'Stand your ground' law, Edit: Drejka Found Guilty 8/23/19

Rum, beer, women, movies, nice websites, gaming, etc., without interrupting the flow of martial threads.

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby windwalker on Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:40 pm


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDtzofAUSJI

She said she has a "right" to park anywhere..Actually no she does not.
The guy might have been an asshole...she could have moved the car, her boy friend could have talked to the guy instead to attacking him.

He was not shot for parking there,
he was shot after knocking the guy down presenting a credible threat.
Would it be different had the guy picked up a stick or other weapon.
Would the guy have knocked him down if the guy was a big guy and looked like he could handle himself.

In Taiwan watching the news,
parking issues often result in people getting out of the car and going for it.
Here they like to use small base ball bats....oten with friends helping out if available
Last edited by windwalker on Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
基於開合、虛實與吞吐 的知覺運動
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 7698
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby grzegorz on Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:25 pm

windwalker wrote:She said she has a "right" to park anywhere..Actually no she does not.
The guy might have been an asshole...she could have moved the car, her boy friend could have talked to the guy instead to attacking him.

He was not shot for parking there,
he was shot after knocking the guy down presenting a credible threat.
Would it be different had the guy picked up a stick or other weapon.
Would the guy have knocked him down if the guy was a big guy and looked like he could handle himself.

In Taiwan watching the news,
parking issues often result in people getting out of the car and going for it.
Here they like to use small base ball bats....oten with friends helping out if available


Good points and fair enough but when the man stepped back and stood still I don't think even an officer would get away with shooting him.

We will see but it seems obvious from the shooter's history that he seeks confrontation. If he wasn't armed he probably would not have confronted the lady to begin with.

Another option, other than moving the car, would have been for the lady to ignore the man.

At my job we deal with people upset about where we park and some drivers get into it with people but I usually just move or ignore them all together. It's pontless to talk to these people and it almost never ends well. If anything things only escalate or it is a complete waste of time.

I have a feeling the man will be found guilty but with Florida you never know.

Tragic for the family. It is pontless to blame the victim. Reminds me of when a man got shot at movies for using his phone, getting into an argument and got shot.

Just more senseless violence...
Last edited by grzegorz on Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:34 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
User avatar
grzegorz
Wuji
 
Posts: 6609
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:42 pm
Location: Tuck Frump

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby windwalker on Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:33 pm

grzegorz wrote:
windwalker wrote:She said she has a "right" to park anywhere..Actually no she does not.
The guy might have been an asshole...she could have moved the car, her boy friend could have talked to the guy instead to attacking him.

He was not shot for parking there,
he was shot after knocking the guy down presenting a credible threat.
Would it be different had the guy picked up a stick or other weapon.
Would the guy have knocked him down if the guy was a big guy and looked like he could handle himself.

In Taiwan watching the news,
parking issues often result in people getting out of the car and going for it.
Here they like to use small base ball bats....oten with friends helping out if available


Good points and fair enough but when the man stepped back and stood still I don't think even an officer would get away with shooting him.
The guy was not an officer nor trained to react as one. He just got bum rushed by a big guy, he happen to be carrying at the time.
Your correct in that weapons or skill sets often give one an ability to do things that they might not do with out them...Like being way bigger then a guy and knocking them on their ass....never know could be carrying....bad way to find out.


We will see but it seems obvious from the shooter's history that he seeks confrontation. If he wasn't armed he probably would not have confronted the lady to begin with. Did you check the history of the one shot. Or is he ok, no problems with him right.

Another option, other than moving the car, would have been for the lady to ignore the man.

At my job we deal with people upset about where we park and some drivers get into it with people but I usually just move or ignore them all together. It's pontless to talk to these people and it almost never ends well. If anything things only escalate or it is a complete waste of time. UPS is a good gig...lots of people try for it. Not easy to get into from what I was told


I have a feeling the man will be found guilty but with Florida you never know.

its hard to say watching something go down....no sound to hear what was being said.


Tragic for the family. It is pontless to blame the victim. Reminds me of when a man got shot at movies for using his phone, getting into an argument and got shot.

Just more senseless violence...


FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Prosecutors charged a white man with manslaughter Monday in the death of an unarmed
black man whose videotaped shooting in a store parking lot has revived debate over Florida’s “stand your ground” law.

Guess the jury will have to decide.

The press is playing this case up
be that as it may...

Harris and his daughter told store employees what had happened, and according to court documents, the father urged a security guard at the QuikTrip to 'take care of the situation, or he would do it himself'.
The guard assured Harris that he would handle the matter.

As Harris, his daughter and her friends were leaving, the dad again spotted Armstrong, and got out of the car and confronted him.

Witnesses said the 40-year-old punched Armstrong in the face, causing him to collapse. Once he was down, the assailant allegedly proceeded to kick and stomp on him. Harris then got back in his car and drove home, leaving the gravely injured victim moaning on the ground.
Melvin Harris, 40, has been charged with second-degree murder after Leon Armstrong was beaten to death in Phoenix

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... stall.html

It doesn't take a weapon to kill some one.

One may find themselves reacting or acting out of cultural or instinctive motivations not even understanding whats going down until its to late.
In the first case they guy probably didn't realize what he was doing, the shooter also reacted with the only weapon he felt he had at hand his gun.

Looked at the clip a couple of times, to me the guy didn't look like he was walking away...He looked like someone thinking the guy is not gonna shoot....
Depends on what the jury is convinced is happening...The guy could be taunting him about the gun ya never know.

The second case, the guy got caught up in his own emotions, he still might be able to get off with a sympathetic jury.

Every one tends to think it won't happen to them until it does..hopefully when it does ones mind is engaged. I know I've caught myself
reacting to stupid stuff on the bart when I'm back....and then thinking what a dumass I was...

One small slip of time can ruin a life.....
Last edited by windwalker on Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:02 am, edited 7 times in total.
基於開合、虛實與吞吐 的知覺運動
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 7698
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby grzegorz on Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:32 am

Trained officer or not the guy has a history if being a sh*t starter and society is better off without him.

Didn't you almost get in a fight with a lawyer at a donut shop over his first ammendment right to express his views his views on the election?

Good thing you were not in Florida.

Btw, f*** Florida too.
Last edited by grzegorz on Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:23 am, edited 4 times in total.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
User avatar
grzegorz
Wuji
 
Posts: 6609
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:42 pm
Location: Tuck Frump

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby windwalker on Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:37 pm

grzegorz wrote:Trained officer or not the guy has a history if being a sh*t starter and society is better off without him. what happens when others think or feel your the shit starter.

Didn't you almost get in a fight with a lawyer at a donut shop over his first ammendment right to express his views his views on the election?
that would be no. Does it have something to do with the thread

Good thing you were not in Florida.

Btw, f*** Florida too.
基於開合、虛實與吞吐 的知覺運動
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 7698
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby grzegorz on Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:16 pm

Sh*t happens.

Does is give people the right to gun someone down?

I couldn't give a damn what backwards ass law they passed down there.

Is the shooter a darling of the right or something?

Anyone who has ever pulled out a gun knows that pulling the trigger is always a last resort.
Last edited by grzegorz on Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:05 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
User avatar
grzegorz
Wuji
 
Posts: 6609
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:42 pm
Location: Tuck Frump

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby marvin8 on Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:37 am

Peacedog wrote:I'd say this illustrates the value of being polite. And the penalty for acting like a jerk around the wrong man.
windwalker wrote:She said she has a "right" to park anywhere..Actually no she does not.
The guy might have been an asshole...she could have moved the car

I agree. The girlfriend could have de-escalated the situation by apologizing, say she was just dropping off her boyfriend and move the car to a closer, non-handicap parking space, as she would have with a police officer issuing a ticket:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6d3KyuWB_o

Excerpt from "The 2018 Florida Statutes, JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE," http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 6.013.html:
(1)(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.


@ :37, McGlockton takes 4 steps back, before getting shot. Dejka was not in "imminent death or great bodily harm." He should be found guilty of manslaughter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FZbgnnl2ks&t=37s


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mu0kr1PXPU
User avatar
marvin8
Wuji
 
Posts: 1943
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:30 pm

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby windwalker on Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:59 pm

Which a jury will either prove or disprove in a court of law.
The guy walks up to him and bum rushes him.

