Convenient store stand-your-ground shooter charged

[Rustic]

He was carrying a firearm and was ready to use it. That's premeditation, by definition. It didn't jump into his pocket unnoticed as he walked out his door.
When one 'packs' for self defense, one remains discrete and is concerned with defending him/her self. At the most extreme, one might intervene in a life or death situation to save another. Other than that, packing and then going into dubious places and situations is irresponsible to the point of feloniously so.
Getting oneself shoved onto one's posterior in a parking lot is humiliating, certainly. We can all agree that the shooter felt anger and resentment.
At the same time, look again at the action. The initial conflict began with a push. A real attack would have been other than a strong push. Pushing away someone separates them from your control. It even gives an opponent time and space to regain and prepare. And, the 'aggressor' did stop. If he had been charging forward, he would have arrived before the gun actually went off.
Finally, that moment of hesitation before firing communicates something to my perceptions.

Him carrying is no one else’s business... so Shut the fuck up

 

[Rustic]

This incident should have never happened. Why did this guy have a gun?

Well regulated militia would not draw a weapon over this issue. It could have been easily prevented, by the person with the greatest obligation to ensure Order over Chaos.

None of your fucking business if he had a firearm or not... so shut the fuck up

 

[Rustic]

Did the guy who got knocked on his ass own the convenient store?

No?

Then he should have minded his own business as to who parks where.

The dude had obviously no right to push the other dude, And now he’s taking a dirt nap… Rightly so

 

[Faun]

But we for

That is the question the jury will have to decide....was the white guy in reasonable fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm?

First of all he had already been violently assaulted that in and of itself was enough to have caused grievious bodily harm and the white guy was fortunate that he apparantly suffered no serious injury from that....but he had no idea what was to follow...he was in fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm by the mere fact of the violent assault...he had no reason to believe the attack would stop...he was on the ground and very vulnurable to further violent actions by the black guy such as a kick to the head etc.

People getting beaten to death is not an uncommon event. And, thus it is very reasonable to conclude the white guy was in fear of his life or grievious bodily injury. I am confidant the jury will understand that and with the help of expert testimony-- the state's case is very,very weak. Even the initial investigation agreed the white guy was in compliance with the law. It was only when political pressure was brought to bear that the state attorney decided to reverse the decision of the investigative officers.

Thankfully, in America we have a system of trial by jury of one's peers.

You refuse to repeat what you said about Zimmerman---why is that? Do you not remember?

Judging by the poll that was done here....the guy has no shot and should take a plea deal if offered

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa laughable. I case you have not noticed this discussion on the clearwater incident reveals a lot of ignorance.....first of all what the law says....and so many on here have no capacity to understand that law as simple as it is.

Do not take any poll conducted on this board as any indicator of anything....other than that so many on here are biased and believe the fake news that is drummed into them daily.

No ability to think for selves logically or even in a common sense mode.

Pathetic is the woid dat comes to mind boyo.

But we for sure should believe your expert opinion. Yeah pathetic would describe that

I am merely telling you what the law says. The law grants the defendant the legal right to use deadly force if he felt his life was in danger and or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm. Yet so many seem unable to grasp that???

No, you are doing more than that. You are also deciding the jury will find he acted in self defense according to the law. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a hung jury in this case. Regardless, you’re ignoringe that McGlockton was retreating when he was shot. You’re also ignoring the results from the 3D scanner which determined McGlockton was no less than 10 feet away from Drejka when he was shot. If that evidence is presented in court, I can see at least some of the jurors deciding there was no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm at the moment Drejka pulled the trigger.

 

[Faun]

Ever watched a boxing match? Do the boxers ever back away from each other? Does that mean they are no longer a threat to one another? Of course not. Backing away a foot doesn't alleviate a threat. Running away does.

Had the guy knocked the old man down and took off running that would be cowardly but definitely not deadly. And had he been shot in the back that's murder. But nope. He hit him and backed away slightly. And the fact that the old man drew a gun and the guy didn't take off running meant he was still a threat.

Good shoot.

Stupid analogy. Boxers don’t have guns trained on them when they decide to shift from retreating to attacking.

 

[Faun]

Did the guy who got knocked on his ass own the convenient store?

No?

Then he should have minded his own business as to who parks where.

Well, certainly not what most would have done but nevertheless he was perfectly within his legal rights to tell the lady they should not have parked in the handicap spot. Perhaps he is extra sensitive about that for some reason? Maybe he has a friend or a relative who is handicapped.

Where’s your evidence she was yelling at Drejka?

 

[MacTheKnife]

But we for

That is the question the jury will have to decide....was the white guy in reasonable fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm?

First of all he had already been violently assaulted that in and of itself was enough to have caused grievious bodily harm and the white guy was fortunate that he apparantly suffered no serious injury from that....but he had no idea what was to follow...he was in fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm by the mere fact of the violent assault...he had no reason to believe the attack would stop...he was on the ground and very vulnurable to further violent actions by the black guy such as a kick to the head etc.

People getting beaten to death is not an uncommon event. And, thus it is very reasonable to conclude the white guy was in fear of his life or grievious bodily injury. I am confidant the jury will understand that and with the help of expert testimony-- the state's case is very,very weak. Even the initial investigation agreed the white guy was in compliance with the law. It was only when political pressure was brought to bear that the state attorney decided to reverse the decision of the investigative officers.

Thankfully, in America we have a system of trial by jury of one's peers.

You refuse to repeat what you said about Zimmerman---why is that? Do you not remember?

Judging by the poll that was done here....the guy has no shot and should take a plea deal if offered

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa laughable. I case you have not noticed this discussion on the clearwater incident reveals a lot of ignorance.....first of all what the law says....and so many on here have no capacity to understand that law as simple as it is.

Do not take any poll conducted on this board as any indicator of anything....other than that so many on here are biased and believe the fake news that is drummed into them daily.

No ability to think for selves logically or even in a common sense mode.

Pathetic is the woid dat comes to mind boyo.

But we for sure should believe your expert opinion. Yeah pathetic would describe that

I am merely telling you what the law says. The law grants the defendant the legal right to use deadly force if he felt his life was in danger and or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm. Yet so many seem unable to grasp that???

No, you are doing more than that. You are also deciding the jury will find he acted in self defense according to the law. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a hung jury in this case. Regardless, you’re ignoringe that McGlockton was retreating when he was shot. You’re also ignoring the results from the 3D scanner which determined McGlockton was no less than 10 feet away from Drejka when he was shot. If that evidence is presented in court, I can see at least some of the jurors deciding there was no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm at the moment Drejka pulled the trigger.

