Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

Muleslayer

Platinum VIP
  • Content Count

    4,605
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Muleslayer

  1. Umbertino just because multiple idiots write otherwise, does not make it true. Can ten thousand Lemmings be wrong?
  2. The Trouble with the Video Evidence in the Michael Drejka Case https://ccwsafe.com/blog/30962 Michael Drejka faces trial on Monday, August 19, for the fatal shooting of Markeis McGlockton. Drejka shot McGlockton a little over a year ago during an argument over a handicapped parking space at a Clearwater, Florida convenience store. The shooter claimed self-defense. Initially, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri declined to file charges, citing Florida’s “stand-your-ground” law. However, after an investigation -- not to mention public protests and broad national media coverage -- the State Attorney charged Drejka with manslaughter. Central to the trial will be the grainy surveillance video that captured the shooting. On the video, Drejka can be seen (but not heard; there is no audio) arguing with McGlockton’s girlfriend. McGlockton exits the store, sees the conflict, walks briskly towards Drejka and shoves him violently to the ground. Drejka sits up, retrieves a pistol holstered at his waist, aims, and fires a single round. McGlockton clutches his chest where he has been shot, lumbers back into the store, and collapses and dies at the feet of his five-year-old son. There is no question about whether a jury will see the video. They will. But a judge recently heard arguments about how much of the video jurors would watch. Prosecutors wanted to show jurors the video of McGlockton dying as his terrified son looked on. Drejka’s lawyer, John Trevena, fought desperately to keep it out, saying “it’s really not relevant, and it’s highly prejudicial.” The judge agreed, and the heart-breaking scene won’t be shown during trial. However, the defense and prosecution also disagree about the speed at which the video should be shown. Prosecutor Fred Schaub wants to show the video at a reduced speed. “Every sport,” he says, “slow motion video determines what actually occurred, what actually took place. Somebody can say, ‘he was doing this, he was doing that.’ You can see what actually occurred in slow motion video.” For the defense, Trevena says, “If it’s not real-time, then it’s not really representative of what occurred -- at least as the defendant perceived the events.” When Sheriff Gualtieri justified his original decision not to charge Drejka, he introduced a caveat. “As you can see in there, there is a pause,” he said, “even if it’s only for a couple seconds, there is a pause between the time Drejka hits the ground and he shoots. That pause gives me pause. That pause gives me some concern.” During that pause, which lasts less than two seconds, McGlockton steps back and turns slightly away. It gives Drejka what prosecutors call “time to reflect.” He had a moment to reconsider whether McGlockton posed an imminent threat before he pulled the trigger. At trial, jurors will put themselves in Drejka’s position and ask themselves what Drejka was thinking in that moment. Played at regular speed, that pause passes quickly. Played in slow motion, however, that pause seems to last much longer, giving the impression that there was more time to reflect. The judge sided with the prosecution; he’ll allow the video to be slowed when presented to the jury. Don West, veteran criminal defense lawyer and National Trial Counsel for CCW Safe, says that video can be a double-edged sword in a self-defense case. “The only thing the video can show is what it captures,” West says, “and video is often of poor quality, and it doesn’t always show the whole story.” That’s the case in the Drejka trial. The video is grainy. It doesn’t include audio. It only shows the shooting from one perspective, and it is not the shooter’s -- and now it won’t even be played at the speed at which the event happened. The prosecutor used a sports analogy to justify showing a slow motion version of the shooting at trial. It’s an instant replay. It sounds like Monday-morning-quarterbacking. The lesson for concealed carriers is that, if you are ever involved is a self-defense scenario, you could be Monday-morning-quarterbacked, too. Every action you made, whether shown frame-by-frame on video or revealed with forensic evidence, will be painstakingly analyzed. Being prepared to withstand such scrutiny means maintaining a high state of situational awareness whenever you carry. You must adopt a mindset that establishes that any use of deadly force must appear reasonable -- not just from your point-of-view -- but from practically any point of view.
  3. EVERY time i read one of your bottom feeding stories running down Trump I want to go have a Doobie. but somewhere back in the day i grew up. (just a bit)
