Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[This is The End]

What we do not know is what the shover was saying after the shove.

Will there be testimony that he was saying things like:

Now, I'm going to kill you ?

Was the woman screaming kill him, or finish him?

I hope you realize that asking those questions for one side and not the other appears pretty racist...

Or perhaps you forgot to add a couple of questions (about the audio we don't have) relative to what the shooter was screaming at the wife as the man exited the store and had mere seconds to evaluate the situation?

 

[eeyore1954]

I hope you realize that asking those questions for one side and not the other appears pretty racist...

Or perhaps you forgot to add a couple of questions (about the audio we don't have) relative to what the shooter was screaming at the wife as the man exited the store and had mere seconds to evaluate the situation?

Why is it racist. Other than it appears to me you attribute far too many things to race.

 

[Nessie]

well we KNOW they don't want to focus on the time the much larger and younger man knocked him on his ******* ass, amiright?

At which point Drejka had the lawful right to defend himself, which he did by drawing his gun and that worked. McGlockton started to turn away, so disengaging, whereby the law states self defence no longer applies.

 

[Dr. Keith]

At which point Drejka had the lawful right to defend himself, which he did by drawing his gun and that worked. McGlockton started to turn away, so disengaging, whereby the law states self defence no longer applies.

I think everyone but TBD sees that this is true. Is there really any reason to keep pointing out how completely wrong he is? At this point it seems like we are just piling on.

 

[jimbob]

Oh, I gotta think that she had some inkling that her boyfriend was capable of sudden violence. Hell, as soon as he makes his appearance she starts getting out of the car, and then it was shoving time!

Really?

someone was aggressive to his partner and he responded.

 

[jimbob]

Oh, I gotta think that she had some inkling that her boyfriend was capable of sudden violence. Hell, as soon as he makes his appearance she starts getting out of the car, and then it was shoving time!

Also, don't you feel even the slightest distaste at dancing on someone's grave? Especially when it's obvious that the shooter was dangerously unsuitable as a firearm owner .

 

[PhantomWolf]

well we KNOW they don't want to focus on the time the much larger and younger man knocked him on his ******* ass, amiright?

Oh I think you're quite wrong, I think that the Prosecution will, and it'll go something like this....

"McGlockton was in the wrong for shoving Drekja, and at that point the defendant was entailed to draw his weapon to prevent further attack, now as you see as you watch the video, after the shove, the Defendant draws his weapon, and the victim breaks off, moving backwards and away from the Defendant who as you watch you'll see steady himself, pause assess his situation, and then aim and fire even though there was no longer an imminent threat to him because McGlockton was backing away. It is there fore clear that the Defendant was not in reasonable fear for his life, or fear of injury being inflicted, but rather he was upset and angry from being shoved, and he wanted to get revenge on the man that did it. So even though McGlockton was backing away from him, and no longer a reasonable threat of imminent harm, he got his revenge for being shoved anyway by deciding to pull the trigger."

 

[The Big Dog]

I think everyone but TBD sees that this is true. Is there really any reason to keep pointing out how completely wrong he is? At this point it seems like we are just piling on.

Did you ask a law talking guy about justifiable self defense and when it ends?

It is absurd to suggest that the initial aggressor had clearly ceased his violent attacks and there was no longer any threat of violence, for pete's sake there was no time, and the initial victim was in a vulnerable position due to the violent attack.

I am blown away by how completely wrong everyone is based on a grainy video.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Did you ask a law talking guy about justifiable self defense and when it ends?

No, I just asked other posters to stop piling on you. I think it is counter productive.

We all see manslaughter and you see self defense. Same video, same timeline, as has been gone over ad nauseam.

Now that we agree that we see different things I don't see the need to hammer it out any further.

I look forward to this thread popping up again when there is a verdict.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, I just asked other posters to stop piling on you. I think it is counter productive.

No, you didn't just ask that, you said i was wrong.

In fact the assertion the initial aggressor had clearly ceased his violent attacks and there was no longer any threat of violence is without merit.

