Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[Circe]

The defense can however prove that the victims being assaulted,was the first criminal act shown in the video. The self defense claim will begin there. It’s a loser in court for the prosecution.

The whole point of the movie and tourist attraction that is Tombstone, Arizona is that the town was full of Michael Drejkas. Crazies and drunks looking all the time for someone to kill, because they could, freely, and because they were just mean.

That Drejka was one quick-draw expert. I never saw any reaction so fast. See guy, shoot guy. We are already seeing lots and lots of mass killings and shooting sprees that happen simply because someone wants to do that; they want to kill. This guy was going around looking for people to exasperate enough to knock him down so he could shoot them ha-ha "legally," and wow, he didn't hesitate.

I don't think Tombstone is a good direction for what's left of America. Wyatt Earp WAS trying to do something positive there, after all.

 

[jon_berzerk]

wyatt wanted to keep firearms for his cronies

while disarming those he disagreed with

 

[Vastator]

The defense can however prove that the victims being assaulted,was the first criminal act shown in the video. The self defense claim will begin there. It’s a loser in court for the prosecution.

The whole point of the movie and tourist attraction that is Tombstone, Arizona is that the town was full of Michael Drejkas. Crazies and drunks looking all the time for someone to kill, because they could, freely, and because they were just mean.

That Drejka was one quick-draw expert. I never saw any reaction so fast. See guy, shoot guy. We are already seeing lots and lots of mass killings and shooting sprees that happen simply because someone wants to do that; they want to kill. This guy was going around looking for people to exasperate enough to knock him down so he could shoot them ha-ha "legally," and wow, he didn't hesitate.

I don't think Tombstone is a good direction for what's left of America. Wyatt Earp WAS trying to do something positive there, after all.

There is nothing indicated in the video to suggest that the victim was drunk. Furthermore, the assailants, nor the spectators estimation of the victims ability to defend himself is of little consequence. If the assailant thought he could get away with his attack, through his own ignorance... That’s on him, and him alone. It isn’t a victims job to educate an attacker about how able they are to defend themselves. Often times that’s considered nothing more than shit talking. The assailant showed his ass, and got his ticket punched. Too bad for Jonny would-be-badass. He made a fatal miscalculation.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The defense can however prove that the victims being assaulted,was the first criminal act shown in the video. The self defense claim will begin there. It’s a loser in court for the prosecution.

The whole point of the movie and tourist attraction that is Tombstone, Arizona is that the town was full of Michael Drejkas. Crazies and drunks looking all the time for someone to kill, because they could, freely, and because they were just mean.

That Drejka was one quick-draw expert. I never saw any reaction so fast. See guy, shoot guy. We are already seeing lots and lots of mass killings and shooting sprees that happen simply because someone wants to do that; they want to kill. This guy was going around looking for people to exasperate enough to knock him down so he could shoot them ha-ha "legally," and wow, he didn't hesitate.

I don't think Tombstone is a good direction for what's left of America. Wyatt Earp WAS trying to do something positive there, after all.

There is nothing indicated in the video to suggest that the victim was drunk. Furthermore, the assailants, nor the spectators estimation of the victims ability to defend himself is of little consequence. If the assailant thought he could get away with his attack, through his own ignorance... That’s on him, and him alone. It isn’t a victims job to educate an attacker about how able they are to defend themselves. Often times that’s considered nothing more than shit talking. The assailant showed his ass, and got his ticket punched. Too bad for Jonny would-be-badass. He made a fatal miscalculation.

thank God for Concealed Carry Laws

 

[Circe]

Okay, I see this thread just became a "never give them a thin entering wedge to grab guns," so now all the gun supporters have to make this horrible Michael Drejka into a hero. He's no hero; he's like a vampire hunting for blood.

I am a gun supporter myself, but this is an ugly story about a truly ugly guy doing a bad thing -- that's the shooter I'm talking about.

His provocation involved predatory terrorizing of a woman and her small children, and I sure know what I think about that. They always go after the women and children. I think that's pretty rotten.

