I have a feeling, (unsubstantiated), that the defense felt very strongly that Drejka testifying would be detrimental to his defense (and apt to open a portal for the prosecution to drive right through).
I have a feeling, (unsubstantiated), that the defense felt very strongly that Drejka testifying would be detrimental to his defense (and apt to open a portal for the prosecution to drive right through).
There's nothing civil about this war.
I think you are correct on that one. I was just thinking that in general SD cases, a convincing defendant is needed. The homocide is already in evidence and you need to justify it. If you can't - yes, being on the stand would be a negative.
This was not the sharpest tack in the concealed carry world, I'm afraid. Anybody say what the jury make up was? I didn't read the entire story.
The UOF guy for the defense had me worried when one of the first things discussed was terminology and he said he hadn’t heard of “blading” (by term, he was familiar with the concept). His testimony could be used to illustrate how poor Florida’s training requirements are. He did manage to help the defense some though, I liked him more than the prosecution’s expert.
“Conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these days.”
I don’t know what gender, but news reports indicate it’s six white people.Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
“Conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these days.”
If he had testified, the SA would have hammered on his prior confrontations.
"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...
Agreed, along with other issues concerning his judgment or lack thereof.
There's nothing civil about this war.
I am pretty sure the "rule" he might have been better served by might be the "STFU rule".
This 21 foot rule component just makes me more inclined to stick with my earlier speculation, that the shooter made the decision to shoot as soon as he got knocked onto his ass, and his draw presentation was slow enough that his attacker had time to start moonwalking. Then he gets chatty and is schooling the detectives about the 21 foot rule. He started an altercation he didn't need to, essentially breaking the 21 foot rule himself. Might they spin this around on him, justifying defending the woman, since he had advanced to within 21 feet?
I imagine his mention of the "21 foot rule" was meant to convey that the decedent was close enough to Drejka that his ability to react in a timely manner had the decedent proceeded to charge him was compromised. At least that's how I would've tried explaining it if I were working for his defense.
“Conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these days.”
Branca is reporting a guilty verdict.
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
Indeed
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/23/us/fl...jka/index.html
I’m content with this outcome.
“Conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these days.”
Reply With Quote