  4. i am down to my Sig p938 6 Mag's. in many ways i never came home from patrol. my wife does not understand the hyper vigilance. there are actually 11 commandments, remember Moses broke them. 10 were recorded. little known 11th commandment: cover thine own azz my last surgery i told the nurses before being put under, to restrain me. lots of strange looks but they understood when i ripped the restraints out of the gurney in recovery. it takes a few moments to get my bearings back. strange to quote a hack like Stallone but you don't just turn it off!
  5. looks like Big/Azzhole likes to give you Rubies! here is an emerald to even you out!
  6. Skyler David Ryce knew the two men, Ky Jones and Jeremy Burdine, who were trying to break into his home on a Saturday afternoon in Wichita, Kansas. According to a spokesperson for the Wichita Police Department, Ryce had a bad history with Jones and Burdine, and apparently the intruders had come to retrieve some disputed property. They failed. Ryce, who owned the home, fired through his front front door, striking both intruders. When police arrived on the scene, officers found Jones and Burdine lying in the yard, bloodied by multiple gunshot wounds. They died later at the hospital. Police arrested Ryce -- but not for the shooting. They found stolen property at his home. A spokesperson noted that it was not the property Jones and Burdine had come for. Police seemed convinced that the men were trying to force their way into Ryce’s home, and the homeowner appears justified in his use of force. In most of the cases we explore, the threshold for justifying lethal force is the reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. In Ryce’s case, however, one could argue that the threat posed by Jones and Burdine wasn’t necessarily imminent; they were on the other side of a locked door. Don West, veteran criminal defense attorney and National Trial Counsel for CCW Safe, notes that many states have statutes that allow the use of deadly for the purposes of preventing an aggravated felony. Robbery, murder, rape, kidnapping: each is an aggrevated felony -- and so is home invasion. In many states, if someone is breaking into your house, the element of reasonable fear is presumed. “It’s your house,” West says, “and if someone is trying to force their way in, your use of force is presumed reasonable.” However, in such a circumstance -- when death or bodily harm is not imminent -- West warns, “you have to be right, and you have to be able to perceive the circumstances correctly.” We’ve written extensively about the Ted Wafer case where Wafer, the homeowner, was awoken very late at night by violent banging on his front door. He presumed that someone was trying to break in. He opened the front door to confront the intruder, and shot the shadowy figure he met standing on his porch. The trouble was, the so-called intruder was actually an unarmed 19-year-old girl who was drunk, high, disoriented, injured, and probably looking for help. Wafer misjudged the situation, and he was convicted of second degree murder. It seems clear that Ryce knew that the men at his front door were Jones and Burdine, and he likely knew their intentions and what they were capable of doing if they managed to break in. There was little chance, we can assume, that Ryce was misjudging the situation. But, still, there was a chance. That means Ryce took a legal risk when he decided to fire through his locked front door. He was betting his freedom that the circumstance was as he perceived it. We’ve written about another case where a CCW Safe member -- the owner of a house on a 10-acre ranch -- was surprised to find a man on his porch shortly before midnight. Shirtless and shoeless, the man was bleeding from his head and angrily demanding to be let inside. The homeowner’s wife took the children to a secluded room and called 911. During the 20 minutes it took for sheriff’s deputies to arrive at the remote ranch, the property owner waited patiently with his gun drawn, warning the intruder through a window that if he entered the home, he’d be shot. At one point, the intruder used the front porch swing as a battering ram on the front door, but the homeowner kept his cool, resolved not to fire unless the man actually forced his way inside. He recognized the high legal risk he would take by firing through a window or a closed door. He knew he’d be more justified in using deadly force once the man broke in. In the end, deputies arrived and apprehended the intruder. No shots were fired. In most states, a homeowner is permitted to use deadly force to stop someone from breaking into their home. The lesson for the concealed carrier and gun owners concerned about home defense is that, if you choose to use deadly force to prevent a break-in before there is an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury, you are taking a legal gamble that you are correct about all the details surrounding the circumstances. If you are mistaken, the shooting could be deemed unjustified. Good judgement requires weighing the immediate risk to yourself and your family against the legal risk of acting too soon or being wrong about the nature of the threat. https://ccwsafe.com/blog/30916
  7. 10-4 Good buddy! On the forward deck nuttin but water and pre sunshine!
  8. hey if umbertino can flood us with The Guardian, Sauce for the goose.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.