Get real boyo, I have no power to decide anything in regards to what the jury will do. I am merely saying I do not think they will be able to convict and yes there very well could be a hung jury because they will have to have at least a couple of negroes on it.

It really does not matter that the black guy took a step or two backward when he saw the pistol come out.. I would not call that 'retreating' I would call it a reaction of supprise at seeing the pistol. Kinda like when you touch a hot stove and jerk your hand back.

Retreating to me means that he is definitely not going to do anything else as in it is over for him. That is a matter of conjecture---maybe it was maybe it was not. No one really knows. Nor can anyone possibly know that.

Also...it is very likely perhaps even probable that the white guy did not even notice the black guy took a step or so backwards....remember he was totally supprised at being violently attacked...perhaps in a little bit of shock as he did not even see the black guy coming. However he quickly realized he was on the ground with a black dude hovering near by. I think most would be in fear of their life and or at least in fear of great bodily harm at that point...hence he reached for his weapon and then aimed and fired...all his
attention being on the target and aiming and getting off the round quickly. That is a key factor how quickly the shooter had to react to defend his life and limb. How quickly he had to make a decision to shoot.

Also...something else to consider--say the white guy did not shoot but simply pointed the pistol at the black guy. What would have then happened we do not know...and we must look at this from the shooters view point--he was on the ground with a black guy very close--6 to 10 ft. is very close. He really did not know what he was up against or what the black guy was capable of or what he might do next. He did know he had been violently attacked for no reason and that he was on the ground in a very vulnurable position, he was in a black neighborhood with the g/f also close by and she had already gone ballistic on him--so either one or both of them could have rushed him. Covering a distance of 6 to 10 ft. can be done extremely quickly.

Also we must consider what the black guy might have or might not have done....remember he had a history of being arrested for assault and battery. So, let us say the pistol comes up but the white guy does not shoot...what next? Well, when the black guy realizes the white guy does not
appear to be going to shoot him...he will most likely engage him in some sort of conversation...like...whats up dude? What you pointing dat pistol at me for? All the time trying to get a fix on or read the guy as in will he shoot or is he too big a coward to shoot me...sumptin like dat. Perhaps maneuvering even closer whilst engaging the white guy verbally. And, we must remember he had been arrested for assault before so that seems to indicate he had a violent nature.

Thus in a nutshell we can only conjecture at what might have happened if the white guy did not shoot...he was the one who had to make an extremely
fast decision, it was his life on the line. He chose to shoot...I do not think it can be denied that he was in reasonable fear of his life.

Also, a big mistake a lot of folks make is to think that violently prone people are logical, too often they are governed by emotion not logic and anyone familiar with these sorts of scenarios knows it is not uncommon for the perp to get even angrier when someone pulls a pistol on him. So this erroneous belief some have that just because a perp has a pistol aimed at him he is going to give up...maybe in some cases, maybe in even most cases...but not so in all cases. And if your life is on the line...should you gamble the perp is going to be logical and reasonable...especially when he has already violently attacked you for no reason? I don't think
so. It was as they say...a good shoot.

Thus I see no conviction.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Where’s your evidence she was yelling at Drejka?

Eye witnesses - watch the Sheriff briefing.

 

[Faun]

But we for

Judging by the poll that was done here....the guy has no shot and should take a plea deal if offered

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa laughable. I case you have not noticed this discussion on the clearwater incident reveals a lot of ignorance.....first of all what the law says....and so many on here have no capacity to understand that law as simple as it is.

Do not take any poll conducted on this board as any indicator of anything....other than that so many on here are biased and believe the fake news that is drummed into them daily.

No ability to think for selves logically or even in a common sense mode.

Pathetic is the woid dat comes to mind boyo.

But we for sure should believe your expert opinion. Yeah pathetic would describe that

I am merely telling you what the law says. The law grants the defendant the legal right to use deadly force if he felt his life was in danger and or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm. Yet so many seem unable to grasp that???

No, you are doing more than that. You are also deciding the jury will find he acted in self defense according to the law. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a hung jury in this case. Regardless, you’re ignoringe that McGlockton was retreating when he was shot. You’re also ignoring the results from the 3D scanner which determined McGlockton was no less than 10 feet away from Drejka when he was shot. If that evidence is presented in court, I can see at least some of the jurors deciding there was no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm at the moment Drejka pulled the trigger.

Get real boyo, I have no power to decide anything in regards to what the jury will do. I am merely saying I do not think they will be able to convict and yes there very well could be a hung jury because they will have to have at least a couple of negroes on it.

It really does not matter that the black guy took a step or two backward when he saw the pistol come out.. I would not call that 'retreating' I would call it a reaction of supprise at seeing the pistol. Kinda like when you touch a hot stove and jerk your hand back.

Retreating to me means that he is definitely not going to do anything else as in it is over for him. That is a matter of conjecture---maybe it was maybe it was not. No one really knows. Nor can anyone possibly know that.

Also...it is very likely perhaps even probable that the white guy did not even notice the black guy took a step or so backwards....remember he was totally supprised at being violently attacked...perhaps in a little bit of shock as he did not even see the black guy coming. However he quickly realized he was on the ground with a black dude hovering near by. I think most would be in fear of their life and or at least in fear of great bodily harm at that point...hence he reached for his weapon and then aimed and fired...all his
attention being on the target and aiming and getting off the round quickly. That is a key factor how quickly the shooter had to react to defend his life and limb. How quickly he had to make a decision to shoot.

Also...something else to consider--say the white guy did not shoot but simply pointed the pistol at the black guy. What would have then happened we do not know...and we must look at this from the shooters view point--he was on the ground with a black guy very close--6 to 10 ft. is very close. He really did not know what he was up against or what the black guy was capable of or what he might do next. He did know he had been violently attacked for no reason and that he was on the ground in a very vulnurable position, he was in a black neighborhood with the g/f also close by and she had already gone ballistic on him--so either one or both of them could have rushed him. Covering a distance of 6 to 10 ft. can be done extremely quickly.

Also we must consider what the black guy might have or might not have done....remember he had a history of being arrested for assault and battery. So, let us say the pistol comes up but the white guy does not shoot...what next? Well, when the black guy realizes the white guy does not
appear to be going to shoot him...he will most likely engage him in some sort of conversation...like...whats up dude? What you pointing dat pistol at me for? All the time trying to get a fix on or read the guy as in will he shoot or is he too big a coward to shoot me...sumptin like dat. Perhaps maneuvering even closer whilst engaging the white guy verbally. And, we must remember he had been arrested for assault before so that seems to indicate he had a violent nature.

