(08-17-2018, 02:08 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ] (08-17-2018, 12:15 PM)Jagwired Wrote: [ -> ]I'm just saying. Had the man not physically assaulted the dude he would not have been killed that day. Plain and simple. He had zero right to assault the man. Call it a shove , a push or whatever you want. In the eyes of the law it is assault/battery. He was not in the act of defending his woman because she did not require defense at that moment as she was not under physical attack. I suspect the guy will walk on the charge.
I agree he had zero right to assault the guy.
Drejka didn't have any right to confront them about the spot. Though he could have called the police dept and reported the license plate...
But judging from his past encounters he isn't a civil person.
Also.. could have held the man at gunpoint.
Also could have shot the man to injure instead of kill shot.
There is no way to say one person was more justified in their egregious action, however, one persons action was deadly.
The end result matters.
We basically agree. I have no problem with the state bringing a charge. If there is a shred of evidence that proves this man made a habit of looking for/instigating situations hoping for the result he got then appropriate punishment will be handed down. I just kinda doubt that the state will be able to disprove that in the 1.5 to 2 seconds that elapsed from the assault and the subsequent shot that the shooter had time to realize he was not in eminent danger of more physical attacks and shot the man any way. Sucks his kids had to see it.
(08-17-2018, 03:18 PM)Jagwired Wrote: [ -> ] (08-17-2018, 02:08 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ]I agree he had zero right to assault the guy.
Drejka didn't have any right to confront them about the spot. Though he could have called the police dept and reported the license plate...
But judging from his past encounters he isn't a civil person.
Also.. could have held the man at gunpoint.
Also could have shot the man to injure instead of kill shot.
There is no way to say one person was more justified in their egregious action, however, one persons action was deadly.
The end result matters.
We basically agree. I have no problem with the state bringing a charge. If there is a shred of evidence that proves this man made a habit of looking for/instigating situations hoping for the result he got then appropriate punishment will be handed down. I just kinda doubt that the state will be able to disprove that in the 1.5 to 2 seconds that elapsed from the assault and the subsequent shot that the shooter had time to realize he was not in eminent danger of more physical attacks and shot the man any way. Sucks his kids had to see it.
I beg to differ. Watch the video again, unbiased. He was shoved and fell down. He fumbled in his pocket to grab his pistol all the while the "assailant" did not advance upon him. When he did produce his gun the "assailant" backed away. Defending this jerks actions gives law abiding gun owners a bad name and gives gun control activist ammunition to take away law abiding citizens gun rights.
I just think for the sake of this happening again ya need to pack a loaded extra gun to throw out and tell the blank to pick it up I dear ya
(08-17-2018, 06:02 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (08-17-2018, 03:18 PM)Jagwired Wrote: [ -> ]We basically agree. I have no problem with the state bringing a charge. If there is a shred of evidence that proves this man made a habit of looking for/instigating situations hoping for the result he got then appropriate punishment will be handed down. I just kinda doubt that the state will be able to disprove that in the 1.5 to 2 seconds that elapsed from the assault and the subsequent shot that the shooter had time to realize he was not in eminent danger of more physical attacks and shot the man any way. Sucks his kids had to see it.
I beg to differ. Watch the video again, unbiased. He was shoved and fell down. He fumbled in his pocket to grab his pistol all the while the "assailant" did not advance upon him. When he did produce his gun the "assailant" backed away. Defending this jerks actions gives law abiding gun owners a bad name and gives gun control activist ammunition to take away law abiding citizens gun rights.
I've looked at the video dozens of times, and have timed the different segments with a stopwatch. McGlockton did advance three steps toward Drejka after the shove, and was pretty close to him before backing away. I agree with Kane from a previous reply that Drejka would have been more justified if he had immediately shot McGlockton when he was basically standing over him and presenting an imminent threat. However, McGlockton takes four steps backward and one step away as he turns to his right before he is shot. From the shove to the shot is approximately 4.5 to 5 seconds (not 1.5 to 2 seconds that Jagwired states). The time from McGlockton's first movement backward to the shot is approximately 2.25 to 2.5 seconds. Once Drejka has the pistol trained on McGlockton, it is approximately 1.25 seconds before the shot is fired.
