(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.

---