Trial kicked off yesterday with testimony from the store owner and deputies among others. Continuing today.
Trial kicked off yesterday with testimony from the store owner and deputies among others. Continuing today.
“Conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these days.”
Thanks for the bump. Will be watching this with interest. The incident seems so short, it seems hard to think why it would take long to present the arguments and reach a verdict.Originally Posted by HCountyGuy
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yesterday’s testimony involved a UOF “Expert”, along with a forensic pathologist, a pharmacist type (victim had drugs in system) and I think some others but those are what I caught.
Expanding on the UOF Expert’s testimony, the defendant in this case mentioned the “21 Foot Rule” in his interview with detectives as part of his reasoning for shooting the decedent. There expert testified about how the “rule” isn’t really a rule and went in to explain the premise of the Tueller Drill. What I took issue with most, and something I’m surprised the defense didn’t address, was how the prosecuting attorney made the assertion that the “rule” didn’t apply if the one adversary did not possess an edged weapon and the UOF Expert actually agreed with him. The prosecution also made a case against the “rule” being applicable since an element of the Tueller Drill was that it was conducted with a police security/retention holster, which takes more effort to draw from versus common civilian holsters.
I don’t know if the defense has their own UOF Expert, but it could’ve been handy in discrediting those arguments made by the prosecution and their expert. Not that I expect it has much bearing on the overall circumstances of the event, but that was some terrible misinformation that’s now likely to be parroted elsewhere.
“Conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these days.”
I don't recall the drill being originally conducted with or based on retention holsters. One could be a case that disparity of force between opponents is applicable to Tueller. Being a FOG, a strong young opponent charging me would seem as good as an edge weapon charge.
However, the defendant is in serious trouble for justification, IMHO.
Its a weird argument to make. Prosecution may be thinking he's going to try that as his justified defense.
Weird argument because the victim was stopped and turning away from the defendant when the defendant wasted him.
Obviously not since they started closing arguments this morning.
It's pretty common in criminal trials for all the testimony to be from witnesses for the prosecution. The defense attorney hammers away as best he/she can, and then it's on to closing arguments.
"Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA
Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...
See that other case on the news (forgot where), where there is a road rage. Guy goes up to car one and yells at them. Driver gets out the car, the car starts to roll away. Rager goes back to his car. Passenger of car one runs out to Rager, who is standing by his car and punches him. The punch kills him. Puncher was a Mexican TV star with a man bun.
https://miami.cbslocal.com/2019/08/2...rage-incident/
That's telenovela material right there. You can't fix estupido.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Defense had a guy from a Tampa security company with a USMC background as their UOF person. Don’t remember all his credentials but he seemed moderately squared away and they addressed the 21-foot rule and he refuted the idea that one needed an edged weapon in order for the “rule” to be applicable. Did pretty well on cross-examination.
Prosecution had their guy back up a bit later, haven’t gone back to watch what he said yet.
I believe closing statements have been made at this point and the jury is deliberating.
“Conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these days.”
I've been reading through this: https://www.tampabay.com/news/pinell...aring-the-end/
Some tidbits from my psych point of view and jury studies:
1. Drejka - he didn't testify. I am not a lawyer, but his defense in part depends on his perception of threat as reasonable. The psych expert was called to explain stress and constructive nature of perception.
Is not testifying convincing? I've read the jury SD books suggesting that while you have the right not to, juries want to hear convincingly from you that you were in fear of grievous bodily harm.Drejka, 49, chose not to testify. His defense is arguing that he was defending himself when he shot McGlockton.
2.Wonder what that was about? You should if you are the defense object to the presentation of a firearm as presentation of weapons can prime aggressive negative feelings. Switching from a blue to a real one is worse and manipulating it to demonstrate HOW IT WILL KEAL - should be a real bad thing for the defense.Rosenwasser shows Bedard a blue gun. He asks him to step off the witness stand and demonstrate how the gun works.
Trevena objects. There is a bench conference.
The blue gun looks like one that is typically used in law enforcement training.
After the bench conference, Rosenwasser asks if Bedard would be comfortable using the actual firearm that Drejka used, instead of the blue gun. Bedard says yes.
He stands before the jury, holding the .40-caliber Glock.
He points to the front sight and rear sight, explaining how they help the shooter aim. He shows them how to grip the weapon.
I don't understand what was going on here. It was determined the gun was used, why let it brought in? There's a study that the more exposure to an evidence gun, the worse it goes for you.
3.That is controversial. Actual real time experiments under stress don't show that time is perceived as slower. Some disagree. However, it is suggested that the memory of the evident, being a constructed event, suggests a slower perception of time.Schaub asks McClain about research that shows how during a stressful situation, perception of time slows down. She says sometimes it speeds up. But yes, the norm is that time slows down.
4. The psychologist never interviewed the defendant but testifies to his perception of the event, time, fighting stance, etc. Seems to me that is pure speculation. If I were the prosecutor, I'd point that out.
5. The Defense UOF expert is a mixed bag. He doesn't know what blading is. He speaks to concealed carry training not covering de-escalation.
Most of the course around here do that. The TX CHL course certainly did when I took it.Coy then asks about escalation and de-escalation. Are those concepts typically taught in concealed weapons courses? No, Brown says.
“Those would be considered add-ons,” he says.
One might ask if the defendant did due diligence in being up to speed when carrying a gun. Might he benefited from a quality training experience?
6. The defendant talked to the officers for an hour without an attorney. Dear God, independent of guilt, did he have any knowledge of self-defense shootings?
That's my take from the link I read.
Reply With Quote