Thus in a nutshell we can only conjecture at what might have happened if the white guy did not shoot...he was the one who had to make an extremely
fast decision, it was his life on the line. He chose to shoot...I do not think it can be denied that he was in reasonable fear of his life.

Also, a big mistake a lot of folks make is to think that violently prone people are logical, too often they are governed by emotion not logic and anyone familiar with these sorts of scenarios knows it is not uncommon for the perp to get even angrier when someone pulls a pistol on him. So this erroneous belief some have that just because a perp has a pistol aimed at him he is going to give up...maybe in some cases, maybe in even most cases...but not so in all cases. And if your life is on the line...should you gamble the perp is going to be logical and reasonable...especially when he has already violently attacked you for no reason? I don't think
so. It was as they say...a good shoot.

Thus I see no conviction.

McGlockton took 3 steps back and then a 4th as he began turning away from Drejka to his right. He wasn’t shot straight on but somewhere between his front and side in his left chest.

He wasn’t 6-10 feet away when shot but was 10-15 feet away, probably 12. And stepping backwards and away from Drejka. With both hands on his gun and trained on McGlockton, he would have been able to get a round off had McGlockton made a sudden move at him from 12 feet away, which McGlockton didn’t do.

And had Drejka not seen McGlockton was stepping away, even though he was looking directly at him, then Drejka is fucked because that means he felt threatened when in fact, there was no threat. That’s not reasonable.

 

[MacTheKnife]

But we for

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa laughable. I case you have not noticed this discussion on the clearwater incident reveals a lot of ignorance.....first of all what the law says....and so many on here have no capacity to understand that law as simple as it is.

Do not take any poll conducted on this board as any indicator of anything....other than that so many on here are biased and believe the fake news that is drummed into them daily.

No ability to think for selves logically or even in a common sense mode.

Pathetic is the woid dat comes to mind boyo.

But we for sure should believe your expert opinion. Yeah pathetic would describe that

I am merely telling you what the law says. The law grants the defendant the legal right to use deadly force if he felt his life was in danger and or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm. Yet so many seem unable to grasp that???

No, you are doing more than that. You are also deciding the jury will find he acted in self defense according to the law. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a hung jury in this case. Regardless, you’re ignoringe that McGlockton was retreating when he was shot. You’re also ignoring the results from the 3D scanner which determined McGlockton was no less than 10 feet away from Drejka when he was shot. If that evidence is presented in court, I can see at least some of the jurors deciding there was no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm at the moment Drejka pulled the trigger.

Get real boyo, I have no power to decide anything in regards to what the jury will do. I am merely saying I do not think they will be able to convict and yes there very well could be a hung jury because they will have to have at least a couple of negroes on it.

It really does not matter that the black guy took a step or two backward when he saw the pistol come out.. I would not call that 'retreating' I would call it a reaction of supprise at seeing the pistol. Kinda like when you touch a hot stove and jerk your hand back.

Retreating to me means that he is definitely not going to do anything else as in it is over for him. That is a matter of conjecture---maybe it was maybe it was not. No one really knows. Nor can anyone possibly know that.

Also...it is very likely perhaps even probable that the white guy did not even notice the black guy took a step or so backwards....remember he was totally supprised at being violently attacked...perhaps in a little bit of shock as he did not even see the black guy coming. However he quickly realized he was on the ground with a black dude hovering near by. I think most would be in fear of their life and or at least in fear of great bodily harm at that point...hence he reached for his weapon and then aimed and fired...all his
attention being on the target and aiming and getting off the round quickly. That is a key factor how quickly the shooter had to react to defend his life and limb. How quickly he had to make a decision to shoot.

Also...something else to consider--say the white guy did not shoot but simply pointed the pistol at the black guy. What would have then happened we do not know...and we must look at this from the shooters view point--he was on the ground with a black guy very close--6 to 10 ft. is very close. He really did not know what he was up against or what the black guy was capable of or what he might do next. He did know he had been violently attacked for no reason and that he was on the ground in a very vulnurable position, he was in a black neighborhood with the g/f also close by and she had already gone ballistic on him--so either one or both of them could have rushed him. Covering a distance of 6 to 10 ft. can be done extremely quickly.

Also we must consider what the black guy might have or might not have done....remember he had a history of being arrested for assault and battery. So, let us say the pistol comes up but the white guy does not shoot...what next? Well, when the black guy realizes the white guy does not
appear to be going to shoot him...he will most likely engage him in some sort of conversation...like...whats up dude? What you pointing dat pistol at me for? All the time trying to get a fix on or read the guy as in will he shoot or is he too big a coward to shoot me...sumptin like dat. Perhaps maneuvering even closer whilst engaging the white guy verbally. And, we must remember he had been arrested for assault before so that seems to indicate he had a violent nature.

Thus in a nutshell we can only conjecture at what might have happened if the white guy did not shoot...he was the one who had to make an extremely
fast decision, it was his life on the line. He chose to shoot...I do not think it can be denied that he was in reasonable fear of his life.

Also, a big mistake a lot of folks make is to think that violently prone people are logical, too often they are governed by emotion not logic and anyone familiar with these sorts of scenarios knows it is not uncommon for the perp to get even angrier when someone pulls a pistol on him. So this erroneous belief some have that just because a perp has a pistol aimed at him he is going to give up...maybe in some cases, maybe in even most cases...but not so in all cases. And if your life is on the line...should you gamble the perp is going to be logical and reasonable...especially when he has already violently attacked you for no reason? I don't think
so. It was as they say...a good shoot.

Thus I see no conviction.

McGlockton took 3 steps back and then a 4th as he began turning away from Drejka to his right. He wasn’t shot straight on but somewhere between his front and side in his left chest.

He wasn’t 6-10 feet away when shot but was 10-15 feet away, probably 12. And stepping backwards and away from Drejka. With both hands on his gun and trained on McGlockton, he would have been able to get a round off had McGlockton made a sudden move at him from 12 feet away, which McGlockton didn’t do.

And had Drejka not seen McGlockton was stepping away, even though he was looking directly at him, then Drejka is fucked because that means he felt threatened when in fact, there was no threat. That’s not reasonable.