I think the black father, Markeis McGlockton, had right on his side and that Michael Drejka, the shooter, was a predator out to kill. He'll get off on self-defense, IMO, but lemme tell you, no one is likely to convince me that this worthless no-good terrorizing a mom and her children and then killing the daddy is a GOOD guy or that anything about this situation is right. Gun rights or no gun rights, this is a bad story and I don't like it.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Never a problem or arrest until he was assaulted.

 

[beagle9]

How would you decide if you were on the jury based on the video evidence?

It was verbal, the guy made it physical therefore the guy who got shot was the aggressor. You never go from verbal to physical.

True, but the case is going to be looked at in the narrow time zone where the push was made, the gun was drawn, the reaction of the pusher after the gun was drawn, the shot being taken, and the history of the shooter.

I’m not so sure the history of the shooter is as strong a bit of evidence as some might think. Because he was still demonstrably assaulted, and the victim of a crime. It would be like holding a rape victims past against her, just because she was a prostitute. Even douchebags, and scumbags can be victims of crime.

Yes true, but the details of this case might force the issue of looking at the shooters past just to make sure that he wasn't looking for a fight or stalking this store parking lot for that fight.

It may. But his past isn’t likely to be proven to have triggered his own assault.

No his current actions did a great job enough of that. No past required...

 

[beagle9]

Never a problem or arrest until he was assaulted.

Depends on the witnesses or store owners testimony unless you want to discard such testimony as was the case in Michael Browns case when he robbed the little Indian man in his store, so which is it ??

 

[beagle9]

Yeah, the punishment should fit the crime. You are fucking arguing that the guy deserved the death penalty for pushing the guy down. You fucking believe in the Constitution or not. It's based on the same principle.

Shooting in self defense is not a punishment.

Shooting in self-defense is only justified if it they are in grave imminent danger. This guy wasn't. You're a hack. Cool beans, you've shown your true colors.

In some states, yes – in Florida, not.

Come to Florida for the sun the beaches and if you’re luc

It was verbal, the guy made it physical therefore the guy who got shot was the aggressor. You never go from verbal to physical.

True, but the case is going to be looked at in the narrow time zone where the push was made, the gun was drawn, the reaction of the pusher after the gun was drawn, the shot being taken, and the history of the shooter.

I’m not so sure the history of the shooter is as strong a bit of evidence as some might think. Because he was still demonstrably assaulted, and the victim of a crime. It would be like holding a rape victims past against her, just because she was a prostitute. Even douchebags, and scumbags can be victims of crime.

Yes true, but the details of this case might force the issue of looking at the shooters past just to make sure that he wasn't looking for a fight or stalking this store parking lot for that fight.

Thats already been established. Fucking guy was looking to kill someone. Now it’s time for him to go to prison. May justice prevail

Come to Florida and don’t threaten or attack people and you’ll be fine.

Unless you live in Florida, and then you get away with it ?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Never a problem or arrest until he was assaulted.

Depends on the witnesses or store owners testimony unless you want to discard such testimony as was the case in Michael Browns case when he robbed the little Indian man in his store, so which is it ??

I am sure the detectives spoke to them before deciding not to press charges.

 

[beagle9]

Here is a video that shows more clearly WHEN the shot was fired, and is in real time and so you can clearly determine theres a good 5 or so full seconds of BACKING UP and NO FURTHER CONTACT.

Anyone thinking this shooting is justified does not belong owning a gun, holy shit.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/amp/

Also notice that the guys wife was outside the car and the shooter stepped up into her face before he was pushed to the ground. That is flat out murder.

Pretty gross. The way the murderer just sits there and calculates the shot before pulling the trigger... as the guy is backing away.

Couldn’t agree more. I’ve watched the video half a dozen times and the lasting impression is cold blooded murder. I’m not sure why it i such a stretch for some to see this.

Not a case of cold blooded murder, and how you don't see that is really amazing. Projection much ?

