Drejka Case Analysis: When the ‘Tueller Drill’ 21-Foot Defense is Defined Out of Existence

[livingston]

Drejka Case Analysis: When the ‘Tueller Drill’ 21-Foot Defense is Defined Out of Existence
A mischaracterization of the Tueller Drill — the so-called 21 foot rule — deprived Michael Drejka of a potentially effective defense
On Friday, August 23 , 2019, a Florida jury convicted Michael Drejka, the handicap parking spot shooter who killed Markeis McGlockton, of manslaughter.

As a result, at his September 10 sentencing hearing the 48-year-old Drejka will likely be sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 25 years to life in prison, without possibility of early release.




My problem with this outcome has nothing to do with the fact that Michael Drejka was found guilty—maybe he was guilty.

My problem with this outcome has to do with the process by which he was found guilty, a process in which justice in general and Drejka, in particular, were badly let down by both the state, by his own defense team, and by all the supposed use-of-force “experts” called by either side, with particular respect to the use-of-force doctrine knows as the Tueller Drill.

Drejka Case Analysis: When the 'Tueller Drill' 21-Foot Defense is Defined Out of Existence

 

[Airborneguy]

What analysis is needed? The video is pretty clear. He killed someone for pushing him. If that was a cop, everyone on this forum would be screaming murder.

 

[spat]

What analysis is needed? The video is pretty clear. He killed someone for pushing him. If that was a cop, everyone on this forum would be screaming murder.

The article isn't saying that he isn't guilty. It specifically mentions that he very well might be.

The article is saying that the defense improperly allowed the prosecution to redefine the Tueller drill to only apply to edged weapons.

They argue that even if he is guilty as hell, that should never have been allowed.

 

[Airborneguy]

The article isn't saying that he isn't guilty. It specifically mentions that he very well might be.

The article is saying that the defense improperly allowed the prosecution to redefine the Tueller drill to only apply to edged weapons.

They argue that even if he is guilty as hell, that should never have been allowed.

I read it. I don't see how the "21' Rule" ever applied here. The core question so to speak should have been, "Is being pushed to the ground justifiable grounds for deadly physical force?" I'm fairly certain we all agree that it is not.

The author uses examples of perceiving non-weapons as weapons to somehow bolster his case. In this case, nothing was displayed. How is any of that relevant?

He goes on to say, "Applying that legal standard to this case..."

Well unless Florida law and legal precedent "applies that legal standard to this case...", then again, it's irrelevant. He never addresses whether the threat of unarmed physical force justifies a shooting... conveniently.

Anyway, discussing the Tueller Drill is irrelevant because step one is determining whether one's use of force was proportional to the threat. Maybe had this perp thrown an object in defense of himself because his attacker was less than 21' away, then it could apply. But he shot a man who pushed him and was displaying no other imminent threat.

The question of proportional force should have, and likely at trial WAS the overriding issue.

 

[spat]

I read it. I don't see how the "21' Rule" ever applied here. The core question so to speak should have been, "Is being pushed to the ground justifiable grounds for deadly physical force?" I'm fairly certain we all agree that it is not.

The author uses examples of perceiving non-weapons as weapons to somehow bolster his case. In this case, nothing was displayed. How is any of that relevant?

He goes on to say, "Applying that legal standard to this case..."

Well unless Florida law and legal precedent "applies that legal standard to this case...", then again, it's irrelevant. He never addresses whether the threat of unarmed physical force justifies a shooting... conveniently.

Anyway, discussing the Tueller Drill is irrelevant because step one is determining whether one's use of force was proportional to the threat. Maybe had this perp thrown an object in defense of himself because his attacker was less than 21' away, then it could apply. But he shot a man who pushed him and was displaying no other imminent threat.

The question of proportional force should have, and likely at trial WAS the overriding issue.

It's relevant because the defense brought it up, and instead of explaining why it doesn't apply they way you have, the prosecution chose to say it only applies to edged weapons (in direct contradiction to the original paper). Then the defense let then get away with that.

The whole article is more a critique of the defense counsel than an argument against the verdict.

They are basically saying that defendants are entitled to effective counsel, and what this guy got wasn't that.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Methinks someone is trying to get the appellate work here...

 

[Airborneguy]

It's relevant because the defense brought it up, and instead of explaining why it doesn't apply they way you have, the prosecution chose to say it only applies to edged weapons (in direct contradiction to the original paper). Then the defense let then get away with that.

The whole article is more a critique of the defense counsel than an argument against the verdict.

They are basically saying that defendants are entitled to effective counsel, and what this guy got wasn't that.

The defense was stupid for bringing it up at all.

 

[spat]

The defense was stupid for bringing it up at all.

They had to.

Unless you're suggesting that they just admit the guy was guilty and throw themselves on the mercy of the court.

Any self defense claim would *have* to include it since the attacker didn't have a ranged weapon. It's actually the least problematic part of his defense.

 

[Airborneguy]

I don’t see how a defense on tactical considerations would be expected to hold up without more importantly establishing a physical threat (not based on proximity) commiserate with the use of deadly physical force.

I guess in the end, any defense would have been grasping at straws regardless. I doubt this case sets a worrying precedent regarding the 21’ Rule.

 

[spat]

I don’t see how a defense on tactical considerations would be expected to hold up without more importantly establishing a physical threat (not based on proximity) commiserate with the use of deadly physical force.

I guess in the end, any defense would have been grasping at straws regardless. I doubt this case sets a worrying precedent regarding the 21’ Rule.

It sets no precedent since it's not an appellate court.

It's more a warning to anyone who actually has to use the defense that just because your lawyer is a professional doesn't mean he knows what he's doing.

 

[Grimscale]

So, if a 5'1" 100lb woman is thrown to the ground by a 6'4" 300lb man, she isn't allowed the use of deadly force?