Michael Drejka Update

Camper6 said:
What world do you live in?

What if all the handicap spots are taken? Do I have a conniption fit if a handicap parks in the regular spots reserved for us mere mortals?

Usually anyone parking in a handicapped spot is a quick run in and out.

I would just ignore it. It happens all the time here and there are lots of cars with stickers but the driver is not handicapped.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, both of you are correct. As a gimp I can use a shopping cart as a walker, burns my hinny .

The hawks arecircling
 

Butterfly said:
Nope, that's the weight of the evidence.

You cannot change the legal definition of legal terms at will. You can call it whatever you want to -- but the law defines what the term means in a trial court, and that's all that matters in a court of law. A criminal trial verdict must be reached to a reasonable doubt, by law -- that's the legal standard, like it or not.
Click to expand...


Once again, a consideration/preponderance of evidence, is what takes the jury to "reasonable doubt" . Without evidence, there is nothing for the jury to consider/ponder. As such, reasonable doubt would never be reached . When they do they announce their verdict.
 
Knight said:
If you want to know or read about evil read the bible. Kids, various people, a son & supposedly the entire human population except for Noah were wiped out by a loving, caring supernatural being. Good read about those mysterious ways.
Click to expand...


Ain't that the truth !!
 

AnnieA said:
This "thug" thing is just arguing for the sake of arguing in this case since the meaning of the word is "a violent person, especially a criminal." McGlockton and Drejka both fit the definition based on prior behavior.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/publi...in-stand-your-ground-shooter-s-past_170719109
Click to expand...
The difference between the two is pretty simple. Being an idiot (Drejka) is not a violent crime. Assaulting someone - other than a self defense situation-- is a violent crime.
 
Camper6 said:
An idiot with a gun is a crime just waiting to happen. Death is so, so, final.
Click to expand...
Exactly why it is stupid to act like a tough guy & assault someone. Perhaps Mr. McGlockton's 5 year old son will learn that if he grows up into a different man than his father was.
 
rgp said:
Once again, a consideration/preponderance of evidence, is what takes the jury to "reasonable doubt" . Without evidence, there is nothing for the jury to consider/ponder. As such, reasonable doubt would never be reached . When they do they announce their verdict.
Click to expand...

It is clear that you do not understand the legal concepts at work. Think what you like.
 
(I’m probably going to hate myself for getting involved, but maybe I can clear up a misunderstanding.)

rgp———-I think you are misunderstanding Butterfly’s replies. When she speaks about “preponderance of the evidence” she is speaking about when and where it is used in its’ “legal” capacity.

The term, “preponderance of the evidence” is used during civil trials or generally, when one party is suing another party.

The term, “beyond a reasonable doubt” in its’ legal form is used during criminal trials.

I think what you are suggesting is that to reach “beyond a reasonable doubt” the jury must hear a “preponderance of the evidence.”

However, you or anyone else would probably never hear those words (preponderance of the evidence) during a criminal trial.

Semantics, it will drive a person crazy.

I’m done here.
 
911 said:
(I’m probably going to hate myself for getting involved, but maybe I can clear up a misunderstanding.)

rgp———-I think you are misunderstanding Butterfly’s replies. When she speaks about “preponderance of the evidence” she is speaking about when and where it is used in its’ “legal” capacity.

The term, “preponderance of the evidence” is used during civil trials or generally, when one party is suing another party.

The term, “beyond a reasonable doubt” in its’ legal form is used during criminal trials.

I think what you are suggesting is that to reach “beyond a reasonable doubt” the jury must hear a “preponderance of the evidence.”

However, you or anyone else would probably never hear those words (preponderance of the evidence) during a criminal trial.

Semantics, it will drive a person crazy.

I’m done here.
Click to expand...



verb
past tense: pondered; past participle: pondered
  1. think about (something) carefully, especially before making a decision or reaching a conclusion.


    Evidence must be pondered/considered before any decision/judgement can be reached in any trial.
And my point all along has been that evidence should be protected period. IMO viewed by / made available to only the prosecution & defense attorneys , then entered into evidence at trial before the sworn jury.

In this case the video of the parking lot went viral.....and the judgement was made by the public [immediately] . This put undue pressure on the prosecutor & IMO he felt the need to bring charges against Drejaka . If the tape would have been held in security & not released to the public I believe the charges would have never been brought.

As I have said, we have a system [our legal system] in place. Let's get back to using it , & following it.
 