Once Drejka has the pistol trained on McGlockton (a justifiable threat of the use of deadly force), and McGlockton continues to move away from Drejka, it is reasonable to believe that the use of deadly force is no longer
necessary. FL Statute 776.012(2) reads, in part, "A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm ... ."
(08-18-2018, 11:00 AM)Gettin\ Jaggy with it Wrote: [ -> ] (08-17-2018, 06:02 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]I beg to differ. Watch the video again, unbiased. He was shoved and fell down. He fumbled in his pocket to grab his pistol all the while the "assailant" did not advance upon him. When he did produce his gun the "assailant" backed away. Defending this jerks actions gives law abiding gun owners a bad name and gives gun control activist ammunition to take away law abiding citizens gun rights.
I've looked at the video dozens of times, and have timed the different segments with a stopwatch. McGlockton did advance three steps toward Drejka after the shove, and was pretty close to him before backing away. I agree with Kane from a previous reply that Drejka would have been more justified if he had immediately shot McGlockton when he was basically standing over him and presenting an imminent threat. However, McGlockton takes four steps backward and one step away as he turns to his right before he is shot. From the shove to the shot is approximately 4.5 to 5 seconds (not 1.5 to 2 seconds that Jagwired states). The time from McGlockton's first movement backward to the shot is approximately 2.25 to 2.5 seconds. Once Drejka has the pistol trained on McGlockton, it is approximately 1.25 seconds before the shot is fired.
Once Drejka has the pistol trained on McGlockton (a justifiable threat of the use of deadly force), and McGlockton continues to move away from Drejka, it is reasonable to believe that the use of deadly force is no longer necessary. FL Statute 776.012(2) reads, in part, "A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm ... ."
If I may play Devil's advocate here... do McGlockton's initial steps forward initiate an aggravated approach and thus definitely provides an additional threat level for Mr Drejka? Also... is a 3 second difference enough for any person to decide (after already pulling the weapon) that the trigger doesn't need to be pulled. I've heard often from gun owners "only pull a gun if you're going to use it" or "if you plan to use it"
Honestly I don't know... I've never shot anyone. Or had to pull a gun to protect myself.
3 seconds isn't that long. And then when you watch a stop watch, it can seem like forever.
Personally I'd like to think that if I were to pull a gun I wouldn't pull the trigger unless further approached. And it seems to me Drejka decided WHEN he pulled his gun that he was firing it.
The jury will have to decide that at the point he pulled the gun he truly believed his life in danger.
All I know is the law is good and right. The wording may need some adjusting though.
(08-21-2018, 12:38 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ]If I may play Devil's advocate here... do McGlockton's initial steps forward initiate an aggravated approach and thus definitely provides an additional threat level for Mr Drejka?
I would say yes. If McGlockton pushed him but didn't subsequently advance, it is still an assault on Drejka, but the dynamics would seem to shift toward a reduced threat. By advancing, it's pretty clear that McGlockton is presenting an imminent threat of further violence to Drejka.
Quote:Also... is a 3 second difference enough for any person to decide (after already pulling the weapon) that the trigger doesn't need to be pulled.
I'd say yes to this as well, or even in much less than 3 seconds, in a situation like this.
Quote:I've heard often from gun owners "only pull a gun if you're going to use it" or "if you plan to use it"
Honestly I don't know... I've never shot anyone. Or had to pull a gun to protect myself.
The saying really should be something like, "Don't pull a gun if you have no intention of potentially using it." There are many situations where someone may reasonably pull a gun and then not use it as the situation develops. Police officers do that in hundreds or even thousands of instances every day across the US. I've done it myself. In this particular situation, it was reasonable that Drejka pulled a gun in order to protect himself from further imminent threat. What's somewhat murky is if it is reasonable that he fired the shot when he did, after McGlockton had backed up and started to turn away. I think most people would say that Drejka's actions would have been more reasonable if he had shot McGlockton immediately. And I believe that most people would say that Drejka's actions would not have been reasonable if a couple more seconds had elapsed and McGlockton had continued to move away before Drejka fired. But in regards to what actually transpired, is it reasonable that Drejka would believe that the use of deadly force was necessary in that time frame and McGlockton's disposition toward him? In my personal opinion, it is not reasonable, but I can see the other side of the argument, and would trust the court system to come up with a just verdict after all facts are presented.
