(08-14-2018, 08:33 PM)lastonealive Wrote: Why are you so mad at McGlokton? He pushed a guy over and in return was executed in front of his family.

I'm not mad, and trying to misrepresent my stance doesn't prove your's.

(08-15-2018, 07:21 PM)rollerjag Wrote:

(08-14-2018, 07:31 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: Quiet? What is there to say? 

The prosecutor's office is making a political arrest. He's going to have the sheriff's office at his defense when this goes to trial. There's no chance there's a conviction when you have the cops on the stand saying it was justified.

Why, because there is no way a police officer can be wrong?

You, however, pretend all that McGlokton didn't do anything except touch Drejka. So, not quiet... just nothing left to add.

Who is claiming this? 

I'm saying that they aren't wrong here. You can disagree with their decisions, but that doesn't make them wrong. The law says he doesn't have to retreat and only has to believe he's in danger of great bodily harm to use deadly force. He's already been knocked to the ground. McGlokton continued to advance until he saw the gun. Sure, he backed away a few steps, but that doesn't eliminate the threat. About 1.5 seconds from the time McGlokton stopped advancing to when he was shot. McGlokton could have covered that distance in less time and attacked him again. 

What you think will happen doesn't matter. What you think McGlokton's intent was doesn't matter.

McGlokton attacked someone and Drejka made a decision to defend himself in less than 2 seconds. Taking a few steps back doesn't take the potential of harm away. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone pretend to give up only to lure officers in so that they could attack again. A lot of people are overlooking the approximate 1.5 seconds from McGlokton stopping and being shot. It takes more time to read this sentence. The average reaction time is somewhere around .25 seconds. So, Drejka had approximately 1 second to decide what he was going to do, and that isn't something that can just be overlooked because we get to watch the video over and over again.

You can disagree with the law, but he's justified under the Stand Your Ground law. This law, by the way, is standard in many states--it just doesn't have that name associated with it. 

He implied that a push wasn't an assault and that he wasn't sure Drejka was ever in harm's way. If a push isn't an assault, and he isn't in danger, touching appears to be the accurate representation for his interpretation of what happened.

---