• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Update on the Michael Drejka trial in Clearwater Florida

Trippy Trekker

Trippy Trekker

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Messages
12,179
Reaction score
5,710
Location
Tampa Bay area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
By: WFTS Digital Staff , Associated Press

drejka jury selection.png
CLEARWATER, Fla. (AP/WFTS) — Opening statements began Wednesday in the case of Michael Drejka. The court room is full with spectators and Markeis McGlockton's mother and father.

All jurors were seated in the high-profile case involving Drejka, who shot and killed McGlockton over a handicapped parking spot outside a Clearwater convenience store, Tuesday evening.

Five men and a woman have been selected to decide Drejka's fate. Two women and a man were chosen as alternates. Most of the jurors are white, none are black.
Click to expand...

Michael Drejka Trial: Opening statements begin in deadly Clearwater parking lot shooting case

Day 3 Live Coverage -

We’re back.

Schaub asks Kelly to point out the man in the silver SUV. Kelly points toward the defense table.

“Suit, blue shirt,” he says.

“Let the record reflect he’s identified the defendant Michael Drejka,” Schaub says.
Click to expand...

Trial in the Clearwater parking lot shooting: Day 3, opening statements

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Going out on a limb early to predict a hung jury and retrial. Anyone else willing to make a prediction?
 
A bit more info about this case.

“Handicap Spot” Trial Triggers #FakeNews Tsunami
Posted by Andrew Branca Monday, August 19, 2019 at 7:00pm

The Florida “handicap parking spot shooting” trial of Michael Drejka starts this week, and accordingly news coverage of the case—by which, of course, I mean “media lying” about the case—can be expected to spike.

An excellent example of such media lying is found in CNN. In today’s post we step through that “news” report and fisk out the many lies within.
CNN report about the case gets almost everything wrong.

"Handicap Spot" Trial Triggers #FakeNews Tsunami
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Anyone else willing to make a prediction?
Click to expand...




1. This is 2019.

2, Florida is in transition, as are most states.


3. Mr. Drejka WILL be convicted.

4. The jury will want to show how "woke" they are.


5. The only "positive" aspect of this case is that other young gentlemen may learn this lesson: Do NOT park illegally in spots for disabled people. Show a little respect for other people. The world does not revolve around you.
 
Last edited:
Trippy Trekker said:
Going out on a limb early to predict a hung jury and retrial. Anyone else willing to make a prediction?
Click to expand...

The prosecutors are only trying this case for optics they arent going to waste money on a second trial.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
A bit more info about this case.

“Handicap Spot” Trial Triggers #FakeNews Tsunami
Posted by Andrew Branca Monday, August 19, 2019 at 7:00pm

The Florida “handicap parking spot shooting” trial of Michael Drejka starts this week, and accordingly news coverage of the case—by which, of course, I mean “media lying” about the case—can be expected to spike.

An excellent example of such media lying is found in CNN. In today’s post we step through that “news” report and fisk out the many lies within.
CNN report about the case gets almost everything wrong.

"Handicap Spot" Trial Triggers #FakeNews Tsunami
Click to expand...

I heard something about this on the radio I think

First, “stand-your-ground” is not a legal defense, it merely modifies the legal defense of self-defense by waiving the element of avoidance.
Click to expand...
 
Common Sense 1 said:
A bit more info about this case.

“Handicap Spot” Trial Triggers #FakeNews Tsunami
Posted by Andrew Branca Monday, August 19, 2019 at 7:00pm

The Florida “handicap parking spot shooting” trial of Michael Drejka starts this week, and accordingly news coverage of the case—by which, of course, I mean “media lying” about the case—can be expected to spike.

An excellent example of such media lying is found in CNN. In today’s post we step through that “news” report and fisk out the many lies within.
CNN report about the case gets almost everything wrong.

"Handicap Spot" Trial Triggers #FakeNews Tsunami
Click to expand...

Yawn.