Quote:Personally I'd like to think that if I were to pull a gun I wouldn't pull the trigger unless further approached. And it seems to me Drejka decided WHEN he pulled his gun that he was firing it
Based on his prior behavior he seems pretty aggressive in brandishing a weapon or threatening someone. He may have been someone just looking for an excuse.
Quote:All I know is the law is good and right. The wording may need some adjusting though.
I think there will be some changes to the law, particularly if Drejka gets off. One reason why many (but admittedly not all) of the original proponents of the law, including the NRA lobbyist that pushed the law, wanted Drejka charged is because of public outcry against the law if Drejka got off scot-free. They would like to keep the law essentially intact with perhaps only some minor tweaks, but don't want the law to be seen as justifying incidences like this.
(08-21-2018, 02:39 PM)Gettin\ Jaggy with it Wrote: [ -> ]I think there will be some changes to the law, particularly if Drejka gets off. One reason why many (but admittedly not all) of the original proponents of the law, including the NRA lobbyist that pushed the law, wanted Drejka charged is because of public outcry against the law if Drejka got off scot-free. They would like to keep the law essentially intact with perhaps only some minor tweaks, but don't want the law to be seen as justifying incidences like this.
I think there should be the provision many states have "if you can retreat you must" or revert to a "castle" rule where it only covers your home or personal living space (including your car or something like that.)
It'll be interesting to watch in the coming months for sure.
(08-21-2018, 04:16 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ] (08-21-2018, 02:39 PM)Gettin\ Jaggy with it Wrote: [ -> ]I think there will be some changes to the law, particularly if Drejka gets off. One reason why many (but admittedly not all) of the original proponents of the law, including the NRA lobbyist that pushed the law, wanted Drejka charged is because of public outcry against the law if Drejka got off scot-free. They would like to keep the law essentially intact with perhaps only some minor tweaks, but don't want the law to be seen as justifying incidences like this.
I think there should be the provision many states have "if you can retreat you must" or revert to a "castle" rule where it only covers your home or personal living space (including your car or something like that.)
It'll be interesting to watch in the coming months for sure.
Another option would be to write in a provision that the "Stand Your Ground" claim would not apply when the original aggressor was attempting to disengage or de-escalate.
(08-24-2019, 08:17 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Convicted!
https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-micha...mcglockton
As it should be, the guy picked a fight so he could shoot someone. I do think manslaughter was too light, he should get the death penalty for it.The grandstanding at the end is also garbage. Most unarmed black people who get shot are shot by armed black people (as are unarmed white people), race has little to do with it.
(08-24-2019, 08:28 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-24-2019, 08:17 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Convicted!
https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-micha...mcglockton
As it should be, the guy picked a fight so he could shoot someone. I do think manslaughter was too light, he should get the death penalty for it.The grandstanding at the end is also garbage. Most unarmed black people who get shot are shot by armed black people (as are unarmed white people), race has little to do with it.
Personally I think it ended up just right.
He had been attacked and responded with defense that resulted in death.
Manslaughter seems to fit. Death penalty should be reserved for those instigating incidents or have no cause at all to use force.
The guy will likely serve 10-15 years and will be "free" once he has little living left to do (60s or 70s, iirc his age)
But I agree that race should have little or nothing to do with it. Alas, that's the easiest go-to for most folks these days.
(08-29-2019, 02:36 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ] (08-24-2019, 08:28 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]As it should be, the guy picked a fight so he could shoot someone. I do think manslaughter was too light, he should get the death penalty for it.The grandstanding at the end is also garbage. Most unarmed black people who get shot are shot by armed black people (as are unarmed white people), race has little to do with it.
Personally I think it ended up just right.
He had been attacked and responded with defense that resulted in death.
Manslaughter seems to fit. Death penalty should be reserved for those instigating incidents or have no cause at all to use force.
The guy will likely serve 10-15 years and will be "free" once he has little living left to do (60s or 70s, iirc his age)
But I agree that race should have little or nothing to do with it. Alas, that's the easiest go-to for most folks these days.
I don't think it's enough. If you start a fight and someone dies as a result you should get the death penalty. It would only take a few times for it to happen and people would be much less inclined to pick a fight the way that jack [BLEEP] did.
