(08-09-2018, 12:45 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote:

(08-09-2018, 12:29 PM)Gettin\ Jaggy with it Wrote: That's half of it. But the other half is that the person must reasonably believe that the use or threat of the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Since the attacker had already taken four steps back due to the threat of deadly force (pulling the gun), is it reasonable to think that deadly force was then necessary? Maybe, maybe not. I would love to have the courts decide.
 
Drejka's past incidents tell me he is a hothead looking for confrontation.

Of course it has to be necessary, but that's the argument we're having here. 

It looks like 2 or 3 to me and he then he stops. That distance is more than enough to advance and attack Drejka again. There's study after study that shows that the attacker almost always has the advantage. In this case, McGlockton steps back a couple steps and stops. After being attacked by McGlokton, seeing McGlokton continue toward Drejka as though he wanted to continue attacking, I find it reasonable to assume McGlokton still wants to attack him no matter if it's 2 or 3 steps away from Drejka.

Can we use McGlockton's history against him too?