The guy on the ground defended himself with the only weapon he had his gun. I see someone repositioning themselves not running away or anything else.

Watching it on a computer screen is not the same as being there. Each side will have a chance to prove their case.

The race in this case as in others is the main draw.

Do you know how many people have died in Chicago this year?
Last edited by windwalker on Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
基於開合、虛實與吞吐 的知覺運動
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 7698
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby Steve James on Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:49 pm

Well. fwiw, using Chicago as a gauge is just a typical way of deflecting the fact that Chicago is nowhere near America's murder capital. It's a slick soundbite that no one who really looks at the figures would even assert, unless he or she were being dishonest. Just check, but, for example:

But despite the soundbites, Chicago remains in the middle of the pack when homicide is measured on a per-capita basis. In 2016, the city had a rate of 27.9 killings per 100,000 residents — half that of St. Louis, whose 188 murders amounted to 59.3 homicides per 100,000 people and preserved that city’s status as America’s murder capital. Baltimore placed second, with a homicide rate of 51.2, followed by Detroit, New Orleans, and Cleveland. “Because Chicago has so many people, it can get a murder every day, and that gets people’s attention,” John Pfaff, a professor of law at Fordham Law School, told The Trace recently. “When you focus on numbers, not rates, Chicago ends up looking worse because you forget just how big a city it is.”


All that is not interesting, though, since the context of using Chicago in this case was moire about who was being shot than about murders.

Anyway, here's the thing. There's all this talk of "the law" and how race shouldn't matter. But, all it takes is either putting oneself in the place of the shooter or victim, or putting oneself in the juror's seat. Iow, everyone on this jury will see the video. They'll be read the law, that Marvin illustrated, but Florida penal law is public and can be googled. So, it will come down to what the jury sees in the video, and it's easy to ask anyone who has seen it whether or not he feels that the shooting was justified.

I tend to have some faith in current juries, since I've served on a few. I know that the whole reason the man was indicted was because a case was presented to a grand jury, and the majority had to believe that the state had a case. The trial raises the standard of judgment to beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that many people already argue that the shooter was justified, it's also reasonable to believe that he'll be acquitted.

Brief anecdote from when I served on a grand jury. On my left was an Irish-American lady who came from a family of leos, and whose husband was a LEO. She told me that everyone she knew said that cops could not get a square deal in the South Bronx. On the far end of the table was a young Hispanic woman, and she would say that she wouldn't believe a word that any cop said. It was a mixed bag of jurors, but they were they extremes.

Now, the ADA was always required to read us a paragraph saying that we promised to be unbiased. Of course, to the lady on my left, that meant "the cops never lie." To the woman on the right, that meant it was definitely, already biased. After all, the accused generally had no say in the matter because he didn't testify. That is, unless he did. Because, rarely, someone accused would waive his Fifth Amendment rights and testify. I have a few funny stories, but the main point is that, when the defendant testified (and we could ask him questions), the lady on the right and the left usually came to the same conclusion.

I found that doubly true when there was a videotape of the event. The majority of people, and sometimes all of them, would come to the same conclusion when they were all shown the same thing. But, I recall one case which was about a man who was raping his two step daughters. The daughters (15 and 13) both testified. However, there was no videotape. So, should we have indicted or not? The point was made that we weren't determining guilt, we ("the people of the State of NY) were saying that those girls deserved their day in court.

Sorry for the rant. My point is only that people can either believe their eyes or not. If they think the shooter in the video had no choice and that it wasn't a crime. Fine. Sure, he will say that he was in fear for his life. All I can say is that if it were me, I couldn't justify firing. I don't believe in drawing a weapon with the intention of using it, but I hear a lot of people talk about a gun being a deterrent. Imho, a man backing away from someone holding a gun is being effectively deterred.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 18595
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby windwalker on Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:13 pm

I think it will depend on whether his actions were premeditated or not.
The guy walks up to him and attacks and throwing him to the ground,
The guy on the ground reacts with a weapon at hand.