Nonsense......here is the video...........Man charged in ’stand your ground’ killing has history of gun threats, prosecutors say

 

[Faun]

But we for
But we for sure should believe your expert opinion. Yeah pathetic would describe that

I am merely telling you what the law says. The law grants the defendant the legal right to use deadly force if he felt his life was in danger and or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm. Yet so many seem unable to grasp that???

No, you are doing more than that. You are also deciding the jury will find he acted in self defense according to the law. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a hung jury in this case. Regardless, you’re ignoringe that McGlockton was retreating when he was shot. You’re also ignoring the results from the 3D scanner which determined McGlockton was no less than 10 feet away from Drejka when he was shot. If that evidence is presented in court, I can see at least some of the jurors deciding there was no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm at the moment Drejka pulled the trigger.

Get real boyo, I have no power to decide anything in regards to what the jury will do. I am merely saying I do not think they will be able to convict and yes there very well could be a hung jury because they will have to have at least a couple of negroes on it.

It really does not matter that the black guy took a step or two backward when he saw the pistol come out.. I would not call that 'retreating' I would call it a reaction of supprise at seeing the pistol. Kinda like when you touch a hot stove and jerk your hand back.

Retreating to me means that he is definitely not going to do anything else as in it is over for him. That is a matter of conjecture---maybe it was maybe it was not. No one really knows. Nor can anyone possibly know that.

Also...it is very likely perhaps even probable that the white guy did not even notice the black guy took a step or so backwards....remember he was totally supprised at being violently attacked...perhaps in a little bit of shock as he did not even see the black guy coming. However he quickly realized he was on the ground with a black dude hovering near by. I think most would be in fear of their life and or at least in fear of great bodily harm at that point...hence he reached for his weapon and then aimed and fired...all his
attention being on the target and aiming and getting off the round quickly. That is a key factor how quickly the shooter had to react to defend his life and limb. How quickly he had to make a decision to shoot.

Also...something else to consider--say the white guy did not shoot but simply pointed the pistol at the black guy. What would have then happened we do not know...and we must look at this from the shooters view point--he was on the ground with a black guy very close--6 to 10 ft. is very close. He really did not know what he was up against or what the black guy was capable of or what he might do next. He did know he had been violently attacked for no reason and that he was on the ground in a very vulnurable position, he was in a black neighborhood with the g/f also close by and she had already gone ballistic on him--so either one or both of them could have rushed him. Covering a distance of 6 to 10 ft. can be done extremely quickly.

Also we must consider what the black guy might have or might not have done....remember he had a history of being arrested for assault and battery. So, let us say the pistol comes up but the white guy does not shoot...what next? Well, when the black guy realizes the white guy does not
appear to be going to shoot him...he will most likely engage him in some sort of conversation...like...whats up dude? What you pointing dat pistol at me for? All the time trying to get a fix on or read the guy as in will he shoot or is he too big a coward to shoot me...sumptin like dat. Perhaps maneuvering even closer whilst engaging the white guy verbally. And, we must remember he had been arrested for assault before so that seems to indicate he had a violent nature.

Thus in a nutshell we can only conjecture at what might have happened if the white guy did not shoot...he was the one who had to make an extremely
fast decision, it was his life on the line. He chose to shoot...I do not think it can be denied that he was in reasonable fear of his life.

Also, a big mistake a lot of folks make is to think that violently prone people are logical, too often they are governed by emotion not logic and anyone familiar with these sorts of scenarios knows it is not uncommon for the perp to get even angrier when someone pulls a pistol on him. So this erroneous belief some have that just because a perp has a pistol aimed at him he is going to give up...maybe in some cases, maybe in even most cases...but not so in all cases. And if your life is on the line...should you gamble the perp is going to be logical and reasonable...especially when he has already violently attacked you for no reason? I don't think
so. It was as they say...a good shoot.

Thus I see no conviction.

McGlockton took 3 steps back and then a 4th as he began turning away from Drejka to his right. He wasn’t shot straight on but somewhere between his front and side in his left chest.

He wasn’t 6-10 feet away when shot but was 10-15 feet away, probably 12. And stepping backwards and away from Drejka. With both hands on his gun and trained on McGlockton, he would have been able to get a round off had McGlockton made a sudden move at him from 12 feet away, which McGlockton didn’t do.

And had Drejka not seen McGlockton was stepping away, even though he was looking directly at him, then Drejka is fucked because that means he felt threatened when in fact, there was no threat. That’s not reasonable.

Nonsense......here is the video...........Man charged in ’stand your ground’ killing has history of gun threats, prosecutors say

Thanks for linking the video which shows everything I just said.

 

[MacTheKnife]

I am merely telling you what the law says. The law grants the defendant the legal right to use deadly force if he felt his life was in danger and or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm. Yet so many seem unable to grasp that???

No, you are doing more than that. You are also deciding the jury will find he acted in self defense according to the law. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a hung jury in this case. Regardless, you’re ignoringe that McGlockton was retreating when he was shot. You’re also ignoring the results from the 3D scanner which determined McGlockton was no less than 10 feet away from Drejka when he was shot. If that evidence is presented in court, I can see at least some of the jurors deciding there was no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm at the moment Drejka pulled the trigger.

Get real boyo, I have no power to decide anything in regards to what the jury will do. I am merely saying I do not think they will be able to convict and yes there very well could be a hung jury because they will have to have at least a couple of negroes on it.

It really does not matter that the black guy took a step or two backward when he saw the pistol come out.. I would not call that 'retreating' I would call it a reaction of supprise at seeing the pistol. Kinda like when you touch a hot stove and jerk your hand back.

Retreating to me means that he is definitely not going to do anything else as in it is over for him. That is a matter of conjecture---maybe it was maybe it was not. No one really knows. Nor can anyone possibly know that.

Also...it is very likely perhaps even probable that the white guy did not even notice the black guy took a step or so backwards....remember he was totally supprised at being violently attacked...perhaps in a little bit of shock as he did not even see the black guy coming. However he quickly realized he was on the ground with a black dude hovering near by. I think most would be in fear of their life and or at least in fear of great bodily harm at that point...hence he reached for his weapon and then aimed and fired...all his
attention being on the target and aiming and getting off the round quickly. That is a key factor how quickly the shooter had to react to defend his life and limb. How quickly he had to make a decision to shoot.

