By Thomas L. Knapp
Just over a year ago, Michael Drejka fatally shot Markeis McGlockton in a Clearwater, Florida convenience store parking lot. On August 23, a jury found Drejka guilty of manslaughter.
Drejka should never have been charged with a crime.
Pinellas County sheriff Bob Gualtieri initially, and correctly, concluded that Drejka’s actions were protected under the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law. The charge was only filed after a calculated public relations campaign to create a “public outcry” based on political issues of gun rights and racial injustice.
Let’s review the facts:
McGlockton physically attacked Drejka, blind-siding him and taking him by surprise, driving him to his knees in a parking lot with no plausible place to flee (even if Drejka had been obligated to attempt to do so), then loomed aggressively over him as a second potential assailant (McGlockton’s girlfriend) moved to Drejka’s right. Drejka drew his weapon and shot McGlockton. All of this transpired in a matter of about five seconds.
Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law required a reasonable belief on Drejka’s part that firing his weapon was “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.”
Jury foreman Timothy Kleinman admits that “Markeis Mcglockton unnecessarily provoked Mr. Drejka by pushing him,” but claims that “[a]t the same time, using the gun wasn’t needed. … He had time to think, ‘Do I really need to kill this man?'”
Forgive me if that statement causes me to doubt that Kleinman or any of the other jurors have ever found themselves in a situation where they were required to make “a kill or possibly be killed” decision over a of span of five seconds or less.
Speaking of doubt, let’s talk about the jury’s obligation. Their job was to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Drejka acted maliciously or negligently rather than in legitimate self-defense. Based on the key piece of evidence — surveillance video from the store — such a conclusion borders on the impossible.
Even Kleinman admits that Drejka was acting in self-defense up to the instant he pulled the trigger: “I think simply drawing the gun would have been enough.” Kleinman had as long to think about that as he cared to take in the comparative safety of the jury room. Drejka had seconds to think about it, on his knees, in a parking lot, during a violent physical assault that took him by surprise.
So why are we here? Because some politicians and political activists found a “lightning rod” case to push their agendas with. That’s a bad reason, an inherently corrupt purpose, for charging a man with a crime.
Yes, Drejka started an argument. But McGlockton started a fight. That bad decision cost Markeis McGlockton his life. It shouldn’t cost Michael Drejka his freedom.
Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Citizens Journal.
Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE
Very well put. Couldn’t have said it better.
He is an asshole and belongs in jail. I live in that neighborhood he was looking for trouble.
Mr. Knapp, you are so far off base on your opinion of events.
First, let me preface a few things. One, I have a CCW and I carry. Second, as a handicap person, I have a specific view towards people that inappropriately park in handicap only parking. When it is appropriate, I do mention that they shouldn’t be parked there, and they are subject to a stiff fine ($250.00). I then move on, especially if they become combative.
Michael Drejka chose to get in an argument an altercation with the driver, Markeis McGlockton’s girlfriend. Someone going into the store commented there was trouble out in the parking lot and McGlockton went out to protect his girlfriend.
Was he too strong in his reaction? One might be able to argue that point, but people are defensive when their family is being accosted. Drejka lost his right to claim to self defense because he was the instigator of the confrontation. If he had made his comments and moved on he would have been able register his opinion and no one would have been hurt, much less lost their life.
If he made his comments and moved on and she would had come after him to continue the interlude and McGlockton then attacked him, I might be more inclined to see in his favor.
Drejka had more than once in the past initiated similar confrontati ons and had drawn his weapon. With his propensity to exert extreme force or to at least display his ability to proffer harm to someone, he should never have had a CCW nor a lethal weapon at his disposal.
Since Michael Drejka is not handicapped, he did not even have a horse in that race.
Therefore, the jury decision for the charges brought was totally correct.
With the privilege of gun ownership and concealed carry comes the responsibility to be cautious of and avoiding creating situations that will have disastrous outcomes.