He may not have even realized what he was doing at the time.

a man backing away from someone holding a gun is being effectively deterred.


Was he backing away or positioning himself for another attack.
Last edited by windwalker on Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
基於開合、虛實與吞吐 的知覺運動
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 7698
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby Steve James on Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:50 am

You saw the video. Was the guy preparing to an attack? Or, did you might mean "Did the shooter believe the man was coming forward to attack?" Well, maybe, if he hadn't seen the gun pointed at him and started backing up.

And, even if it was premeditated, how could it be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt"? That's why the DA did not charge him with homicide in the first degree. It takes a lot of evidence to prove that someone planned to kill someone criminally. That's why he was charged with the lesser charge of manslaughter. Even if convicted, he might only get five years.

Anyway, I think if you carry a weapon, the only reason is that you will use it if necessary. I don't buy the "Brandishing a weapon stops" anything. The weapon is not for show. That said, if you use it, you take responsibility for what happens. It's always possible to make a mistake.

Alas, I remember an entire generation who settled things with their hands, and were proud of it.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 18595
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby oragami_itto on Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:20 am

The shooter staked out the location, armed, trying to start trouble, as a hobby. Sounds premeditated to me.
"My own knowledge is shallow and I await corrections from the intelligent."
-Hermit of Jade Well
User avatar
oragami_itto
Wuji
 
Posts: 1989
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:11 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby windwalker on Wed Aug 22, 2018 5:06 pm

oragami_itto wrote:The shooter staked out the location, armed, trying to start trouble, as a hobby. Sounds premeditated to me.



And the history of the person shot...Did you check that....

He walks up to the guy bum rushes him and finds out that he was carrying and got shot. By walking up to him not alerting him this act was premeditated.

He attacked the guy.

The guy looked like he had some training to be able to draw his weapon and fire.

The case will rest on whether the guy was a still credible threat or not.

"We have done some testing along those lines recently and have found that an average healthy adult male can cover the traditional seven yard distance in a time of (you guessed it) about one and one-half seconds. It would be safe to say then that an armed attacker at 21 feet is well within your Danger Zone. "

Distance is key, as well as hand position, up or down. Far from the body or close in.

The guy was just bum rushed. lets say he is within 16' its not clear if he's backing up or re positioning...hands down, not up or extended at his sides.


"In duty-to-retreat states, the defendant is not legally allowed to use deadly force to defend himself if the jury concludes that he could have safely avoided the risk of death or serious bodily injury (or the other relevant crimes) by retreating.

In stand-your-ground states, the defendant is legally allowed to use deadly force to defend himself without regard to whether the jury concludes that he could have safely avoided the risk of death or serious bodily injury (or the other relevant crimes) by retreating."

The question will be whether the guy still posed a threat,
基於開合、虛實與吞吐 的知覺運動
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 7698
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby windwalker on Wed Aug 22, 2018 5:08 pm

Steve James wrote:You saw the video. Was the guy preparing to an attack? Or, did you might mean "Did the shooter believe the man was coming forward to attack?" Well, maybe, if he hadn't seen the gun pointed at him and started backing up. What I saw was guy who just bum rushed a guy knocking him to the ground and not raising his hands nor extending them to his sides...His hands where down he took a few steps back to do what? He was still within a threat zone and not obviously making it known that he was unarmed or not intending another attack. Remember he didn't warn him of the first attack. Whats to prevent him from making a second attack this time taking the weapon.

And, even if it was premeditated, how could it be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt"? That's why the DA did not charge him with homicide in the first degree. It takes a lot of evidence to prove that someone planned to kill someone criminally. That's why he was charged with the lesser charge of manslaughter. Even if convicted, he might only get five years. It will be a test of the stand your ground law. The officer saw a clear case, lets see what a jury sees....His back ground will be questioned as of yet there is no mention of the others back ground except that he had a family his son was there...What ever is in his back ground will also be brought out, but to my mind in both cases has little to do with what happend. Do agree the shooter was an asshole...bad series of events either way..