Also...something else to consider--say the white guy did not shoot but simply pointed the pistol at the black guy. What would have then happened we do not know...and we must look at this from the shooters view point--he was on the ground with a black guy very close--6 to 10 ft. is very close. He really did not know what he was up against or what the black guy was capable of or what he might do next. He did know he had been violently attacked for no reason and that he was on the ground in a very vulnurable position, he was in a black neighborhood with the g/f also close by and she had already gone ballistic on him--so either one or both of them could have rushed him. Covering a distance of 6 to 10 ft. can be done extremely quickly.

Also we must consider what the black guy might have or might not have done....remember he had a history of being arrested for assault and battery. So, let us say the pistol comes up but the white guy does not shoot...what next? Well, when the black guy realizes the white guy does not
appear to be going to shoot him...he will most likely engage him in some sort of conversation...like...whats up dude? What you pointing dat pistol at me for? All the time trying to get a fix on or read the guy as in will he shoot or is he too big a coward to shoot me...sumptin like dat. Perhaps maneuvering even closer whilst engaging the white guy verbally. And, we must remember he had been arrested for assault before so that seems to indicate he had a violent nature.

Thus in a nutshell we can only conjecture at what might have happened if the white guy did not shoot...he was the one who had to make an extremely
fast decision, it was his life on the line. He chose to shoot...I do not think it can be denied that he was in reasonable fear of his life.

Also, a big mistake a lot of folks make is to think that violently prone people are logical, too often they are governed by emotion not logic and anyone familiar with these sorts of scenarios knows it is not uncommon for the perp to get even angrier when someone pulls a pistol on him. So this erroneous belief some have that just because a perp has a pistol aimed at him he is going to give up...maybe in some cases, maybe in even most cases...but not so in all cases. And if your life is on the line...should you gamble the perp is going to be logical and reasonable...especially when he has already violently attacked you for no reason? I don't think
so. It was as they say...a good shoot.

Thus I see no conviction.

McGlockton took 3 steps back and then a 4th as he began turning away from Drejka to his right. He wasn’t shot straight on but somewhere between his front and side in his left chest.

He wasn’t 6-10 feet away when shot but was 10-15 feet away, probably 12. And stepping backwards and away from Drejka. With both hands on his gun and trained on McGlockton, he would have been able to get a round off had McGlockton made a sudden move at him from 12 feet away, which McGlockton didn’t do.

And had Drejka not seen McGlockton was stepping away, even though he was looking directly at him, then Drejka is fucked because that means he felt threatened when in fact, there was no threat. That’s not reasonable.

Nonsense......here is the video...........Man charged in ’stand your ground’ killing has history of gun threats, prosecutors say

Thanks for linking the video which shows everything I just said.

Did you hear what the Sheriff said after the video?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

But we for

Judging by the poll that was done here....the guy has no shot and should take a plea deal if offered

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa laughable. I case you have not noticed this discussion on the clearwater incident reveals a lot of ignorance.....first of all what the law says....and so many on here have no capacity to understand that law as simple as it is.

Do not take any poll conducted on this board as any indicator of anything....other than that so many on here are biased and believe the fake news that is drummed into them daily.

No ability to think for selves logically or even in a common sense mode.

Pathetic is the woid dat comes to mind boyo.

But we for sure should believe your expert opinion. Yeah pathetic would describe that

I am merely telling you what the law says. The law grants the defendant the legal right to use deadly force if he felt his life was in danger and or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm. Yet so many seem unable to grasp that???

No, you are doing more than that. You are also deciding the jury will find he acted in self defense according to the law. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a hung jury in this case. Regardless, you’re ignoringe that McGlockton was retreating when he was shot. You’re also ignoring the results from the 3D scanner which determined McGlockton was no less than 10 feet away from Drejka when he was shot. If that evidence is presented in court, I can see at least some of the jurors deciding there was no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm at the moment Drejka pulled the trigger.

Get real boyo, I have no power to decide anything in regards to what the jury will do. I am merely saying I do not think they will be able to convict and yes there very well could be a hung jury because they will have to have at least a couple of negroes on it.

It really does not matter that the black guy took a step or two backward when he saw the pistol come out.. I would not call that 'retreating' I would call it a reaction of supprise at seeing the pistol. Kinda like when you touch a hot stove and jerk your hand back.

Retreating to me means that he is definitely not going to do anything else as in it is over for him. That is a matter of conjecture---maybe it was maybe it was not. No one really knows. Nor can anyone possibly know that.

Also...it is very likely perhaps even probable that the white guy did not even notice the black guy took a step or so backwards....remember he was totally supprised at being violently attacked...perhaps in a little bit of shock as he did not even see the black guy coming. However he quickly realized he was on the ground with a black dude hovering near by. I think most would be in fear of their life and or at least in fear of great bodily harm at that point...hence he reached for his weapon and then aimed and fired...all his
attention being on the target and aiming and getting off the round quickly. That is a key factor how quickly the shooter had to react to defend his life and limb. How quickly he had to make a decision to shoot.

Also...something else to consider--say the white guy did not shoot but simply pointed the pistol at the black guy. What would have then happened we do not know...and we must look at this from the shooters view point--he was on the ground with a black guy very close--6 to 10 ft. is very close. He really did not know what he was up against or what the black guy was capable of or what he might do next. He did know he had been violently attacked for no reason and that he was on the ground in a very vulnurable position, he was in a black neighborhood with the g/f also close by and she had already gone ballistic on him--so either one or both of them could have rushed him. Covering a distance of 6 to 10 ft. can be done extremely quickly.

Also we must consider what the black guy might have or might not have done....remember he had a history of being arrested for assault and battery. So, let us say the pistol comes up but the white guy does not shoot...what next? Well, when the black guy realizes the white guy does not
appear to be going to shoot him...he will most likely engage him in some sort of conversation...like...whats up dude? What you pointing dat pistol at me for? All the time trying to get a fix on or read the guy as in will he shoot or is he too big a coward to shoot me...sumptin like dat. Perhaps maneuvering even closer whilst engaging the white guy verbally. And, we must remember he had been arrested for assault before so that seems to indicate he had a violent nature.

Thus in a nutshell we can only conjecture at what might have happened if the white guy did not shoot...he was the one who had to make an extremely
fast decision, it was his life on the line. He chose to shoot...I do not think it can be denied that he was in reasonable fear of his life.

Also, a big mistake a lot of folks make is to think that violently prone people are logical, too often they are governed by emotion not logic and anyone familiar with these sorts of scenarios knows it is not uncommon for the perp to get even angrier when someone pulls a pistol on him. So this erroneous belief some have that just because a perp has a pistol aimed at him he is going to give up...maybe in some cases, maybe in even most cases...but not so in all cases. And if your life is on the line...should you gamble the perp is going to be logical and reasonable...especially when he has already violently attacked you for no reason? I don't think
so. It was as they say...a good shoot.

