he is going.
Well come to O.K. CORRAL.
Imagine if your whole life revolves around a 711 parking lot. Sad, but it probably gave the guy a feeling of purpose.
I hope that guy is found guilty & rots in jail & loses everything in a civil lawsuit.
He was convicted of manslaughter and will spend the next 20 years in prison.
i agree but whats lost is the deceased fam nor his supporters, not even the judge acknowledge the devilishness or wrongness of the assault and it was clear if he didnt have a gun he wouldve been even more viciously assaulted or worse as he was stepping forward before he saw the gun.
They were both wrong but the most actionable from a legal standpoint is the shooter who took a life under highly questionable circumstances.
As a Florida resident(since 2000), NRA member, CCW-W license holder, US military veteran: four/4 years active duty, I feel the county Sheriff & FL states attys office were wrong to charge the FL ccw user with Manslaughter. Florida changed the law last year: RE stand your ground. The burden of proof is now on law enforcement & state attys. Florida gun owners & 2A supporters should be upset over the actions of the States Attys office. Stand Your Ground & castle doctrine are worthless if prosecutors are not going to follow Florida statues.
The state prosecutor is indeed following Florida statutes.
*_>"I feel the county Sheriff & FL states attys office were wrong to charge the FL ccw user with Manslaughter."_*
#1. The sheriff didn't do anything; he washed his hands of this three weeks ago. He only arrested the shooter because a judge told him he had to by issuing an arrest warrant.
#2. If a charge is even appropriate, manslaughter is the right one. Murder will most likely result in a mistrial or outright acquittal even though manslaughter is a lesser included offense.
*_>"Florida changed the law last year: RE stand your ground. The burden of proof is now on law enforcement & state attys."_*
Wrong. The burden of proof has always been on the government to prove a crime happened. Now, the government has to prove it-to a lesser degree-at a civil trial before the criminal trial gets underway.
*_>"Stand Your Ground & castle doctrine are worthless if prosecutors are not going to follow Florida statues."_*
This isn't a "stand your ground" or castle-doctrine case. The shooter had no safe escape from the violence which triggers a traditional self-defense justification.
I believe that fool was charged. That guy was looking for someone to shot. He happened to find someone who was willing to accommodate him. You can't look at that incident without seeing what it was.
Why does the fault lie with the person who made a snap judgement in the span of 1.5 seconds after attacked from behind and facing multiple attackers instead of the person who made a calculated assault? Yes it's possible the man shoved (Drejka) made an error and McGlockton was retreating but if Drejka was never assaulted he wouldve never been in that situation. It's not like he shot McGlockton 5-10 seconds later after he retreated completely.
Because we're all responsible for how we respond. If you choose to carry a firearm, you are 100% responsible at all times for all actions you take with that firearm.
Of course. I guess a better way to phrase is why does no one give any respect to the fact we're not robots and while we may make a decision in error when attacked violently; the burden of that lies with our attacker because we never asked to be in a fight for our lives. Drejka may 100% believe he was in danger of his life at that moment and it's not fair of us to microanalyze seconds of footage with clear and calm minds detached from the situation.
*_>". . . facing multiple attackers . . ."_*
In what world were there multiple attackers? The only two people involved were the shooter and the deceased.
Oh really? Because if you watch the video the wife gets out of the car as her husband approaches and drejka is facing her before he gets shoved in his back. So in any reasonable persons mind you think that multiple people are now going to attack you.
I like to think of myself as a reasonable person, and I didn't see her attack or prepare to attack anyone. Looking at the worst case scenario is is not reasonable in this case.