We had a pretty intense discussion of it at the time, esp when it initially looked like the local Sherriff was not going to press charges... As a refresher, it was the guy who got in a confrontation with a woman at a convenience store over her being parked in a handicapped spot, and then shot and killed her boyfriend who came out of the store and shoved him.
The shooter was eventually charged and convicted of manslaughter, which is what I and several others felt the tape showed from the start. Initially I thought the local Department's refusal to charge him was derelict, but after watching this tape of his actual interrogation I feel like they never really considered letting him off. Not saying they were giving him rope to hang himself, but those investigators had viewed the tape and knew how many lies he told them. I think the delay in bringing charges and initially releasing him was a case of wanting to make sure they had a solid case, and during the interim his previous 4 road rage incidents were revealed and further complicated his defense...
Also, his willingness to talk basically undermined much of what could have laid the foundation for a self-defense argument, and the analysis in the video does a great job of pointing that out. I know our resident lawyers probably see this as old hat, but as a lay person I found some of the interrogation and the way he undermined his own potential defense fascinating,. As a result of not having the sense to consult an attorney beforehand, it seems like he really did make some incriminating statements in the midst of trying to offer his justification for his actions.
Not aware of any criminal prosecuting experience from those on the board. But I'd be interested in opinions on what I felt was a pretty masterful close from the Prosecutor to earn a conviction in a case which on the surface would seem a tough task. I remember there were folks who thought this was clearly a "stand your ground" incident just on the basis of the initial shove.
But I've got to believe that one of the key elements for the (all white) jury was the defendant carelessly and deliberately instigating a provocative situation based on the knowledge that he was armed and felt protected. Not to mention that contrary to what the defendant claimed about the victim moving towards him, the tape clearly shows the victim retreating before he even sees a gun...
And this may not be relative, but why would the defendant be so incensed over a family using a "handicap" spot, which in all honesty seems to offer no real advantage in terms of distance or convenience compared to other spots which are actually closer to the entrance? I mean that often seems to be the case with handicap spots, they aren't really any better or closer than other spots. In this case I wonder if the family chose that particular spot because they had 3 kids and were looking for a spot more removed from the people parking at the front who seemed to be just zipping in and out? The family seemed to just want to be off by themselves, where noise from the kids or radio wouldn't bother others.
Is it possible the jury saw the shooters deliberate provocation as some sort of "ego trip" that seemed totally unwarranted? Again, the video points out that possibility when the defendant casually refers to the site as "my store"... He's actually closer to the store where he parked than if he had parked in the handicap spot. So is their an element of ultra entitlement that the jury picked up on at play here? Did Drejka see himself as the "parking lot protector"?
The video is pretty long, but I'd be interested in hearing what others see if they take the time to watch it...
The shooter was eventually charged and convicted of manslaughter, which is what I and several others felt the tape showed from the start. Initially I thought the local Department's refusal to charge him was derelict, but after watching this tape of his actual interrogation I feel like they never really considered letting him off. Not saying they were giving him rope to hang himself, but those investigators had viewed the tape and knew how many lies he told them. I think the delay in bringing charges and initially releasing him was a case of wanting to make sure they had a solid case, and during the interim his previous 4 road rage incidents were revealed and further complicated his defense...
Also, his willingness to talk basically undermined much of what could have laid the foundation for a self-defense argument, and the analysis in the video does a great job of pointing that out. I know our resident lawyers probably see this as old hat, but as a lay person I found some of the interrogation and the way he undermined his own potential defense fascinating,. As a result of not having the sense to consult an attorney beforehand, it seems like he really did make some incriminating statements in the midst of trying to offer his justification for his actions.
Not aware of any criminal prosecuting experience from those on the board. But I'd be interested in opinions on what I felt was a pretty masterful close from the Prosecutor to earn a conviction in a case which on the surface would seem a tough task. I remember there were folks who thought this was clearly a "stand your ground" incident just on the basis of the initial shove.
But I've got to believe that one of the key elements for the (all white) jury was the defendant carelessly and deliberately instigating a provocative situation based on the knowledge that he was armed and felt protected. Not to mention that contrary to what the defendant claimed about the victim moving towards him, the tape clearly shows the victim retreating before he even sees a gun...
And this may not be relative, but why would the defendant be so incensed over a family using a "handicap" spot, which in all honesty seems to offer no real advantage in terms of distance or convenience compared to other spots which are actually closer to the entrance? I mean that often seems to be the case with handicap spots, they aren't really any better or closer than other spots. In this case I wonder if the family chose that particular spot because they had 3 kids and were looking for a spot more removed from the people parking at the front who seemed to be just zipping in and out? The family seemed to just want to be off by themselves, where noise from the kids or radio wouldn't bother others.
Is it possible the jury saw the shooters deliberate provocation as some sort of "ego trip" that seemed totally unwarranted? Again, the video points out that possibility when the defendant casually refers to the site as "my store"... He's actually closer to the store where he parked than if he had parked in the handicap spot. So is their an element of ultra entitlement that the jury picked up on at play here? Did Drejka see himself as the "parking lot protector"?
The video is pretty long, but I'd be interested in hearing what others see if they take the time to watch it...