AFAIK there has never been a time in our history when all evidence was hidden from the public. Some evidence is, by its very nature, public. Contrary to what some may think, prosecutors only bring to trial the cases they believe they can win. In this case, the police and prosecuting attorney viewed all the evidence and felt they could win the case, then presented said case to a properly impaneled jury, and the jury returned a verdict based on the evidence presented to them. This is how our system works. We are free to disagree with the verdict (I personally think OJ was guilty as sin), but in this case, like most folks, I believe the jury got it right.

Can we just close this thread? Its over.
 
Buckeye said:
AFAIK there has never been a time in our history when all evidence was hidden from the public. Some evidence is, by its very nature, public. Contrary to what some may think, prosecutors only bring to trial the cases they believe they can win. In this case, the police and prosecuting attorney viewed all the evidence and felt they could win the case, then presented said case to a properly impaneled jury, and the jury returned a verdict based on the evidence presented to them. This is how our system works. We are free to disagree with the verdict (I personally think OJ was guilty as sin), but in this case, like most folks, I believe the jury got it right.

Can we just close this thread? Its over.
Click to expand...


I agree, not all evidence is/can be held secure. But in this case I believe the video surely could have/should have been .

I also agree, it's over, and rehashing changes nothing ...but. Nothing wrong with a discussion about peoples feelings / opinions about a subject.
 
jerry r. garner said:
I think what I was attempting to say was evil is proportional to one's personal safety.

Random violence in our times is personal and terrifying:

The mind searches for a reason: if a person can slaughter school children, then how safe am I when I go to Walmarts? Thus, fear has been induced into the general population. We are vulnerable:

I could be kilt and that is terrifying, it’s plumb evil.
Click to expand...
You have probably read thru the posts in this thread, your concern is valid because violence is real. The video with no voice shows a story of a reaction to being assaulted. Many posts amounted to excusing the person committing an assault. I think what I objected to were the comments about how the shooter would not be charged now with a crime if he minded his own business. With that kind of logic how will we as citizens ever overcome the senseless deaths that occur. We see it everyday in the kind of murders you posted about. People knew or were concerned about a particular individual but didn't say or do anything.
Granted Drejka probably had a personal reason for approaching and confronting the driver, but he had the right to do that. He spoke up about what he knew was wrong & the end result was a death.
 
Last edited:
When TWO people do something stupid (like in this incident), the door is open to tragedy. I wish men would think about this before they play "Tough Guy" & put their hands on someone. Size, strength & age mean nothing when a gun is involved.
 
Knight said:
Granted Drejka probably had a personal reason for approaching and confronting the driver, but he had the right to do that. He spoke up about what he knew was wrong & the end result was a death.
Click to expand...

Since you seem to see Drejka as some kind of champion for the rights of the handicap perhaps you should send him a nice big donation to help with his legal expenses. Give till it hurts. :)
 
Trade said:
Since you seem to see Drejka as some kind of champion for the rights of the handicap perhaps you should send him a nice big donation to help with his legal expenses. Give till it hurts. :)
Click to expand...


OK, so you disagree , got it....But why the nasty remark ? Talk about something that will never help , clarify , or solve.
 
rgp said:
OK, so you disagree , got it....But why the nasty remark ? Talk about something that will never help , clarify , or solve.
Click to expand...

I apologize. Like you I am unhappy with the outcome. I would have liked to have seen Drejka be convicted of murder and given the daeth penalty.
 
Trade said:
I apologize. Like you I am unhappy with the outcome. I would have liked to have seen Drejka be convicted of murder and given the daeth penalty.
Click to expand...
Well, ya know the possibility of the death penalty would have to mean a 1st degree murder conviction & that usually means proving certain things like premeditation, planning, intent.
If the manslaughter conviction still stands after the appeal, I don't think you'll be happy with Drejka,s sentence.
 
Knight said:
You have probably read thru the posts in this thread, your concern is valid because violence is real. The video with no voice shows a story of a reaction to being assaulted. Many posts amounted to excusing the person committing an assault. I think what I objected to were the comments about how the shooter would not be charged now with a crime if he minded his own business. With that kind of logic how will we as citizens ever overcome the senseless deaths that occur. We see it everyday in the kind of murders you posted about. People knew or were concerned about a particular individual but didn't say or do anything.
Granted Drejka probably had a personal reason for approaching and confronting the driver, but he had the right to do that. He spoke up about what he knew was wrong & the end result was a death.
Click to expand...
If someone took his spot he had a right. No harm was done to Dreika by the driver. The end result was death but not to him.
His personal annoyance does not justify the results.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top