Don't worry about people who are wrong "piling on" the Big Dog, I'm used to it

 

[Dr. Keith]

No, you didn't just ask that, you said i was wrong

And you said everyone in this thread but you is wrong.*

Let's see how the jury sees it.






*I'm not sure, but I think there is one poster who is just glad a black person was killed. I don't know if that poster has opined on the legality of the killing and I am not going to check.

 

[The Big Dog]

And you said everyone in this thread but you is wrong.*

Let's see how the jury sees it.

*I'm not sure, but I think there is one poster who is just glad a black person was killed. I don't know if that poster has opined on the legality of the killing and I am not going to check.

actually, i was just using the words of your claim that everyone disagrees with me, because i didn't want to pile on further.

 

[Dr. Keith]

actually, i was just using the words of your claim that everyone disagrees with me, because i didn't want to pile on further.

Great. I won't pile on further.

Looks like you're going to have some nice weather this weekend. I hope you find a good way to enjoy it.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

*I'm not sure, but I think there is one poster who is just glad a black person was killed. I don't know if that poster has opined on the legality of the killing and I am not going to check.

It was ST (not a huge surprise) and he still thought the killing was unlawful.

 

[Horatius]

the initial aggressor

See, that right there is your problem. The "initial aggressor" was the armed man who decided that yelling at a woman in her car with her young children was an acceptable course of action. Don't even try to deny that if it had been an armed black man yelling at a white woman and kids, that the resultant outrage would be completely different.

An armed man yelling at you is absolutely an act of aggression, backed up by the inherent threat that he might shoot you if you oppose him in any way. So many Americans have gotten caught up in the idea that guns are the only legitimate means of self defense, that they've completely lost sight of the fact that unarmed people still have the right to defend themselves against aggressive people who have guns.

 

[Drewbot]

I think everyone but TBD sees that this is true. Is there really any reason to keep pointing out how completely wrong he is? At this point it seems like we are just piling on.

Everybody sees that after he pulled the gun the guy stopped the attack.

What everyone doesn't know, is how long is considered a reasonable time for a guy who just got blindside tackled, to pull his gun and shoot in response?

If it was 4 seconds, that is not very long.
If you get the wind knocked out of you, it takes longer than 4 seconds to get that first breath.

For those of us who played American Football, it takes longer than 4 seconds to piece together what happened on the last play if you get pancaked.

I think 4 seconds looks like a long time to people watching a video, but 4 seconds is going to be considered a reasonable time to be in self-defense mode after the blindside.

 

[Horatius]

If it was 4 seconds, that is not very long.
If you get the wind knocked out of you, it takes longer than 4 seconds to get that first breath.

For those of us who played American Football, it takes longer than 4 seconds to piece together what happened on the last play if you get pancaked.

I think 4 seconds looks like a long time to people watching a video, but 4 seconds is going to be considered a reasonable time to be in self-defense mode after the blindside.

Which actually means he wasn't hit all that hard, as he manages to draw, aim, fire and hit in that amount of time. That's not the actions of someone struggling "to piece together what happened".

 

[Disbelief]

Which actually means he wasn't hit all that hard, as he manages to draw, aim, fire and hit in that amount of time. That's not the actions of someone struggling "to piece together what happened".

All that without taking a breath, apparently.

 

[Nessie]

Did you ask a law talking guy about justifiable self defense and when it ends?

It is absurd to suggest that the initial aggressor had clearly ceased his violent attacks and there was no longer any threat of violence, for pete's sake there was no time, and the initial victim was in a vulnerable position due to the violent attack.

I am blown away by how completely wrong everyone is based on a grainy video.

McGlockton had a gun pointed at him and he was turning away. The threat of further violence from McGlockton was now minimal. Drejka was now in the least vulnerable position of the two, despite being on the ground.

 

[Nessie]

Which actually means he wasn't hit all that hard, as he manages to draw, aim, fire and hit in that amount of time. That's not the actions of someone struggling "to piece together what happened".

Exactly. This is the actions of someone who has been engineering confrontations whilst armed. He comes over as practised in drawing, aiming and firing.