Anyway, I think if you carry a weapon, the only reason is that you will use it if necessary. I don't buy the "Brandishing a weapon stops" anything. The weapon is not for show. That said, if you use it, you take responsibility for what happens. It's always possible to make a mistake.

Alas, I remember an entire generation who settled things with their hands, and were proud of it.


They still do

Harris and his daughter told store employees what had happened, and according to court documents, the father urged a security guard at the QuikTrip to 'take care of the situation, or he would do it himself'. The guard assured Harris that he would handle the matter.

As Harris, his daughter and her friends were leaving, the dad again spotted Armstrong, and got out of the car and confronted him.

Witnesses said the 40-year-old punched Armstrong in the face, causing him to collapse. Once he was down, the assailant allegedly proceeded to kick and stomp on him. Harris then got back in his car and drove home, leaving the gravely injured victim moaning on the ground.
Melvin Harris, 40, has been charged with second-degree murder after Leon Armstrong was beaten to death in Phoenix

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... stall.html
Last edited by windwalker on Wed Aug 22, 2018 5:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
基於開合、虛實與吞吐 的知覺運動
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 7698
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: 'Stand your ground' law is license to kill people of color

Postby marvin8 on Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:48 pm

Steve James wrote:That's why he was charged with the lesser charge of manslaughter. Even if convicted, he might only get five years.

Under Florida's 10-20-Life law (Florida Statute 775.087), Drejka faces a mandatory minimum of 25 years to 30 years maximum in prison, if found guilty of manslaughter.

windwalker wrote:
oragami_itto wrote:The shooter staked out the location, armed, trying to start trouble, as a hobby. Sounds premeditated to me.


And the history of the person shot...Did you check that....

He walks up to the guy bum rushes him and finds out that he was carrying and got shot. By walking up to him not alerting him this act was premeditated.

He attacked the guy.

The shooter's history is admissible in court. However, the defender's history/background is inadmissible. Because, Drejka had no knowledge of McGlockton's background at the time of the shooting.

A concerned customer told McGlockton there was an altercation and he might want to get involved. McGlockton pushed Drejka (misdemeanor assault) to get him away from his girlfriend. If McGlockton intended to cause great bodily harm or imminent death, most likely he would have punched, rather than pushed.

windwalker wrote:"We have done some testing along those lines recently and have found that an average healthy adult male can cover the traditional seven yard distance in a time of (you guessed it) about one and one-half seconds. It would be safe to say then that an armed attacker at 21 feet is well within your Danger Zone.

Distance is key, as well as hand position, up or down. Far from the body or close in.

The guy was just bum rushed. lets say he is within 16' its not clear if he's backing up or re positioning...hands down, not up or extended at his sides.

The 21-foot rule is when the defender is starting with a holstered weapon and the attacker is moving towards the defender, which is not the case here. It is clear McGlockton took 4 steps back increasing the distance between them and turned away, as Drejka pulled his gun out. At that distance, most people move away or stop at gunpoint rather than move towards the shooter.

windwalker wrote:The question will be whether the guy still posed a threat,

Not "still posed a threat." The question will be: Did Drejka believe he was in danger of “imminent death or great bodily harm” when he pulled the trigger, shot and killed McGlockton? Given the video, past incidents, witnesses and Drejka's own statements so far, it is not reasonable to believe that.

Excerpts from the Dredjka charging document, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vvTG2i ... sp=sharing:
State of Florida wrote:Your Affiant reviewed security footage from the area where the confrontation took place. Markeis McGlockton approached MICHAEL DREJKA and pushed him to the ground. MICHAEL DREJKA falls to the pavement and from his right side, produces a firearm pointing it directly at McGlockton. MICHAEL DREJKA steadies the firearm with both hands. Markeis McGlockton immediately backs up when confronted with the firearm. As he backs up to his vehicle he begins to turn towards the front of the store away from the shooter. As he turns way from MICHAEL DREJKA, MICHAEL DREJKA fires one shot. The shot hits Markeis McGlockton and he runs into the store. McGlockton did not produce or have any weapon. . . .