Thus I see no conviction.

Your posts are more full of shit that a septic tank vacuum truck! They have no basis in reality. I just find that you make excuses for why someone would be retreating and blame it on the shooter pulling his gun when he hadn't pulled it yet!

Watch the video! Can you do that? It is all there to see and none of this lying your are doing is going to change any of that.

Why don't you just admit that your racist views are blinding you to the truth?

 

[Faun]

No, you are doing more than that. You are also deciding the jury will find he acted in self defense according to the law. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a hung jury in this case. Regardless, you’re ignoringe that McGlockton was retreating when he was shot. You’re also ignoring the results from the 3D scanner which determined McGlockton was no less than 10 feet away from Drejka when he was shot. If that evidence is presented in court, I can see at least some of the jurors deciding there was no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm at the moment Drejka pulled the trigger.

Get real boyo, I have no power to decide anything in regards to what the jury will do. I am merely saying I do not think they will be able to convict and yes there very well could be a hung jury because they will have to have at least a couple of negroes on it.

It really does not matter that the black guy took a step or two backward when he saw the pistol come out.. I would not call that 'retreating' I would call it a reaction of supprise at seeing the pistol. Kinda like when you touch a hot stove and jerk your hand back.

Retreating to me means that he is definitely not going to do anything else as in it is over for him. That is a matter of conjecture---maybe it was maybe it was not. No one really knows. Nor can anyone possibly know that.

Also...it is very likely perhaps even probable that the white guy did not even notice the black guy took a step or so backwards....remember he was totally supprised at being violently attacked...perhaps in a little bit of shock as he did not even see the black guy coming. However he quickly realized he was on the ground with a black dude hovering near by. I think most would be in fear of their life and or at least in fear of great bodily harm at that point...hence he reached for his weapon and then aimed and fired...all his
attention being on the target and aiming and getting off the round quickly. That is a key factor how quickly the shooter had to react to defend his life and limb. How quickly he had to make a decision to shoot.

Also...something else to consider--say the white guy did not shoot but simply pointed the pistol at the black guy. What would have then happened we do not know...and we must look at this from the shooters view point--he was on the ground with a black guy very close--6 to 10 ft. is very close. He really did not know what he was up against or what the black guy was capable of or what he might do next. He did know he had been violently attacked for no reason and that he was on the ground in a very vulnurable position, he was in a black neighborhood with the g/f also close by and she had already gone ballistic on him--so either one or both of them could have rushed him. Covering a distance of 6 to 10 ft. can be done extremely quickly.

Also we must consider what the black guy might have or might not have done....remember he had a history of being arrested for assault and battery. So, let us say the pistol comes up but the white guy does not shoot...what next? Well, when the black guy realizes the white guy does not
appear to be going to shoot him...he will most likely engage him in some sort of conversation...like...whats up dude? What you pointing dat pistol at me for? All the time trying to get a fix on or read the guy as in will he shoot or is he too big a coward to shoot me...sumptin like dat. Perhaps maneuvering even closer whilst engaging the white guy verbally. And, we must remember he had been arrested for assault before so that seems to indicate he had a violent nature.

Thus in a nutshell we can only conjecture at what might have happened if the white guy did not shoot...he was the one who had to make an extremely
fast decision, it was his life on the line. He chose to shoot...I do not think it can be denied that he was in reasonable fear of his life.

Also, a big mistake a lot of folks make is to think that violently prone people are logical, too often they are governed by emotion not logic and anyone familiar with these sorts of scenarios knows it is not uncommon for the perp to get even angrier when someone pulls a pistol on him. So this erroneous belief some have that just because a perp has a pistol aimed at him he is going to give up...maybe in some cases, maybe in even most cases...but not so in all cases. And if your life is on the line...should you gamble the perp is going to be logical and reasonable...especially when he has already violently attacked you for no reason? I don't think
so. It was as they say...a good shoot.

Thus I see no conviction.

McGlockton took 3 steps back and then a 4th as he began turning away from Drejka to his right. He wasn’t shot straight on but somewhere between his front and side in his left chest.

He wasn’t 6-10 feet away when shot but was 10-15 feet away, probably 12. And stepping backwards and away from Drejka. With both hands on his gun and trained on McGlockton, he would have been able to get a round off had McGlockton made a sudden move at him from 12 feet away, which McGlockton didn’t do.

And had Drejka not seen McGlockton was stepping away, even though he was looking directly at him, then Drejka is fucked because that means he felt threatened when in fact, there was no threat. That’s not reasonable.

Nonsense......here is the video...........Man charged in ’stand your ground’ killing has history of gun threats, prosecutors say

Thanks for linking the video which shows everything I just said.

Did you hear what the Sheriff said after the video?

The officer said he believed Drejka could not be arrested because he qualified as being protected from prosecution according to Florida’s stand your ground law — which you disagreed with.

As far as everything I said, it was confirmed by either the video and/or the arrest warrant.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Some people watch the video to see what they want to see. Others watch it to try and figure out the truth. btw I see the video is not accessible now unless one subscribes to the Washington Post. I will try and find another one but it is difficult to do now since the fake media has apparantly taken control of most of the videos and they re heavily edited and all the editing is politically correct motivated with heavy commentary designed to mislead the public. Pathetic.

BTW did anyone notice the white dude following the black guy out of the store? Hot on his heels until the white guy pulled out his pistol and then he ran off....he is the same one that went into the store and told the black guy something....I have heard no reports on what he said....but it was something that caused the black guy to rush out of the store seething with anger. Why was he following the black guy out of the store? Perhaps to help him? As in 2 on 1.

If one watches the vedo closely and it all happens very quickly...you will notice the black continues to advance on the white until he sees the pistol and then he sort of shrinks backward just before he gets shot. I am sure they will break it down into slow motion in the court room and the jury will see the white guy had a very reasonable fear of his life or futher injury.

 

[Faun]

Some people watch the video to see what they want to see. Others watch it to try and figure out the truth. btw I see the video is not accessible now unless one subscribes to the Washington Post. I will try and find another one but it is difficult to do now since the fake media has apparantly taken control of most of the videos and they re heavily edited and all the editing is politically correct motivated with heavy commentary designed to mislead the public. Pathetic.

BTW did anyone notice the white dude following the black guy out of the store? Hot on his heels until the white guy pulled out his pistol and then he ran off....he is the same one that went into the store and told the black guy something....I have heard no reports on what he said....but it was something that caused the black guy to rush out of the store seething with anger. Why was he following the black guy out of the store? Perhaps to help him? As in 2 on 1.

The Washington Post is a subscriber-based service and has been for some time now. They do offer non-subscribers a few free articles every month. It’s better to watch it on YouTube anyway where you can slow the video down. Doing that makes it even easier to see McGlockton took at least 4 steps when he saw he saw the gun — 3 back and one turning to his right.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Get real boyo, I have no power to decide anything in regards to what the jury will do. I am merely saying I do not think they will be able to convict and yes there very well could be a hung jury because they will have to have at least a couple of negroes on it.

It really does not matter that the black guy took a step or two backward when he saw the pistol come out.. I would not call that 'retreating' I would call it a reaction of supprise at seeing the pistol. Kinda like when you touch a hot stove and jerk your hand back.

Retreating to me means that he is definitely not going to do anything else as in it is over for him. That is a matter of conjecture---maybe it was maybe it was not. No one really knows. Nor can anyone possibly know that.

Also...it is very likely perhaps even probable that the white guy did not even notice the black guy took a step or so backwards....remember he was totally supprised at being violently attacked...perhaps in a little bit of shock as he did not even see the black guy coming. However he quickly realized he was on the ground with a black dude hovering near by. I think most would be in fear of their life and or at least in fear of great bodily harm at that point...hence he reached for his weapon and then aimed and fired...all his
attention being on the target and aiming and getting off the round quickly. That is a key factor how quickly the shooter had to react to defend his life and limb. How quickly he had to make a decision to shoot.

Also...something else to consider--say the white guy did not shoot but simply pointed the pistol at the black guy. What would have then happened we do not know...and we must look at this from the shooters view point--he was on the ground with a black guy very close--6 to 10 ft. is very close. He really did not know what he was up against or what the black guy was capable of or what he might do next. He did know he had been violently attacked for no reason and that he was on the ground in a very vulnurable position, he was in a black neighborhood with the g/f also close by and she had already gone ballistic on him--so either one or both of them could have rushed him. Covering a distance of 6 to 10 ft. can be done extremely quickly.

Also we must consider what the black guy might have or might not have done....remember he had a history of being arrested for assault and battery. So, let us say the pistol comes up but the white guy does not shoot...what next? Well, when the black guy realizes the white guy does not
appear to be going to shoot him...he will most likely engage him in some sort of conversation...like...whats up dude? What you pointing dat pistol at me for? All the time trying to get a fix on or read the guy as in will he shoot or is he too big a coward to shoot me...sumptin like dat. Perhaps maneuvering even closer whilst engaging the white guy verbally. And, we must remember he had been arrested for assault before so that seems to indicate he had a violent nature.

Thus in a nutshell we can only conjecture at what might have happened if the white guy did not shoot...he was the one who had to make an extremely
fast decision, it was his life on the line. He chose to shoot...I do not think it can be denied that he was in reasonable fear of his life.

Also, a big mistake a lot of folks make is to think that violently prone people are logical, too often they are governed by emotion not logic and anyone familiar with these sorts of scenarios knows it is not uncommon for the perp to get even angrier when someone pulls a pistol on him. So this erroneous belief some have that just because a perp has a pistol aimed at him he is going to give up...maybe in some cases, maybe in even most cases...but not so in all cases. And if your life is on the line...should you gamble the perp is going to be logical and reasonable...especially when he has already violently attacked you for no reason? I don't think
so. It was as they say...a good shoot.

Thus I see no conviction.

McGlockton took 3 steps back and then a 4th as he began turning away from Drejka to his right. He wasn’t shot straight on but somewhere between his front and side in his left chest.

He wasn’t 6-10 feet away when shot but was 10-15 feet away, probably 12. And stepping backwards and away from Drejka. With both hands on his gun and trained on McGlockton, he would have been able to get a round off had McGlockton made a sudden move at him from 12 feet away, which McGlockton didn’t do.

And had Drejka not seen McGlockton was stepping away, even though he was looking directly at him, then Drejka is fucked because that means he felt threatened when in fact, there was no threat. That’s not reasonable.

Nonsense......here is the video...........Man charged in ’stand your ground’ killing has history of gun threats, prosecutors say

Thanks for linking the video which shows everything I just said.

Did you hear what the Sheriff said after the video?

The officer said he believed Drejka could not be arrested because he qualified as being protected from prosecution according to Florida’s stand your ground law — which you disagreed with.

As far as everything I said, it was confirmed by either the video and/or the arrest warrant.

Your mistake is you fail to recognize how quickly it all happened and that the white guy really had no time to think out what he was going to do...he reacted very quickly, I would say automatically to a threat to his life and or limb. Very reasonable. You are simply viewing the video with a prejudiced eye in order to support what you have said. The jury will look at it in a more objective manner and there is little doubt they will not declare the defendant not guilty.

There is a lot of confusion about the stand your ground law and many in commenting combine the original self defense law with the stand your ground law....and it is all now a part of a package on self defense in general. Everything Drejka did was covered under the self defense law that was in place previous to the enactment of the stand your ground law.

The stand your ground law simply means one is not required to retreat when confronted...as in you have a right to stand your ground. It is quite obvious that the white guy was in no position to retreat even if wanted to. He was splayed out on the ground with the black guy advancing on him....thus the stand your ground law really has no application in this case.

I think the Sheriff was unfortunately using the wrong term in this case...perhaps in a technical sense now the stand your ground law being incorporated into the original self defense law that the authorities simply refer to all of it as the stand your ground law which is not correct. The stand your ground law was enacted to prevent someone claiming well hie should have just run away from the danger he did not have to shoot the perp etc. This same confusion about the stand your ground law surfaced in the trayvon affair...even though the defense attorneys made it very clear there were not using the stand your ground law but simply the self defense law. Yet the media went on and on about the stand your ground law as they have in this case.

In a nutshell the media and the pc crowd is attempting to use the stand your ground law to claim that Florida is to blame when a black guy gets killed by a white guy...like the stand your ground law entitles whites to kill blacks. a bunch of b.s. All of what Z and drejka did is covered under the original law on self defense.


USE OF DEADLY FORCE
There are two primary statutes in Florida outlining when the use of deadly force is justified so as to avoid criminal liability. Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law), a person is justified in using deadly force (and does not have a duty to retreat) if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony or to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another. Under Section 782.02, Florida Statutes, the use of deadly force is further justified when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which the person is located.

If the defendant is in his or her home or vehicle, then, under Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, the law will presume that the defendant had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily harm if the alleged victim unlawfully entered or remained or attempted to remove another person against their will. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another’s home or vehicle is furthermore presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

The presumption of reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm does not apply if: (a) the person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in the home or vehicle, or (b) the person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used, or (c) the person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the home or vehicle to further an unlawful activity, or (d) the person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, who enters or attempts to enter the home or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer properly identified his or herself (or the person reasonably should have known that it was a police officer).

If a defendant was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked where he or she was allowed to be, then the defendant has no duty of retreat and has a right to use force, or even deadly force, if the defendant (under those circumstances) reasonably believed that his or her use of force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. This is the key provision of Florida’s “Stand your Ground” law.

Florida Law on Self-Defense | Use of Deadly and Non Deadly Force

 

[Faun]

McGlockton took 3 steps back and then a 4th as he began turning away from Drejka to his right. He wasn’t shot straight on but somewhere between his front and side in his left chest.

He wasn’t 6-10 feet away when shot but was 10-15 feet away, probably 12. And stepping backwards and away from Drejka. With both hands on his gun and trained on McGlockton, he would have been able to get a round off had McGlockton made a sudden move at him from 12 feet away, which McGlockton didn’t do.

And had Drejka not seen McGlockton was stepping away, even though he was looking directly at him, then Drejka is fucked because that means he felt threatened when in fact, there was no threat. That’s not reasonable.

Nonsense......here is the video...........Man charged in ’stand your ground’ killing has history of gun threats, prosecutors say

Thanks for linking the video which shows everything I just said.

Did you hear what the Sheriff said after the video?

The officer said he believed Drejka could not be arrested because he qualified as being protected from prosecution according to Florida’s stand your ground law — which you disagreed with.

As far as everything I said, it was confirmed by either the video and/or the arrest warrant.

Your mistake is you fail to recognize how quickly it all happened and that the white guy really had no time to think out what he was going to do...he reacted very quickly, I would say automatically to a threat to his life and or limb. Very reasonable. You are simply viewing the video with a prejudiced eye in order to support what you have said. The jury will look at it in a more objective manner and there is little doubt they will not declare the defendant not guilty.

There is a lot of confusion about the stand your ground law and many in commenting combine the original self defense law with the stand your ground law....and it is all now a part of a package on self defense in general. Everything Drejka did was covered under the self defense law that was in place previous to the enactment of the stand your ground law.

The stand your ground law simply means one is not required to retreat when confronted...as in you have a right to stand your ground. It is quite obvious that the white guy was in no position to retreat even if wanted to. He was splayed out on the ground with the black guy advancing on him....thus the stand your ground law really has no application in this case.

I think the Sheriff was unfortunately using the wrong term in this case...perhaps in a technical sense now the stand your ground law being incorporated into the original self defense law that the authorities simply refer to all of it as the stand your ground law which is not correct. The stand your ground law was enacted to prevent someone claiming well hie should have just run away from the danger he did not have to shoot the perp etc. This same confusion about the stand your ground law surfaced in the trayvon affair...even though the defense attorneys made it very clear there were not using the stand your ground law but simply the self defense law. Yet the media went on and on about the stand your ground law as they have in this case.

In a nutshell the media and the pc crowd is attempting to use the stand your ground law to claim that Florida is to blame when a black guy gets killed by a white guy...like the stand your ground law entitles whites to kill blacks. a bunch of b.s. All of what Z and drejka did is covered under the original law on self defense.


USE OF DEADLY FORCE
There are two primary statutes in Florida outlining when the use of deadly force is justified so as to avoid criminal liability. Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law), a person is justified in using deadly force (and does not have a duty to retreat) if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony or to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another. Under Section 782.02, Florida Statutes, the use of deadly force is further justified when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which the person is located.

If the defendant is in his or her home or vehicle, then, under Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, the law will presume that the defendant had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily harm if the alleged victim unlawfully entered or remained or attempted to remove another person against their will. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another’s home or vehicle is furthermore presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

The presumption of reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm does not apply if: (a) the person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in the home or vehicle, or (b) the person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used, or (c) the person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the home or vehicle to further an unlawful activity, or (d) the person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, who enters or attempts to enter the home or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer properly identified his or herself (or the person reasonably should have known that it was a police officer).

If a defendant was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked where he or she was allowed to be, then the defendant has no duty of retreat and has a right to use force, or even deadly force, if the defendant (under those circumstances) reasonably believed that his or her use of force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. This is the key provision of Florida’s “Stand your Ground” law.

Florida Law on Self-Defense | Use of Deadly and Non Deadly Force

Oh? What part of stand your ground do you imagine I got wrong? What did I say that was any different than what you posted?

 

[MacTheKnife]

'When a Florida jury deadlocked on the first degree murder charge against software developer Michael Dunn, the state's controversial "Stand Your Ground Law" was once again hoisted into the media spotlight.

Dunn was convicted on four other charges in the case, in which he fired 10 times at an SUV after an argument with the teens inside about how loud their music was, and will likely be sentenced to a minimum of 60 years behind bars.


As in the case of George Zimmerman, acquitted in the killing of Trayvon Martin, the public outrage was often directed or misdirected, at the Florida stand your ground law.

Many, including legal commentators who should know better, repeatedly citing the stand your ground statute as a crucial issue in both cases.

And yet neither defendant invoked the controversial aspects of Florida's law. In fact, both defendants argued basic self defense law that would have been similar in just about every state in the nation.'

Stand Your Ground Didn't Determine Zimmerman, Dunn Cases

Thus in a nutshell the media frenzy regarding the stand your ground law is nothing more than a red herring by the media and pc types to de-ligitimize the self defense laws in Florida by attempting to make Florida somehow so different from other states --as in their self defense laws are to blame whenever a negro gets killed by a white guy. Utter nonsense...Florida is very similar to most states in their self defense law.

Outrageously even legal commentators contribute to all the confusion they probablly know better but political correctness rules and it distorts their views and their commentary....it does not require a high intelligence to read and comprehend Florida's law on self defense. More should do so before coming on here and making erroneous remarks.

Too many folks let the fake news lead them around like they are sheep. as in....sheeples.

States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws - FindLaw

 

[MacTheKnife]

Here is another video of the event. Get your stop watch out and time how long it took for Drejka to pull the trigger after he managed to get his weapon out.

Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law