(08-29-2019, 05:09 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019, 02:36 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ]Personally I think it ended up just right.
He had been attacked and responded with defense that resulted in death.
Manslaughter seems to fit. Death penalty should be reserved for those instigating incidents or have no cause at all to use force.
The guy will likely serve 10-15 years and will be "free" once he has little living left to do (60s or 70s, iirc his age)
But I agree that race should have little or nothing to do with it. Alas, that's the easiest go-to for most folks these days.
I don't think it's enough. If you start a fight and someone dies as a result you should get the death penalty. It would only take a few times for it to happen and people would be much less inclined to pick a fight the way that jack [BLEEP] did.
The shooter started an argument, the guy who ended up shot turned an argument into a physical confrontation and committed assault.
The death penalty is for premeditated murder not for someone who overreacted to being assaulted.
Manslaughter is the fitting conviction under the circumstances.
(09-06-2019, 09:31 AM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2019, 05:09 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think it's enough. If you start a fight and someone dies as a result you should get the death penalty. It would only take a few times for it to happen and people would be much less inclined to pick a fight the way that jack [BLEEP] did.
The shooter started an argument, the guy who ended up shot turned an argument into a physical confrontation and committed assault.
The death penalty is for premeditated murder not for someone who overreacted to being assaulted.
Manslaughter is the fitting conviction under the circumstances.
Agreed.
I'm not saying anyone was more "right".
The guy yelling into the illegally parked car didn't deserve a shove to the ground for it.
And the guy doing the shoving didn't deserve a bullet for a shove.
And the guy doesn't deserve the chair for a split second reaction that went wrong.
(09-06-2019, 09:35 AM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ] (09-06-2019, 09:31 AM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]The shooter started an argument, the guy who ended up shot turned an argument into a physical confrontation and committed assault.
The death penalty is for premeditated murder not for someone who overreacted to being assaulted.
Manslaughter is the fitting conviction under the circumstances.
Agreed.
I'm not saying anyone was more "right".
The guy yelling into the illegally parked car didn't deserve a shove to the ground for it.
And the guy doing the shoving didn't deserve a bullet for a shove.
And the guy doesn't deserve the chair for a split second reaction that went wrong.
Sure he does, he is known to instigate these confrontations hoping to get this exact opportunity. If we would seriously punish people for this kind of thing others would be less likely to act out in such ways and all our rights would be more secure.
(09-06-2019, 02:21 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (09-06-2019, 09:35 AM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed.
I'm not saying anyone was more "right".
The guy yelling into the illegally parked car didn't deserve a shove to the ground for it.
And the guy doing the shoving didn't deserve a bullet for a shove.
And the guy doesn't deserve the chair for a split second reaction that went wrong.
Sure he does, he is known to instigate these confrontations hoping to get this exact opportunity. If we would seriously punish people for this kind of thing others would be less likely to act out in such ways and all our rights would be more secure.
Maybe it will teach people not to respond to an argument with a stranger with physical violence because you have no idea how that person will react to it.
(09-06-2019, 06:15 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ] (09-06-2019, 02:21 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Sure he does, he is known to instigate these confrontations hoping to get this exact opportunity. If we would seriously punish people for this kind of thing others would be less likely to act out in such ways and all our rights would be more secure.
Maybe it will teach people not to respond to an argument with a stranger with physical violence because you have no idea how that person will react to it.
It should that as well, but nothing about that incident should've ended with a murder and the murderer got away with it.
(09-06-2019, 08:10 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (09-06-2019, 06:15 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe it will teach people not to respond to an argument with a stranger with physical violence because you have no idea how that person will react to it.
It should that as well, but nothing about that incident should've ended with a murder and the murderer got away with it.
Got away with it?
He was convicted of felony manslaughter.
(09-07-2019, 06:59 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ] (09-06-2019, 08:10 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]It should that as well, but nothing about that incident should've ended with a murder and the murderer got away with it.
Got away with it?
He was convicted of felony manslaughter.
Yes, he intended to shoot someone, got off light, and now we gave to pay his upkeep for two decades. We should be burying him.
Burying a guy who shot a person who attacked him?
Yeah, this is 1830.
Why don't we cut off thieves hands and stone adulterers while were at it.
Maybe that might satisfy your draconian blood lust.