Convenient store stand-your-ground shooter charged

[Snouter]

The mistake was the individual engaging in confrontations about a handicap parking place in the first place. He should have called the cops, recorded that he called the cops and after repeated instances present his information to the local government agency to either remove the handicap parking sign or enforce the parking laws. After the individual was assaulted and knocked to the ground the perp was obviously looking to continue the attack with kicks, maybe with a knife (most ghetto blacks and browns have some kind of weapon on their person), who knows. The perp backed up only after the individual who was assaulted pulled out his firearm. Forget how it all started, generally speaking if you are knocked down and are armed, you have to use it or the question would be why didn't he defend himself before the perp attacked again, stole his firearm and then did carjackings, rapes, and other assaults with the stolen gun?

 

[Faun]

I guess you were too stupid to understand it the first time.

Believing a person who is in retreat is threatening imminent death or great bodily harm; is not a reasonable belief.

Looks to me you are just ignoring the facts in the post you're quoting just so you can spew more vile bs. That's why it's a waste of time to try to provide actual facts about anything to you filth.

Oh? What am I ignoring? I posted the video along with my observation that over a period of about 4 seconds, Drejka watched McGlockton take 4 steps away from him and begin turning away as he shot him in the side.

What part of that do you see differently in the video...?

And I care why?

Another dead Negro..

I didn't ask you. Why would I care what an unabashed racist thinks?

You QUOTED me faggot I responded..


Another dead magic Negro..

Who cares?

Like so often, poke a conservative, find a racist.

 

[Faun]

Admiral's running his mouth about things he doesn't know.

See Pinellas County sheriff's active service calls

Did you intend to prove yourself wrong? Not a single service call is in Clearwater.

Introduce yourself to the other members of the self-inflicted racist dumbass club!

I would, but I am not a member!

Right now..give it time..

Here's one.

CAD Event Details

LOLOLOL

You dumbfucking moron, that's the Putnam County Sheriff's Office, not the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office; and that address is in Satsuma, in Putnam County.

105 Clearwater Road, Satsuma, FL

 

[Faun]

Speaking of crickets...

There is a lot that video doesn't show and that is what the appeal will center on.

Oh? On what the the appeal center...?

<crickets>

............... and still no response from miketx. Seems Mile was just blowin' more smoke out of his ass.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Seems little more than a KKK rally here.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

We’ve seen time and again how progressives shut down just about any conversation that isn’t going their way by shifting from arguing the point – if they even bothered to begin with – to accusations of racism or bigotry.

 

[Faun]

We’ve seen time and again how progressives shut down just about any conversation that isn’t going their way by shifting from arguing the point – if they even bothered to begin with – to accusations of racism or bigotry.

Oh, for fuck's sake, grow a pair. When someone announces they're a racist by posting, "another dead magic Negro.. Who cares," they should expect to be called a racist. And calling that racist a racist didn't shut down the argument -- that poster didn't have an argument to begin with. He's just a racist troll who couldn't resist expressing his racism. Meanwhile, the argument goes on around him anyway.

Oh, and by the way, the argument is actually going our way... the shooter was convicted.

 

[Wyatt earp]

We’ve seen time and again how progressives shut down just about any conversation that isn’t going their way by shifting from arguing the point – if they even bothered to begin with – to accusations of racism or bigotry.

Oh, for fuck's sake, grow a pair. When someone announces they're a racist by posting, "another dead magic Negro.. Who cares," they should expect to be called a racist. And calling that racist a racist didn't shut down the argument -- that poster didn't have an argument to begin with. He's just a racist troll who couldn't resist expressing his racism. Meanwhile, the argument goes on around him anyway.

Oh, and by the way, the argument is actually going our way... the shooter was convicted.

Your chain got yanked ..twat?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

We’ve seen time and again how progressives shut down just about any conversation that isn’t going their way by shifting from arguing the point – if they even bothered to begin with – to accusations of racism or bigotry.

Oh, for fuck's sake, grow a pair. When someone announces they're a racist by posting, "another dead magic Negro.. Who cares," they should expect to be called a racist. And calling that racist a racist didn't shut down the argument -- that poster didn't have an argument to begin with. He's just a racist troll who couldn't resist expressing his racism. Meanwhile, the argument goes on around him anyway.

Oh, and by the way, the argument is actually going our way... the shooter was convicted.

Well, of course everyone knows the shooter was convicted but the controversy is whether or not the jury got it right.

And the ball game is not over until the appeal is dealt with.