Legal Insurrection - Media Bias/Fact Check

Andrew Branca | Waxahachie Daily Light Journalist | Muck Rack

Andrew Branca brands himself as a self-defense guru and lawyer. He blabbers on ad nauseam in the article you linked to.

This one paragraph in Branca's article resonates:

As I’ve noted here and elsewhere, this is not a clear cut case of either lawful self-defense or an unlawful killing. Reasonable people can look at the same evidence and come to differing conclusions on guilt or innocence. It’s thus perfectly reasonable for some people to believe Drejka was justified in firing that shot. It is also perfectly reasonable for the State Attorney to believe there exists enough evidence inconsistent with self-defense to bring the matter to trial and have a jury decide the matter. This is the system working, folks.
Click to expand...
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Yawn.

Legal Insurrection - Media Bias/Fact Check

Andrew Branca | Waxahachie Daily Light Journalist | Muck Rack

Andrew Branca brands himself as a self-defense guru and lawyer. He blabbers on ad nauseam in the article you linked to.

This one paragraph in Branca's article resonates:
Click to expand...

Yawn back to you.....

Newsguard Green Light: “Legal Insurrection does not distort facts to advance opinions”

Sunday, December 9, 2018

“… the site handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly…. Headlines can be opinionated, but do not distort facts or mislead readers about the content of stories.”

Newsguard is a company formed by Steven Brill and Gordon Crovitz to rate websites to provide advertisers and readers who add the Newsguard browser add-on with an assessment of website journalistic credibility.

Its homepage proclaims:

“NewsGuard uses journalism to fight false news, misinformation, and disinformation. Our trained analysts, who are experienced journalists, research online news brands to help readers and viewers know which ones are trying to do legitimate journalism—and which are not.”

When I was contacted by Newsguard, and not having read the Wired article or knowing much about them, I was suspicious.

After all, ratings and fact-check systems have been used to malign and ban conservative websites on Facebook and Twitter, and to try to steer advertisers away. Groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center used by major social media platforms are so clearly biased and devoted to political suppression that I worried this was just another such effort.

Yet I answered their questions.

But alas, my fears were unnecessary. Newsguard did a credible job judging our credibility. We passed in all areas except for Corrections policy.

Credibility
Stories cite credible news organizations and websites. Sources are hyperlinked within articles. Legal Insurrection does not distort facts to advance opinions and discloses its conservative perspective on an About page, leading NewsGuard to conclude that the site handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly.

Legal Insurrection does not articulate a corrections policy. Jacobson told NewsGuard in an email: “If there is a minor non-substantive correction, such as a name spelling or job title correction, we generally just make the change. More commonly, when there is additional information that puts the original story in a different context or presents an alternative view or new information, we do that as an ‘Update.’” Because the site has not issued corrections since 2016, and NewsGuard does not classify
updates as corrections, Legal Insurrection does not meet NewsGuard’s standards for regularly correcting or clarifying errors.

Headlines can be opinionated, but do not distort facts or mislead readers about the content of stories.

Newsguard Green Light: "Legal Insurrection does not distort facts to advance opinions"
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Yawn back to you.....

Newsguard Green Light: “Legal Insurrection does not distort facts to advance opinions”

Sunday, December 9, 2018
.... Credibility
Stories cite credible news organizations and websites. Sources are hyperlinked within articles. Legal Insurrection does not distort facts to advance opinions and discloses its conservative perspective on an About page, leading NewsGuard to conclude that the site handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly.

Legal Insurrection does not articulate a corrections policy. Jacobson told NewsGuard in an email: “If there is a minor non-substantive correction, such as a name spelling or job title correction, we generally just make the change. More commonly, when there is additional information that puts the original story in a different context or presents an alternative view or new information, we do that as an ‘Update.’” Because the site has not issued corrections since 2016, and NewsGuard does not classify
updates as corrections, Legal Insurrection does not meet NewsGuard’s standards for regularly correcting or clarifying errors.

Headlines can be opinionated, but do not distort facts or mislead readers about the content of stories.

Newsguard Green Light: "Legal Insurrection does not distort facts to advance opinions"
Click to expand...

Thanks for bringing Newsguard into the discussion. Different strokes for different folks. Clearly Newguard suits you more than it does me.

NewsGuard considers Fox News a healthy part of your news diet
Some would agree! Others would disagree! But that’s the challenge of creating a simple green/red label for a news site: You’ve got to have a cut-off line somewhere, and for NewsGuard, it’s somewhere south of Fox News.
Click to expand...

NewsGuard considers Fox News a healthy part of your news diet >> Nieman Journalism Lab
 
Common Sense 1 said:
A bit more info about this case.

“Handicap Spot” Trial Triggers #FakeNews Tsunami
Posted by Andrew Branca Monday, August 19, 2019 at 7:00pm

The Florida “handicap parking spot shooting” trial of Michael Drejka starts this week, and accordingly news coverage of the case—by which, of course, I mean “media lying” about the case—can be expected to spike.

An excellent example of such media lying is found in CNN. In today’s post we step through that “news” report and fisk out the many lies within.
CNN report about the case gets almost everything wrong.

"Handicap Spot" Trial Triggers #FakeNews Tsunami
Click to expand...

You know how ****ing stupid you look when all you can post is fake news nonsense? And then you cite a bs blog with no journalistic standards? LOL
 
Not much new there. Just the fact that there's video to confirm it and a jury to recognize it. The shooter executed the other guy...whether it was hate, fear, insult, whatever. "Offense and shouting" do not constitute an imminent lethal threat, do not present all that's needed for JOA.

And even in FL, do not stand up under SYG.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
You know how ****ing stupid you look when all you can post is fake news nonsense? And then you cite a bs blog with no journalistic standards? LOL
Click to expand...

No clue what you are spouting but that seems to be the norm...... By all means carry on.... :lamo :peace
 
My opinion likely won't be popular. So be it.

The charge is what the prosecution determined it should be. Regardless whether the charge is correct, the guilty verdict is. The video clearly shows McGlockton retreating when Drejka shot him. However, it also shows McGlockton came out of the store and immediately escalated the confrontation from verbal to physical by assaulting Drejka. It further shows him advancing, then retreating only when Drejka pulled his gun. Obviously, the jury did not accept Drejka's perception that he was still in danger when he fired. It will be interesting to see if that perception affects the appeal.

Bottom line, the fault also lies with Jacobs who illegally parked in a handicapped spot and refused to move. Some might say Drejka should have called police instead of confronting her. Maybe so, but he did nothing illegal until he shot McGlockton. Jacobs OTOH was in violation as soon as she parked. If she had simply complied with the law by moving her vehicle, her boyfriend might still be alive and Drejka might still be free. I think she should have been charged as accessory but unfortunately the law doesn't work that way.
 
The relatively quick verdict pleased me. I expect an appeal.

I also appreciate the judge immediately ordering Drejka into custody while he awaits sentencing.
 
CHuDWah said:
My opinion likely won't be popular. So be it.

The charge is what the prosecution determined it should be. Regardless whether the charge is correct, the guilty verdict is. The video clearly shows McGlockton retreating when Drejka shot him. However, it also shows McGlockton came out of the store and immediately escalated the confrontation from verbal to physical by assaulting Drejka. It further shows him advancing, then retreating only when Drejka pulled his gun. Obviously, the jury did not accept Drejka's perception that he was still in danger when he fired. It will be interesting to see if that perception affects the appeal.

Bottom line, the fault also lies with Jacobs who illegally parked in a handicapped spot and refused to move. Some might say Drejka should have called police instead of confronting her. Maybe so, but he did nothing illegal until he shot McGlockton. Jacobs OTOH was in violation as soon as she parked. If she had simply complied with the law by moving her vehicle, her boyfriend might still be alive and Drejka might still be free. I think she should have been charged as accessory but unfortunately the law doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

It's like road rage...there are 2 participant that escalate a conflict. But if you are carrying a firearm you ALWAYS have to remember you cannot use lethal force unless the threat is imminent. Hence, it's damn smart to act like an adult and let slights roll off your back and walk away. Alive.

OTOH, it is ridiculous to say it's the fault of someone who parked in a handicapped spot. The over-reaction of the shooter was not justified there either. I mean, come on...think about it.

As for the bold...if her bf had killed Drejka...she probably would have been in many states.
 
Good!, justice is served but the victim's life is still gone forever . .

Just wanted to stop by real quick and comment on this, lets see what I said about this over a year ago?:

AGENT J said:
Ill post the same thing here i posted in the other thread about it

GOOD!!!! (him being charged)
now with that said who knows how this will go down in court but with the video footage and testimony of witnesses etc etc not at least charging the dude was a ridiculous initial move.
I DO understand however (in the case of possible stand your grounds) the notion of not wanting to charge somebody and keeping them locked up until there is a review of the case to determine if it warrants a trial. But announcing there will be no charges etc was the wrong thing to do, the chief should have just stated there's an ongoing investigation it will be pushed up the ladder and we will let you know.

This one HAD to have charges brought up and it will probably lead to the law being modified at least some, currently its too grey.
Heres the best videos ive seen, they last about 1:33 to show everything


No arrest in fatal shooting during argument over handicap parking space

AGain this clearly needed to go to trail, i dont know how the jury will rule but theres no way to watch this video and think its open shut, no charges, no trial for anybody honest and objective IMO.
1:05 shove
1:08 gun is brandished guy takes 5-6 steps back and makes at least a quarter turn
1:11 shot fired

For me? if im on the jury and NOTHING new comes out, just the video and testimony we already have now, that guy gets charged with a crime and stand your ground doesn't apply. :shrug:
Click to expand...


Yep still how i feel and im glad this went down the proper and right way.
 
Lursa said:
It's like road rage...there are 2 participant that escalate a conflict. But if you are carrying a firearm you ALWAYS have to remember you cannot use lethal force unless the threat is imminent. Hence, it's damn smart to act like an adult and let slights roll off your back and walk away. Alive.

OTOH, it is ridiculous to say it's the fault of someone who parked in a handicapped spot. The over-reaction of the shooter was not justified there either. I mean, come on...think about it.

As for the bold...if her bf had killed Drejka...she probably would have been in many states.
Click to expand...

I am a little unsure here. The video I saw looked like the fellow who did the shooting had been thrown to the ground by a fellow that ran up and grabbed him and threw him to the ground.

the it looked like the fellow that was shot. only backed up after being shot. From my point of view.. it looked like the fellow on the ground could claim self defense.
 
jaeger19 said:
I am a little unsure here. The video I saw looked like the fellow who did the shooting had been thrown to the ground by a fellow that ran up and grabbed him and threw him to the ground.

the it looked like the fellow that was shot. only backed up after being shot. From my point of view.. it looked like the fellow on the ground could claim self defense.
Click to expand...

The facts are part of the media, articles, court logs, etc. Even before the trial it was known the shots came after he backed up. And they was verbal escalation beforehand, the dead guy didnt randomly attack the shooter.
 
jaeger19 said:
I am a little unsure here. The video I saw looked like the fellow who did the shooting had been thrown to the ground by a fellow that ran up and grabbed him and threw him to the ground.

the it looked like the fellow that was shot. only backed up after being shot. From my point of view.. it looked like the fellow on the ground could claim self defense.
Click to expand...

A single juror with a firm Trumper mindset could have hung the jury. The verdict both surprised and pleased me!
 
Lursa said:
The facts are part of the media, articles, court logs, etc. Even before the trial it was known the shots came after he backed up. And they was verbal escalation beforehand, the dead guy didnt randomly attack the shooter.
Click to expand...

Thanks.. the news clip I saw.. only showed a fellow running up and throwing a guy down on the ground and then you see him back up after it looks like he is shot.

I got a chance from another source to get more info and yeah.. it was manslaughter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom