(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.

---