This is a much more important case than most realize because if the jury verdict is allowed to stand it will fundamentally change the law on self defense as has been pointed out previously.

 

[Faun]

We’ve seen time and again how progressives shut down just about any conversation that isn’t going their way by shifting from arguing the point – if they even bothered to begin with – to accusations of racism or bigotry.

Oh, for fuck's sake, grow a pair. When someone announces they're a racist by posting, "another dead magic Negro.. Who cares," they should expect to be called a racist. And calling that racist a racist didn't shut down the argument -- that poster didn't have an argument to begin with. He's just a racist troll who couldn't resist expressing his racism. Meanwhile, the argument goes on around him anyway.

Oh, and by the way, the argument is actually going our way... the shooter was convicted.

Your chain got yanked ..twat?

LOL

Not by a racist, no.

 

[Faun]

We’ve seen time and again how progressives shut down just about any conversation that isn’t going their way by shifting from arguing the point – if they even bothered to begin with – to accusations of racism or bigotry.

Oh, for fuck's sake, grow a pair. When someone announces they're a racist by posting, "another dead magic Negro.. Who cares," they should expect to be called a racist. And calling that racist a racist didn't shut down the argument -- that poster didn't have an argument to begin with. He's just a racist troll who couldn't resist expressing his racism. Meanwhile, the argument goes on around him anyway.

Oh, and by the way, the argument is actually going our way... the shooter was convicted.

Well, of course everyone knows the shooter was convicted but the controversy is whether or not the jury got it right.

And the ball game is not over until the appeal is dealt with.

This is a much more important case than most realize because if the jury verdict is allowed to stand it will fundamentally change the law on self defense as has been pointed out previously.

Well you're not exactly winning an argument while our side of the argument prevailed in court.

And no, it doesn't change self-defense laws. Self defense laws were never intended to allow people to murder someone in retreat.

 

[Wyatt earp]

We’ve seen time and again how progressives shut down just about any conversation that isn’t going their way by shifting from arguing the point – if they even bothered to begin with – to accusations of racism or bigotry.

Oh, for fuck's sake, grow a pair. When someone announces they're a racist by posting, "another dead magic Negro.. Who cares," they should expect to be called a racist. And calling that racist a racist didn't shut down the argument -- that poster didn't have an argument to begin with. He's just a racist troll who couldn't resist expressing his racism. Meanwhile, the argument goes on around him anyway.

Oh, and by the way, the argument is actually going our way... the shooter was convicted.

Your chain got yanked ..twat?

LOL

Not by a racist, no.

Then why upset?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

We’ve seen time and again how progressives shut down just about any conversation that isn’t going their way by shifting from arguing the point – if they even bothered to begin with – to accusations of racism or bigotry.

Oh, for fuck's sake, grow a pair. When someone announces they're a racist by posting, "another dead magic Negro.. Who cares," they should expect to be called a racist. And calling that racist a racist didn't shut down the argument -- that poster didn't have an argument to begin with. He's just a racist troll who couldn't resist expressing his racism. Meanwhile, the argument goes on around him anyway.

Oh, and by the way, the argument is actually going our way... the shooter was convicted.

Well, of course everyone knows the shooter was convicted but the controversy is whether or not the jury got it right.

And the ball game is not over until the appeal is dealt with.

This is a much more important case than most realize because if the jury verdict is allowed to stand it will fundamentally change the law on self defense as has been pointed out previously.

Well you're not exactly winning an argument while our side of the argument prevailed in court.

And no, it doesn't change self-defense laws. Self defense laws were never intended to allow people to murder someone in retreat.

You lack of a good analytical ability interferes with your perception of the reality of this case. Aka...what and how it all went down. Obviously you have never been under attack as well.

First of all--the law on self defense has always centered on the perception of the victim aka whether or not the victim has a reasonable belief that his life was in danger or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm.

The key element in this case is of course whether or not the drugged up black thug was actually retreating.

The next thing to consider is what constitutes retreating?

Now as we have seen the video was slowed down to the slow motion mode for the jurors and in slow motion mode the following can be seen: first of all of course the black thug high on drugs as proved in court by toxicology reports rushes out of the store after a white guy comes in and says there is a problem on the parking lot.

Now what is the first thing seen by the thug on exiting the store---a white dude arguing with his g/f. The black guy does not ask any questions, does not try to find out what the argument is about as would any reasonable person...he just rushes up and violently assaults the white guy.

And then.....this is critical........and then...he continues to advance towards the white guy he has knocked to the ground. Why did he continue to advance? Obviously he meant to do more harm to his victim i.e. kick him in the head or whatever....we have all seen the videos of scenarios like this...some black thug or a gang of black thugs beating some hapless victim to death...these videos are all over the internet...and it is reasonable to conclude the Drejka had seen such vidieos.

It is highly likely that after getting knocked to the ground that his first thought was that his assailant would do to him like what he had seen happen to other victims in his situation...on the ground and highly vulnurable to further attacks by his assailant.

The video then shows Drejka manage with some difficulty to get his weapon out as his right arm had been injured in the assault. Upon sight of the weapon the black guy stops his advance and in slow motion you can see he takes a couple of halting backward steps whilst still facing his victim and then turning slightly in order to present a smaller target.

Now the question arises was he actually 'retreating' and that is the basis on which the prosecution was able to sway the jury to vote for a conviction....that the perp was retreating from the scene of his crime...but was he?

The defense brought in a expert witness a black guy with much experience and knowledge of what constitutes self defense,body language and retreat.

He made a very good case that the black guy was not retreating and that he remained within striking distance of his victim....which means that if he so wanted he could have easily rushed the defendant and continued his assault.

Now we must not forget he was high on drugs and in such a impaired condition it is difficult to predict with any accuracy what he might have done if he had not got shot.

Meanwhile, of course his victim was dazed, disoriented, injured and undoubtedly in a mild state of shock at least. He did realize that if he wanted to protect his life that he had to make a very fast decision.

He only had a couple of seconds to make this life or death decision and in such a state of disorientation and stress he chose to shoot and anyone who has been in such a similar life threatening scenario knows that one misses a lot of details in such a scenario and that their main objective being-- to get the weapon out and prepare to fire it --which means getting the weapon into a firing mode, clicking the safety off, aligning and sighting the weapon on his assailant and then pulling the trigger.

Whilst being focused on doing all that it is not to be reasonably expected that the victim would note the movement of his assailants feet. He is aiming his weapon at the center mass of his victim...lining up the sights on the gun and then pulling the trigger. All this takes some time and a lot of concentration on his target.

Now most people will run if someone pulls a gun on them, why wait around to get shot? Makes no sense. But as we know the thug with a history of assault was high on a couple of drugs....thus his judgement was impaired.

The very drugs that very likely had put him into such an aggressive mode also prevented him from understanding that he needed to flee in order to avoid getting shot. Like you see his buddy running to hide behind some cars as soon as he sees the weapon pulled out.

Anyhow for whatever reason he does not retreat until he is shot then he takes off running....that is actually retreating but he waited too long to do that. It cost him his life.

 

[Flash]

McGlockton was in the wrong for battering Drejka. He had no lawful justification to use force on Drejka.

Drejka, in turn, utilized deadly force against a retreating assailant. The imminence of the threat was gone. Drejka exceeded the amount of force he was lawfully entitled to use at the time he fired the shot.

One dead, the other one probably in jail for the next 20 years or more.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

McGlockton was in the wrong for battering Drejka. He had no lawful justification to use force on Drejka.

Drejka, in turn, utilized deadly force against a retreating assailant. The imminence of the threat was gone. Drejka exceeded the amount of force he was lawfully entitled to use at the time he fired the shot.

One dead, the other one probably in jail for the next 20 years or more.

Nonsense....you should have heard the expert witness in regards to what actually constitututes retreat. He was still in close proximity to his victim when he was shot...as in within sriking distance. He could have easily rushed his victim again if he had not been shot. Too many have no clue as to what actually constitutes retreat...to retreat means to be in a place where you are no longer a reasonable threat.

The black dude did not actually retreat until he was shot.

In addition you like many others do not have a adequate understanding of the law on self defense.



Anyhow here is something else I think that is extremely unfair to defendants in Florida....the 6 man jury. I was not even aware until relatively recently that this is going on...I think it is highly outrageous to anyone concerned about justice.

It is much easier.....much, much easier for the state to convict someone with a 6 man jury. This needs to be stopped.

In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of a 6-person jury in a Florida criminal case, ruling that neither the language nor the history of the U.S Constitution mandates a 12-person jury. Instead, the Supreme Court, referring to the 12-person jury as a “historical accident,” held that the purpose of a jury is to provide a cross-section of the community, and juries of less than 12 persons in serious felony cases do not violate that purpose or the constitution. Nevertheless, only two states in the U.S. (Florida and Connecticut) allow for 6-person juries for serious felony accusations.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

We’ve seen time and again how progressives shut down just about any conversation that isn’t going their way by shifting from arguing the point – if they even bothered to begin with – to accusations of racism or bigotry.

Oh, for fuck's sake, grow a pair. When someone announces they're a racist by posting, "another dead magic Negro.. Who cares," they should expect to be called a racist. And calling that racist a racist didn't shut down the argument -- that poster didn't have an argument to begin with. He's just a racist troll who couldn't resist expressing his racism. Meanwhile, the argument goes on around him anyway.

Oh, and by the way, the argument is actually going our way... the shooter was convicted.

Well, of course everyone knows the shooter was convicted but the controversy is whether or not the jury got it right.

And the ball game is not over until the appeal is dealt with.

This is a much more important case than most realize because if the jury verdict is allowed to stand it will fundamentally change the law on self defense as has been pointed out previously.

Well you're not exactly winning an argument while our side of the argument prevailed in court.

And no, it doesn't change self-defense laws. Self defense laws were never intended to allow people to murder someone in retreat.

You are too biased to judge who is winning this argument....the object of this discussion should not be to just try and win the argument....it should be about ferreting out the truth and if the jury actually got it right or not.

It amazed me in the Zimmerman case and it amazes me now as to how many have no clue as to what the law on self defense actually is.

That is something else this thread is about ...educating people in regards to what the law on self defense actually is.

I do not see more than 3 or so posters on here who have a good understanding of the law on self defense....quite pathetic.

I was also just thinking about the 6 man jury concept...do you have any thoughts on that?

Here is something else to consider: The jury expected that Drejka whilst in a disoriented and dazed conditon to be able to discern in a couple of seconds whether or not the black dude was retreating or not retreating.

Whilst they had hours to come to the conclusion based on a couple of halting backward steps that the black guy was retreating.....what took them so long?

Here is something else to think about......how juries are selected. Is it a fair practice.

What do we know about how juries are selected? I wouold suppose it varies from lone ocale to another.

First they have a list from which to select prospective juries...I think in most places they use a list of registered voters or at least in some places i know they do that.

When i received my notice to report for jury duty....the first thing they did was to give everyone a long questionarie to fill out. It has been so long I forget all the questions or actually any of them...this was in Nevada.

There was a room full of people....must have been around at least a 100 people there.

Anyone know hat criteria they use to select jurors. Anyone been on jury duty recently?

 

[SavannahMann]

We’ve seen time and again how progressives shut down just about any conversation that isn’t going their way by shifting from arguing the point – if they even bothered to begin with – to accusations of racism or bigotry.

Oh, for fuck's sake, grow a pair. When someone announces they're a racist by posting, "another dead magic Negro.. Who cares," they should expect to be called a racist. And calling that racist a racist didn't shut down the argument -- that poster didn't have an argument to begin with. He's just a racist troll who couldn't resist expressing his racism. Meanwhile, the argument goes on around him anyway.

Oh, and by the way, the argument is actually going our way... the shooter was convicted.

Well, of course everyone knows the shooter was convicted but the controversy is whether or not the jury got it right.

And the ball game is not over until the appeal is dealt with.

This is a much more important case than most realize because if the jury verdict is allowed to stand it will fundamentally change the law on self defense as has been pointed out previously.

Well you're not exactly winning an argument while our side of the argument prevailed in court.

And no, it doesn't change self-defense laws. Self defense laws were never intended to allow people to murder someone in retreat.

You lack of a good analytical ability interferes with your perception of the reality of this case. Aka...what and how it all went down. Obviously you have never been under attack as well.

First of all--the law on self defense has always centered on the perception of the victim aka whether or not the victim has a reasonable belief that his life was in danger or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm.

The key element in this case is of course whether or not the drugged up black thug was actually retreating.

The next thing to consider is what constitutes retreating?

Now as we have seen the video was slowed down to the slow motion mode for the jurors and in slow motion mode the following can be seen: first of all of course the black thug high on drugs as proved in court by toxicology reports rushes out of the store after a white guy comes in and says there is a problem on the parking lot.

Now what is the first thing seen by the thug on exiting the store---a white dude arguing with his g/f. The black guy does not ask any questions, does not try to find out what the argument is about as would any reasonable person...he just rushes up and violently assaults the white guy.

And then.....this is critical........and then...he continues to advance towards the white guy he has knocked to the ground. Why did he continue to advance? Obviously he meant to do more harm to his victim i.e. kick him in the head or whatever....we have all seen the videos of scenarios like this...some black thug or a gang of black thugs beating some hapless victim to death...these videos are all over the internet...and it is reasonable to conclude the Drejka had seen such vidieos.

It is highly likely that after getting knocked to the ground that his first thought was that his assailant would do to him like what he had seen happen to other victims in his situation...on the ground and highly vulnurable to further attacks by his assailant.

The video then shows Drejka manage with some difficulty to get his weapon out as his right arm had been injured in the assault. Upon sight of the weapon the black guy stops his advance and in slow motion you can see he takes a couple of halting backward steps whilst still facing his victim and then turning slightly in order to present a smaller target.

Now the question arises was he actually 'retreating' and that is the basis on which the prosecution was able to sway the jury to vote for a conviction....that the perp was retreating from the scene of his crime...but was he?

The defense brought in a expert witness a black guy with much experience and knowledge of what constitutes self defense,body language and retreat.

He made a very good case that the black guy was not retreating and that he remained within striking distance of his victim....which means that if he so wanted he could have easily rushed the defendant and continued his assault.

Now we must not forget he was high on drugs and in such a impaired condition it is difficult to predict with any accuracy what he might have done if he had not got shot.

Meanwhile, of course his victim was dazed, disoriented, injured and undoubtedly in a mild state of shock at least. He did realize that if he wanted to protect his life that he had to make a very fast decision.

He only had a couple of seconds to make this life or death decision and in such a state of disorientation and stress he chose to shoot and anyone who has been in such a similar life threatening scenario knows that one misses a lot of details in such a scenario and that their main objective being-- to get the weapon out and prepare to fire it --which means getting the weapon into a firing mode, clicking the safety off, aligning and sighting the weapon on his assailant and then pulling the trigger.

Whilst being focused on doing all that it is not to be reasonably expected that the victim would note the movement of his assailants feet. He is aiming his weapon at the center mass of his victim...lining up the sights on the gun and then pulling the trigger. All this takes some time and a lot of concentration on his target.

Now most people will run if someone pulls a gun on them, why wait around to get shot? Makes no sense. But as we know the thug with a history of assault was high on a couple of drugs....thus his judgement was impaired.

The very drugs that very likely had put him into such an aggressive mode also prevented him from understanding that he needed to flee in order to avoid getting shot. Like you see his buddy running to hide behind some cars as soon as he sees the weapon pulled out.

Anyhow for whatever reason he does not retreat until he is shot then he takes off running....that is actually retreating but he waited too long to do that. It cost him his life.

The decision if the belief is reasonable is made by a Jury of your peers. It is not an automatic get out of jail free card. Your actions are always judged by another. Non confrontational is always best when you are armed. The Jury listened to the testimony, and found the video compelling.

Jury foreman in Drejka trial recounts guilty verdict, says decision came down to security video

There is a saying. It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Drejka did not need to have either done. He could have minded his own business and walked into the store. No incident would have occurred. No one knocked down. No one dead. No one in prison. It is how I behave when I am carrying.

Drejka could have kept his mouth shut with the cops. Another stupid mistake. What surprises me is not the verdict. But the apparent miracle that Drejka has somehow lucked out of ending up in prison so far.

That is practically a miracle of epic proportions.

 

[Faun]

We’ve seen time and again how progressives shut down just about any conversation that isn’t going their way by shifting from arguing the point – if they even bothered to begin with – to accusations of racism or bigotry.

Oh, for fuck's sake, grow a pair. When someone announces they're a racist by posting, "another dead magic Negro.. Who cares," they should expect to be called a racist. And calling that racist a racist didn't shut down the argument -- that poster didn't have an argument to begin with. He's just a racist troll who couldn't resist expressing his racism. Meanwhile, the argument goes on around him anyway.

Oh, and by the way, the argument is actually going our way... the shooter was convicted.

Well, of course everyone knows the shooter was convicted but the controversy is whether or not the jury got it right.

And the ball game is not over until the appeal is dealt with.

This is a much more important case than most realize because if the jury verdict is allowed to stand it will fundamentally change the law on self defense as has been pointed out previously.

Well you're not exactly winning an argument while our side of the argument prevailed in court.

And no, it doesn't change self-defense laws. Self defense laws were never intended to allow people to murder someone in retreat.

You lack of a good analytical ability interferes with your perception of the reality of this case. Aka...what and how it all went down. Obviously you have never been under attack as well.

First of all--the law on self defense has always centered on the perception of the victim aka whether or not the victim has a reasonable belief that his life was in danger or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm.

The key element in this case is of course whether or not the drugged up black thug was actually retreating.

The next thing to consider is what constitutes retreating?

Now as we have seen the video was slowed down to the slow motion mode for the jurors and in slow motion mode the following can be seen: first of all of course the black thug high on drugs as proved in court by toxicology reports rushes out of the store after a white guy comes in and says there is a problem on the parking lot.

Now what is the first thing seen by the thug on exiting the store---a white dude arguing with his g/f. The black guy does not ask any questions, does not try to find out what the argument is about as would any reasonable person...he just rushes up and violently assaults the white guy.

And then.....this is critical........and then...he continues to advance towards the white guy he has knocked to the ground. Why did he continue to advance? Obviously he meant to do more harm to his victim i.e. kick him in the head or whatever....we have all seen the videos of scenarios like this...some black thug or a gang of black thugs beating some hapless victim to death...these videos are all over the internet...and it is reasonable to conclude the Drejka had seen such vidieos.

It is highly likely that after getting knocked to the ground that his first thought was that his assailant would do to him like what he had seen happen to other victims in his situation...on the ground and highly vulnurable to further attacks by his assailant.

The video then shows Drejka manage with some difficulty to get his weapon out as his right arm had been injured in the assault. Upon sight of the weapon the black guy stops his advance and in slow motion you can see he takes a couple of halting backward steps whilst still facing his victim and then turning slightly in order to present a smaller target.

Now the question arises was he actually 'retreating' and that is the basis on which the prosecution was able to sway the jury to vote for a conviction....that the perp was retreating from the scene of his crime...but was he?

The defense brought in a expert witness a black guy with much experience and knowledge of what constitutes self defense,body language and retreat.

He made a very good case that the black guy was not retreating and that he remained within striking distance of his victim....which means that if he so wanted he could have easily rushed the defendant and continued his assault.

Now we must not forget he was high on drugs and in such a impaired condition it is difficult to predict with any accuracy what he might have done if he had not got shot.

Meanwhile, of course his victim was dazed, disoriented, injured and undoubtedly in a mild state of shock at least. He did realize that if he wanted to protect his life that he had to make a very fast decision.

He only had a couple of seconds to make this life or death decision and in such a state of disorientation and stress he chose to shoot and anyone who has been in such a similar life threatening scenario knows that one misses a lot of details in such a scenario and that their main objective being-- to get the weapon out and prepare to fire it --which means getting the weapon into a firing mode, clicking the safety off, aligning and sighting the weapon on his assailant and then pulling the trigger.

Whilst being focused on doing all that it is not to be reasonably expected that the victim would note the movement of his assailants feet. He is aiming his weapon at the center mass of his victim...lining up the sights on the gun and then pulling the trigger. All this takes some time and a lot of concentration on his target.

Now most people will run if someone pulls a gun on them, why wait around to get shot? Makes no sense. But as we know the thug with a history of assault was high on a couple of drugs....thus his judgement was impaired.

The very drugs that very likely had put him into such an aggressive mode also prevented him from understanding that he needed to flee in order to avoid getting shot. Like you see his buddy running to hide behind some cars as soon as he sees the weapon pulled out.

Anyhow for whatever reason he does not retreat until he is shot then he takes off running....that is actually retreating but he waited too long to do that. It cost him his life.

"Upon sight of the weapon the black guy stops his advance and in slow motion you can see he takes a couple of halting backward steps whilst still facing his victim..."

That is incorrect. He is seen on the video backing up even before Drejka pulled his gun out. Before drawing his gun, Drejka reached in his clothes for it. It was then that McGlockton began backing up, taking 2 steps backwards. THEN Drejka brandishes his firearm, at which point McGlockton takes 2 more steps backwards and begins turning. That took about 4 seconds to transpire. Drejka had ample opportunity to see McGlockton was backing away from him.

As far as McGlockton being on drugs, that's irrelevant from Drejka's perspective because he had no knowledge of McGlockton's toxicology.

As far as McGlockton potentially lunging at Drejka, that didn't happen and McGlockton was far enough away that Drejka, his firearm trained on McGlockton, would have had an opportunity to shoot had McGlockton actually lunged at him.

And you're getting g many facts of this case wrong.

You claim McGlockton only took 1 or 2 steps back; when in fact, he took 4.

You claim Drejka didn't see him stepping back; when in fact, the video shows Drejka looking directly at McGlockton from the moment he sat up.

You claim McGlockton advanced on Drejka until he saw the firearm; when in fact, he began backing up the moment Drejka reached for his weapon.

You cannot get those basic facts wrong and then claim you know better than the jury.

 

[Faun]

We’ve seen time and again how progressives shut down just about any conversation that isn’t going their way by shifting from arguing the point – if they even bothered to begin with – to accusations of racism or bigotry.

Oh, for fuck's sake, grow a pair. When someone announces they're a racist by posting, "another dead magic Negro.. Who cares," they should expect to be called a racist. And calling that racist a racist didn't shut down the argument -- that poster didn't have an argument to begin with. He's just a racist troll who couldn't resist expressing his racism. Meanwhile, the argument goes on around him anyway.

Oh, and by the way, the argument is actually going our way... the shooter was convicted.

Well, of course everyone knows the shooter was convicted but the controversy is whether or not the jury got it right.

And the ball game is not over until the appeal is dealt with.

This is a much more important case than most realize because if the jury verdict is allowed to stand it will fundamentally change the law on self defense as has been pointed out previously.

Well you're not exactly winning an argument while our side of the argument prevailed in court.

And no, it doesn't change self-defense laws. Self defense laws were never intended to allow people to murder someone in retreat.

You lack of a good analytical ability interferes with your perception of the reality of this case. Aka...what and how it all went down. Obviously you have never been under attack as well.

First of all--the law on self defense has always centered on the perception of the victim aka whether or not the victim has a reasonable belief that his life was in danger or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm.

The key element in this case is of course whether or not the drugged up black thug was actually retreating.

The next thing to consider is what constitutes retreating?

Now as we have seen the video was slowed down to the slow motion mode for the jurors and in slow motion mode the following can be seen: first of all of course the black thug high on drugs as proved in court by toxicology reports rushes out of the store after a white guy comes in and says there is a problem on the parking lot.

Now what is the first thing seen by the thug on exiting the store---a white dude arguing with his g/f. The black guy does not ask any questions, does not try to find out what the argument is about as would any reasonable person...he just rushes up and violently assaults the white guy.

And then.....this is critical........and then...he continues to advance towards the white guy he has knocked to the ground. Why did he continue to advance? Obviously he meant to do more harm to his victim i.e. kick him in the head or whatever....we have all seen the videos of scenarios like this...some black thug or a gang of black thugs beating some hapless victim to death...these videos are all over the internet...and it is reasonable to conclude the Drejka had seen such vidieos.

It is highly likely that after getting knocked to the ground that his first thought was that his assailant would do to him like what he had seen happen to other victims in his situation...on the ground and highly vulnurable to further attacks by his assailant.

The video then shows Drejka manage with some difficulty to get his weapon out as his right arm had been injured in the assault. Upon sight of the weapon the black guy stops his advance and in slow motion you can see he takes a couple of halting backward steps whilst still facing his victim and then turning slightly in order to present a smaller target.

Now the question arises was he actually 'retreating' and that is the basis on which the prosecution was able to sway the jury to vote for a conviction....that the perp was retreating from the scene of his crime...but was he?

The defense brought in a expert witness a black guy with much experience and knowledge of what constitutes self defense,body language and retreat.

He made a very good case that the black guy was not retreating and that he remained within striking distance of his victim....which means that if he so wanted he could have easily rushed the defendant and continued his assault.

Now we must not forget he was high on drugs and in such a impaired condition it is difficult to predict with any accuracy what he might have done if he had not got shot.

Meanwhile, of course his victim was dazed, disoriented, injured and undoubtedly in a mild state of shock at least. He did realize that if he wanted to protect his life that he had to make a very fast decision.

He only had a couple of seconds to make this life or death decision and in such a state of disorientation and stress he chose to shoot and anyone who has been in such a similar life threatening scenario knows that one misses a lot of details in such a scenario and that their main objective being-- to get the weapon out and prepare to fire it --which means getting the weapon into a firing mode, clicking the safety off, aligning and sighting the weapon on his assailant and then pulling the trigger.

Whilst being focused on doing all that it is not to be reasonably expected that the victim would note the movement of his assailants feet. He is aiming his weapon at the center mass of his victim...lining up the sights on the gun and then pulling the trigger. All this takes some time and a lot of concentration on his target.

Now most people will run if someone pulls a gun on them, why wait around to get shot? Makes no sense. But as we know the thug with a history of assault was high on a couple of drugs....thus his judgement was impaired.

The very drugs that very likely had put him into such an aggressive mode also prevented him from understanding that he needed to flee in order to avoid getting shot. Like you see his buddy running to hide behind some cars as soon as he sees the weapon pulled out.

Anyhow for whatever reason he does not retreat until he is shot then he takes off running....that is actually retreating but he waited too long to do that. It cost him his life.

You're making up more nonsense to justify your misunderstanding of events.

Ecstacy is what was found McGlockton's system. Ecstacy is not a drug that makes one aggressive.

 

[PredFan]

The point is not how long it took him to shoot, but how quickly he shot!

He never had to pull that trigger. I don't understand why you cannot see that. Perhaps a trip to the optometrist is in order.

If your life is in danger and when you have been subjected to a felonious assault you best believe your life may be in danger and if you are interested in defending your life or limb then you must act as quickly as possible..though you do have two options....hope or pray your attacker does not kill your or maim you or you can choose to fight back.

What would you have done if it had been you?

Minded my own business first and then I would not have pulled that trigger in any case unless he tried again.

Nonsense. He had a disabled family member so he was justifiably irritated by folks parking illegally in handicapped spaces. He had every right to talk to the black woman and point out the fact she was illegally parked...and her reaction was to go off on him.

In hindsight and with the benefit of slow motion video it is easy to say you would not have pulled the trigger. But if it had been you who had been violently and feloniously assaulted you might have a different view.

Drejka did not have the benefit of watching a slow motion video or hindsight to determine whether or not he should shoot. He was in justifiable fear of his life...but due to the political climate today he has been convicted and most likely will spend the rest of his life in prison....he has health issues.

He could be sentenced up to 30 yrs. since mansalughter with the use of a firearm is a first degree felony. I do not think he will get 30 yrs. but it will be a long term he will be sentenced to...at his age and with his state of health it will amount to a death sentence.

His lawyer says there will be an appeal but I see no chance of success there.

Garbage.

As a CCW holder, you don't go looking for a fight like that. It wouldn't have been me but if it had, I would have de-escalated the fight before the guy even came out. Maybe, I would have just stated my peace to her and then walked off.

If you start a fight that you end up drawing your weapon and shooting at the end, you had better be right. The weapon was drawn and the guy backed away. there was NO reason to shoot. 100% his fault and the correct verdict.

Nonsense....first of all drejka did not go looking for a fight. As has been pointed out ...he was never in a fight in his entire life. Also....he has been carrying a concealed weapon for around 25 yrs. and never shot anybody. He has a degree in physics and math.

He was under no obligation to de-escalate anything. He was verbally attacked by the black bitch and physically attacked by her boyfriend without legal justification. The boyfriend had a history of assault and he was high on drugs at the time he assaulted michael drejka. His assault of Michael was a crime. Not even to mention he was driving his kids around whilst under the influence of drugs....is that being responsible...of course not. The thug was not responsbile or reasonable...neither was his g/f.

Again Michael did not start a fight. In fact there was no fight. the black dude just rushed out of the store and assaulted michael..... knoked michael drejka to the ground....blindsided him as in drejka never even saw him coming.

Expert testimony in the trial showed that the black did not retreat. He was still within striking distance.

After violently shoving drejka to the ground he continued to advance on drejka until michael was able to get his weapon out. Then and only then did the black thug take a step or two backwards but still remained within striking range. If he wanted to retreat and thus save his life he should have taken off running like he did when he was shot....now that was actual retreating.

Now of course with the benefit of hindsight I am sure Michael Drejka would have done a lot of things differently as well as the black duo would also have done a lot of things differently such as to begin with not parking in a illegal parking spot.

But unlike you and others michael drejka did not have the benefit of hindsight, he did not have the benefit of a slow motion video to ponder what he should do.

In real life and in real time he only had approx 2 secs. to make a life or death decision....to shoot or not to shoot.

Not to mention that he had been dazed by the attack and no doubt was in shock to some degree plus his right arm had been injured...he was fortunate to have been able to get his weapon out and defend his life...if not he would probably have been kicked to death and the news of that might have made the back pages of the paper like all the other victims of black thugs hyped up on drugs

P.S. I sincerely hope you are never in such a situation where you are being threatened with death or serious bodily harm...i doubt you have the capability of actually using your weapon to defend your life...the thug would probably take your weapon whist you are pondering what to do and then shoot you with your own gun.

A common occurence with pussies who carry a weapon....you would be better of getting some mace...you might actually use that.

More garbage.

He was verbally attacked because he appointed himself the police of handicapped parking spaces. HE instigated the confrontation, not the woman, not her husband. The victim in fact did retreat, but he shot him anyway.

Your bull shit doesn't change facts, and your playground insults don't make you right.

The jury got it exactly right.