During the interview, MICHAEL DREJKA stated he was in fear. He indicated he was tackled by Markeis McGlockton. When he went to the ground, he went for his firearm which he carried in a holster on the right side of his body. He pulled the gun out and point it at Markeis McGlockton where he fired one shot at him. MICHAEL DREJKA stated no words were exchanged by him or McGlockton. He did not see McGlockton's hands or face. He saw his legs and said he made a twitch towards him and he fired the gun in self-defense. MICHAEL DREJKA indicated the fire arm was a Glock 40 caliber handgun and he has a concealed weapons permit to carry the gun.

During the interview, MICHAEL DREJKA maintained his actions were in self-defense. Your Affiant asked him to reenact the shooting demonstrating the distance between the men at the time the shot was fired. Your Affiant played the role of the victim MICHAEL DREJKA sat on the ground and pointed his arms outstretched toward your Affiant in a shooting position. MICHAEL DREJKA directed your Affiant to back up, at which point your Affiant had stepped all the way to the wall and could not retreat any further. The interview room where the enactment took place is a 10 x 10 foot room. Based upon this reenactment, MICHAEL DREJKA demonstrated that Markeis McGlockton was in excess of 10 feet from him when he shot him. . . .

The Pinellas County Sheriff's Office was contacted by Richard Kelly. Mr . Kelly told Detective Nelson de Leon, of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, that he drives a tanker truck for AA Cut-Rate Septic Tank Service. Approximately three months ago, he was confronted by MICHAEL DREJKA at the Circle A Food Store. MICHAEL DREJKA was upset that: Kelly had parked in the handicap spot. MICHAEL DREJKA argued with Kelly and the exchange became very loud. Kelly indicated that at some point, MICHAEL DREJKA told him he was going to shoot him. MICHAEL DREJKA went to his SUV and entered the car retrieving something from the center console area. At this time, Kelly got into his truck and left the Circle A Food Store. During the argument MICHAEL DREJKA directed racial slurs toward Kelly.

John Tyler told Detective de Leon that he owns the business AA Cut-Rate Septic Service and he employs Richard Kelly. Mr. Tyler spoke with MICHAEL DREJKA concerning his employee parking in the handicap spot. MICHAEL DREJKA was very angry and wanted to voice his complaint. He told Tyler that he was lucky that he didn't blow his employee's head off. Tyler immediately realized he could not carry on a productive conversation with MICHAEL DREJKA and told him to please call law enforcement and he would deal with them in handling the situation.

Your Affiant has reviewed two (2) prior incident reports involving the improper exhibition of firearms by MICHAEL DREJKA. An incident occurred on January 10, 2012, and was reported to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. Tyler Smith reported that he was driving with a friend and they were stopped at a light at SR 580 and OS Highway 19. Mr. Smith stated the light had turned yellow and he decided not to drive through the yellow light and stopped his car. A truck, driven by MICHAEL DREJKA was behind him. MICHAEL DREJKA honked his horn and yelled at Smith. MICHAEL DREJKA held a black handgun out the driver's side window of his vehicle. He motioned for the driver, Smith, to walk back to his truck. Both Mr. Smith and his passenger were 18 years old. The teens did not wish to press charges.

On December 12, 2012, a Largo police officer reported that a female driver told him that a man driving a black Toyota truck (later identified as MICHAEL DREJKA), had pointed a gun at her and her passengers. She pointed out the black truck to a Largo officer. When Largo Police talked to MICHAEL DREJKA, he stated that the female driver was driving too slowly through a school zone. He denied displaying a firearm at the occupants of the car. MICHAEL DREJKA did have a firearm in his vehicle. No further investigation was done because the victim left the scene without providing identification.

Forensic Scene Supervisor, Stacey Wall, met with Detective de Leon to provide him with the results of testing done with the Faro 3D Scanner. The 3D Scanner allows for the precise 30 capture of measurement and distance. According to data obtained through the use of this device, the likely range of the distance between the shooter, MICHAEL DREJKA, and the victim, Markeis McGlockton, at the time of the shooting was from 10 to 15 feet, with the more probable distance being 12 feet.
Last edited by marvin8 on Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:40 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
marvin8
Wuji
 
Posts: 1943
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Off the Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests