Tags
Andrea Branca, deadly force, Fake news, Markeis McGlockton, Michael Drejka, self-defense, stand your ground, The Constitution, the Secon dAmendment, Trayvon Martin
Once the Left, which very much includes the media, begins to push a narrative, they won’t let it go unless and until it no longer serves their political needs, or a narrative they think more damaging to their ideological opponents, or the Constitution (same thing), comes along to replace it. An example of this is the narrative that Stand Your Ground laws are inherently racist, written to exempt evil white people from the law, allowing them to randomly and without consequences, murder Black people. The beginning of this narrative, arguably, was the Trayvon Martin case. Martin was shot and killed on February 22, 2012 (the SMM Martin case archive is here).
Here’s an excerpt from my review of the first episode of a multi-part crockumentary about Martin, released in 2018:
…and Fulton claimed the Stand Your Ground law: ‘gives people the right to shoot and kill a 17 year old boy.’ This theme would be continually raised throughout the hour.
SYG, common across America, merely removes the duty to retreat in use of force cases. If attacked, one does not have to run away. They may remain where they legally are, and use proportionate force to defend themselves. All of the other facets of lawful self-defense still remain. Florida’s SYG law was not at all applicable to the Martin case, and was never raised in the trial. It was not applicable because Martin ambushed Zimmerman, broke his nose, knocked him to the ground, straddled him, and continually, viciously beat him, repeatedly slamming his head into a concrete sidewalk. Zimmerman could not retreat.
Yet to this day, Martin’s mother, with the willing help of the media, continues to push this entirely false narrative. She is not alone. A great many anti-liberty/gun cracktivists do the same, apparently on the theory that any crack in the wall of the Second Amendment is progress and may lead to the destruction of the entire edifice.
Perhaps the most recent example of this version of fake news is the Michael Drejka case. The indispensable Andrew Branca outlines the facts:
It seems that the shooter, 47-year-old Michael Drejka (who happens to be white), was giving his piece of mind to 24-year-old Britany Jacobs for having parked in a handicapped parking spot without the necessary permit. The victim, 28-year-old Markeis McGlockton, who happens to be black, was Ms. Jacob’s boyfriend, and he emerged from the convenience store and approached the argument.
McGlockton approached Drejka, and shoved him viciously to the ground, with McGlockton looming over the downed man.
In response Drejka appears in the surveillance footage to present a handgun at McGlockton. As McGlockton sees Drejka apparently initiating the presentation of his hand gun, McGlockton immediately takes several steps backwards away from Drejka.
It is then that Drejka fires the single shot that would ultimately kill McGlockton, nearly two full seconds after initially presenting the gun at McGlockton.
Surprisingly–or not–the local sheriff got the law entirely wrong, and did not make an arrest based on that misapprehension of the law, as Branca notes in another post:
Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri issued a statement about the shove-shoot case. He gets a lot right in this statement, but he also gets a lot wrong. In the interests of time (and because I have a full-day Law of Self Defense LEVEL 1 Class to teach today in Sacramento CA), I’ll focus on the wrong stuff in this post. [skip]
Frankly, I can see reasonable arguments for either a lawful or an unlawful shoot here. A decision not to arrest is reasonable on these facts, and a decision to arrest would have been reasonable on these facts. But the idea that the Sheriff is obviously and explicitly prohibited by law from making an arrest on these facts is nonsense.
Drejka was eventually arrested and charged, and on 08-23-19, was found guilty of manslaughter. He faces up to life in prison. Reporting on the verdict, Branca wrote:
The case immediately became something of a media circus when the local sheriff mistakenly decided that Florida’s self-defense immunity law, §776.032, prohibited him from arresting Drejka for the killing. [skip]
Drejka’s legal defense to the charge of manslaughter was, of course, self-defense. As such the only real legal issue in the case was whether, at the moment Drejka fired the fatal shot, he had a reasonable belief that McGlockton presented an imminent deadly force threat (meaning a threat reasonably capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury).
Note that this is a different question than whether Drejka was justified in presenting his gun in the first place. It’s quite possible for Drejka to have been legally justified in presenting the gun without being legally justified in firing the shot.
This is the key issue, and a key issue in any similar situation. Branca continues:
In evaluating whether Drejka reasonably perceived an imminent deadly force threat from McGlockton at the time he fired the shot, it’s important to differentiate between facts and claims that are relevant to that question and those that are not. Frankly, it seemed to me in my quick review of the trial testimony and argument that there was an excessive emphasis on irrelevant matters.
To start, even the video itself is not decisive on the question of whether Drejka was seeing what the video camera was seeing, if only because of differences in position and angle. Also, the camera had not just been thrown violently to the ground, a physical experience that can affect perception. The reasonableness of Drejka’s perception of a threat is properly judged in the context of a person in his circumstances—that is, was it the reasonable perception of a person who had just been violently thrown to the ground?
This is an important issue as well. I’ve often noted the dangers of relying on police body cameras. Their narrow field of view doesn’t capture what the human eye can easily see, and video clips often lack context, particularly from the viewpoint of someone facing potentially deadly danger.
Related, it doesn’t matter if McGlockton actually presented a deadly force threat to Drejka. Rather, it only matters if Drejka reasonably perceived such a threat.
By all means, take the link and read Branca’s article. This is another important point:
There may be circumstances in which it is prudent to speak briefly with police responding to the scene of your self-defense event, although the default position should always be to simply request legal counsel (and medical attention, if appropriate). There is never, however, any good reason to be speaking at length to anyone about the event without first consulting with legal counsel, and there is never, ever, ever any good reason to voluntarily engage with professional interrogators without your legal counsel actually present (if then).
Excellent and experienced advice. One’s final word should always be: “I’ll be happy to cooperate with you Officer, after I’ve had a chance to speak with my attorney.” Any sane police officer involved in a shooting would do the same.
Briefly, the issue for the jury was largely “did Michael Drejka have a reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death when he fired?” There was no element of “Stand Your Ground” present in this case. View the brief surveillance video at Branca’s article. You’ll notice McGlockton walked purposefully up to Drejka and brutally shoved him, knocking him some distance to the ground. As Drejka, still crumpled on the ground, draws his handgun and points it at McGlockton, who is still facing him in what one must reasonably believe to be a threatening manner, McGlockton shuffles several steps backward, obviously recognizing the handgun. Less than two seconds elapse from when Drejka points the gun and shoots.
As Branca notes, this was a judgment call for the jury, which could have gone either way. Obviously, they did not think Drejka’s decision to shoot when he did reasonable. They did not think a reasonable person would have believed himself to be in imminent danger of seriously bodily injury or death. Absent that reasonable belief, the shooting was not self-defense. Again, “Stand Your Ground” was not applicable here.
It’s difficult to make any determination of racial influence here. McGlockton was Black and Drejka is white. Did this influence the jury? There’s no way to know. Did it influence media coverage? Almost certainly. Consider this headline from National Public Radio:
Florida Man Found Guilty Of Manslaughter Despite ‘Stand Your Ground’ Defense
This one from CNN:
Shooter in ‘Stand Your Ground’ trial says Markeis McGlockton ran at him. Video shows otherwise
Actually, the video shows McGlockton walking purposefully toward him. And note this headline from Vox:
Florida man who used ‘stand your ground’ defense found guilty of manslaughter
Again, if was a self-defense defense. Vox also relies on one of the many lies about the Trayvon Martin case:
While the ‘stand your ground’ law was a factor in the Trayvon Martin case, Zimmerman was ultimately acquitted because of a standard self-defense protection.
Prosecuting attorneys in the McGlockton case argued that, indeed, Drejka faced no imminent harm, since McGlockton backed away after their initial altercation. Those prosecutors said Drejka could have safely retreated and called the police at that point, but that he chose to fire his weapon instead, invalidating any claim of self-defense or of ‘standing his ground.’
I’ve found, and Branca, the foremost authority on self-defense law in America today, will tell you most people, to include lawyers, police officers, and surely the average citizen, know little or nothing about self-defense law. The media should know better. After all, they have “layers and layers of editors and fact checkers.” Just ask them. They’ll look down their noses, sniff condescendingly, and tell you. They have the resources to get these legal issues right, including contacting Branca, who is not exactly in hiding. They might even ask the author of this scruffy little blog who is reasonably well informed on these issues, despite not bearing the burden of being a lawyer. Yet they constantly get virtually every aspect of self-defense cases wrong.
One is tempted to believe the venerable aphorism that one shouldn’t attribute to nefarious action what can be explained by mere stupidity, and there is a very great deal of that in the media. Most likely, however, is they don’t care to know, and their first concern is always the narrative, so Trayvon Martin will, forever, be a social justice martyr murdered because of a Stand Your Ground law, and whenever a Black person is killed by a white person, Stand Your Ground will be the cause, or at least, significantly involved.
Am I being racist in this assertion? If the media were equally concerned when Black people shoot each other, daily, in large numbers, in the major, Democrat-ruled cities, one might have a case, but they aren’t and they don’t.
Normal Americans, however, can be certain of this: where guns and the Second Amendment are concerned, the Media are unremittingly hostile, and care little or nothing for accuracy and honesty. The narrative rules over such niggling details as truth, fact and law, because their ultimate goal is the disarmament of the law-abiding. This may be an area where honest, normal Americans just might want to stand their ground.
One of the things that seldom gets reported given all the interest in the event itself, the victim(s), the trial, and verdict… and media palaver about some element of “too many guns”… we never hear about the condition of the shooter after the event of having killed someone. Zimmerman seemed to go on with life with a number of strange encounters and still pops on the news for some oddball behavior, alleged or not. In this case you are citing… the black guy is dead.. the court case is finished… the press has made their story about “too many guns” and stand-your-ground… but what about the shooter? Yeah.. he faces life in jail… but beyond that part.. is there true remorse? Is he affected emotionally? Has his behavior changed?
My point is that those people wanting a CCW for whatever reason are wanting it to defend themselves or presumably their loved ones as well. Seems to me when someone wants a gun to protect themselves they intend to ultimately kill someone if the situation arises. Does anyone ever consider the personal emotional ramifications if you ever did manage to kill another human being? The usual justification is to shrug that possibility off with the old “it was either him or me”, kill-or-be-killed.. and thinking you’ll just head home at the end of the day and kick back on the recliner and chug a beer. Even if your killing someone was 100% justified and you were proclaimed the hero of the day by the media… how many of us might have that lingering guilt in killing someone? How many would let it eat away at us? On the other hand.. how many might indeed be ok with it.. and indeed head home to chug a beer and watch Gilligan’s Island re-runs with no emotional repercussions. One thing is for sure… no one will ever know until they’ve done it.
I am not aware of any of the states in my region including any classroom to discuss that before issuing a CCW. Being in the security business I am not aware of any armed guard classroom requirement that addresses this element… yet as an armed guard to bear a certain level of risk of emotional ramifications if you use a firearm to kill someone… or turn them into a lifetime cripple. Mental health is (very) slowly becoming an issue these days.. and this is part of addressing the risks of being armed no one even considers.
All of that “Doug” is important and something to consider when arming yourself with a gun for self defense.
Pepper spray/taser type weapons/whistles/etc. IF LEGAL are always alternatives.
Some of us however think and feel that WE and OUR LOVED ONES are much more important to us than the criminal(s) attacking us. I’ll pull the trigger if I’m allowed to and sleep fine. If I don’t sleep good, I’ll get over it eventually but I’ll be alive to get over the STUPID choice of the criminal.
Well, Mike.. that is true but everyone is different and not all folks are law enforcement types like yourself. I personally have never been in combat. I’ve been responsible for the death of a family member in an auto accident.. totally different kind of thing than pulling a trigger to kill someone intentionally for sure. It weighs on me but no PTSD. In the military my M-16 was locked and loaded and aimed at a fellow soldier ready to do my duty and pull the trigger, according to my orders… but at the last second a situation changed. If brought before some court my actions could have been praised for my restraint, or a dereliction of duty for not pulling the trigger.. depends on perspective. What kept going through my head was never “can I pull the trigger” but rather “is this necessary?”, given it was not a combat situation.
I also have had a few years running a funeral home… and removing bodies from all kinds of death scenes and body conditions. No question I never killed any of those people… but I’ve seen a lifetime of the end result of all manners of death.
All I am suggesting is that there is little or no moral consideration presented for being armed because we presume the idea of killing someone before they kill you is all thought process you need.
Dear Doug:
Rather, it’s a matter of understanding human nature, of knowing that not everyone is kind and altruistic, and some would very much like to harm, even kill innocents. Sociopaths walk among us daily.
As you suggest, carrying a handgun requires the acceptance of that reality, and the willingness to use that handgun to preserve the lives of the innocent. The alternative, if attacked by one vicious enough to kill indiscriminately, is to weakly submit. Whose life is more precious to a just society? If there is no right to lawful self-defense, and many omg the Left do not believe there is, then anyone’s life is forfeit to those cruel and strong enough to take it. They surely will never disarm.
Mike.. I don’t object one bit to being armed legally.. not my issue. What does irk me to no end is the number of people who feel preservation of the Second is the end all issue to preserving democracy… not to mention, the only political issue on their plate. It’s the obsession to the Second that I have an issue… and there’s WAY too much fear of what Liberals “might” do… especially this “chip away our freedom” nonsense.
My original reply was simply to illustrate that there’s more to owning a gun to pull the trigger and kill someone.
Now, I know we don’t share the opinion and that’s ok… and I’m not going to bore anyone with debate or being contrary just because. Just I tend to view from a more humanist side. BTW.. I’m a card-carrying GOP’er and NRA member.
Dear Doug:
Any competent handgun/CCW instruction includes the very issues you’ve raised. Those that have considered them and carry, unless they’re unhinged, pray they will never have to use their handgun, but are ready to save their lives, the lives of those they love, and innocent strangers. Would that more such people were everywhere.
Your passion for armed self-defense, while I do not disagree, comes with a price somewhere down the line. But then, most things in life do. It’s the yin/yang of existence.
Dear Doug:
Oh, indeed it does. I choose, however, to be alive to deal with the resulting issues rather than dead, which some seem to believe is a superior moral position.
Be realistic and not just emotional Doug. “We must do something” is a weak individual trying to feel “safe” in an unsafe world.
Yeah there is NO way to prevent EVERY DEATH. Children will drown in 5 gallon buckets/pools, children will get be brain damaged from falling/playing football/bicycles/etc, children will burn themselves on stoves, children will stick a fork into a socket, etc.
TOO many laws about guns on the books now. Try using them on criminals instead of dropping those charges.
Not sure there are ‘too many” laws as you state but I do understand the concept of what you mean. I do agree our justice system has a large number of flaws but then again our justice system at any given time reflects our own relative social confusion. But yes.. I agree we need to enforce the laws we have first.
There are two basic issues with most journalists when writing about incidents with firearms:
1) Virtually all have NO firearms experience. They have no first-hand knowledge of how to use a firearm, let alone the law or correct terminology.
2) They have usually predetermined their story without any regard for the facts. This is evident in how the distortions in the story only run one way (self defense = bad).
Journalists — at least back in the day — were trained to deal only in facts. Today, “feelings” outweigh facts, allowing facts to be ignored should they become “inconvenient”. This is not fake news…it’s false news. Lies.
The truly sad thing is: they usually get away with it.
This is why the use of critical thinking skills are so important on the part of the person reading/watching/digesting the media. Generally speaking, these days people will watch whatever tends to favor their own personal opinions… rather than trying to use their own brain cells to formulate their opinions from the best one can do to get the facts. The funny part is that most everyone says they are critical thinkers.. when in fact.. they already have formulated their opinions on their own preferred biases. We truly need these skills taught in schools at the early ages because the need to do this is more important given our instant news society and the barrage of information available.
This emotionally biased idea that one isn’t going to watch one media outlet because it’s too Conservative or another outlet because it’s too Liberal doesn’t prove a thing other than a personal fear of what you might see that you won’t like. In practice one should get their information from a wide range of sources then form opinion. But, alas, no one has the time to invest.. so it’s much easier to follow something that agrees with your own opinion.
Dear Doug:
Indeed. One must always be particularly careful in analyzing things with which one tends to agree. One must also be open to changing their views if indisputable facts contradict them.
Agreed. Although even facts are debatable these days… or rather, interpretation of the facts. Like the interpretation of video showing a crime whether it’s cell phone or police cam.. to me it’s almost to the point of why show it at all. What you are seeing will be proven is not what you are seeing. Might as well go back to no cams.. less junk for an officer to worry about stuck to his/her uniform.
Dear navyvet:
Exactly. Here’s a prime example: https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2018/04/30/media-masculinity-snicker-and-the-ar-15/
I would like to read the proceedings from hearing. I would be astonished if the decision to uphold the charges against Mr. Drejka is based only on the video from security cameras. That the assailant did back away is, in my mind, insufficient. I notice that he did not back away very far. The backing away itself would not be enough to convince me that all the fight was gone out of Mr. McGlockton.
What, if any, verbal exchanges, including tone of voice, were their from/to either party after Drejka had drawn his weapon? Similarly, did Mr. McGlockton’s girlfriend or other shout something like, ‘Get him!’ as in the case of (I think) the Michael Brown (Ferguson) shooting?
My understanding is the hearing was sufficient to warrant moving this to a jury trial. Mike, will you be following this as closely as you did in the Justine Damond case?
(A side note: Yes, Andrew Branca is well known as an expert on the legal aspects of self-defense. His article at LI is titled, in part, that it may not be ‘lawful to press the trigger’. That suggests that Mr. Branca is to some degree familiar with the testimony in this case. Of course, it could simply be that Mr. Branca intends his article as a general caution to other gun owners.
Perhaps Mr. Branca is not familiar with the case of Mike Strickland (‘Laughing At Liberals’ on You Tube.). The proceedings in that case are very curious and did find Strickland guilty of numerous felonies. Strickland merely drew his weapon, but did not fire, as he repeatedly sought to disengage from an aggressive crowd which also committed battery upon his person.)
Dear Rick:
Good observations. Deadly force decisions may turn on a facial expression, the tightening of facial and other muscles, and a variety of other factors grainy black and whit video cannot preserve.
Regarding the Michael Brown case, the only shouting was that of officer Darren Wilson who first ordered him to stop, and when Brown turned and charged him, ordering him to stop every more fervently. There was no girlfriend involved.
In my watching of the video, the victim (he can be called that because of the conviction) is not only backing away, but turning away when he is shot. See him hunch forward, directly toward the camera when he is shot. To me, that is a critical factor.
However, I’m also cognizant that the small distance between them would still permit an assailant to feint turning away and immediately turn back and resume the attack (the 21 foot rule). Frankly, he would be stupid to do so with a gun trained on him, but stupidity is a uniquely human failing.
Dear Martin Fischer:
Quite so. It’s a judgement call.
The guy that got shot had just walked up to a non-violent discussion and committed assault and battery on the shooter without provocation. On the other hand, the initial attacker was appearing to turn away and disengage. The shooter clearly seemed to have an option not to shoot his attacker.
I am very happy I didn’t sit on the jury that had to decide whether or not the shooting was justified. There doesn’t seem to be anyone clearly in the right here. One person is dead, one person is in prison, and none of it had to happen.