Could be a case of temporary insanity due to emotional fuel based upon the push down, but he shouldn't have started it or he should have had better self control as a CCW holder.

 

[CHAZBUKOWSKI]

Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible. You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting. If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation. I mean duh. How do you not get that?

I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity. Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights. What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?

Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dicking for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assailants location indicated the assault was over... You‘re merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.

Yes, and by repeatedly being aggressive and armed, death was the eventual outcome, which is why it was murder. That isn't how you act when you're armed

Being armed has nothing to do with how you should act.

Sure as shit does. I carry concealed and I definitely am not going to inject myself into confrontations for this very reason

Anyone who would let possession a weapon influence their behavior, or demeanor; shouldn’t be carrying one in my opinion. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. I prefer to conduct myself cordially whether I’m armed, or not. Because you never know if the person you are talking to is armed, or not. But that’s just me...

Well we are equal if opposed in that regards. I don’t think anybody who thinks carrying is not a responsibility with considerations shouldn’t be carrying

 

[beagle9]

Never a problem or arrest until he was assaulted.

Depends on the witnesses or store owners testimony unless you want to discard such testimony as was the case in Michael Browns case when he robbed the little Indian man in his store, so which is it ??

I am sure the detectives spoke to them before deciding not to press charges.

Hopefully.

 

[OODA_Loop]

What you learn in Kindergarten can save your life.

 

[CHAZBUKOWSKI]

Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible. You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting. If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation. I mean duh. How do you not get that?

I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity. Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights. What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?

Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dicking for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assailants location indicated the assault was over... You‘re merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.

Yes, and by repeatedly being aggressive and armed, death was the eventual outcome, which is why it was murder. That isn't how you act when you're armed

Being armed has nothing to do with how you should act.

Sure as shit does. I carry concealed and I definitely am not going to inject myself into confrontations for this very reason

Thank you. I can't believe any second amendment supporter wouldn't feel that way.

And in this case, the shooter did more than interject himself into a confrontation, he started it by yelling at the woman in the parking lot.

I always argue to leftists that they don't have actual standards because they only apply their standards to Republicans, never themselves. A standard is something you apply to yourself first, or it's just an attack, not a standard.

That's why I won't back down from the argument that if you're carrying, you have a responsibility to take all reasonable measures to avoid conflicts and you only produce the gun when you can't. Screaming at another guy's woman in a parking lot because you don't like where she parked isn't it

His actions are so out of line with responsible gun carry I cannot outright dismiss the suggestion that he was itching for something like this. Hope it wasn’t so, but if not, what was he thinking?

 

[beagle9]

Here is a video that shows more clearly WHEN the shot was fired, and is in real time and so you can clearly determine theres a good 5 or so full seconds of BACKING UP and NO FURTHER CONTACT.

Anyone thinking this shooting is justified does not belong owning a gun, holy shit.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/amp/

Also notice that the guys wife was outside the car and the shooter stepped up into her face before he was pushed to the ground. That is flat out murder.

Pretty gross. The way the murderer just sits there and calculates the shot before pulling the trigger... as the guy is backing away.

It’s called aiming. Would you have preferred a blind mag dump?

We have nothing left to talk about. If he can see to aim, he can see a man clearly backing away, as can you.

Till you’re on your back, and possibly concussed, while fearing for your own life; that’s all speculation...

Fell sideways hitting upon his side and shoulder. Head didn't hit which is how he retained his alertness to draw his weapon, but the shot shouldn't have been taken. That's the delema here.

 

[Vastator]

It was verbal, the guy made it physical therefore the guy who got shot was the aggressor. You never go from verbal to physical.

True, but the case is going to be looked at in the narrow time zone where the push was made, the gun was drawn, the reaction of the pusher after the gun was drawn, the shot being taken, and the history of the shooter.

I’m not so sure the history of the shooter is as strong a bit of evidence as some might think. Because he was still demonstrably assaulted, and the victim of a crime. It would be like holding a rape victims past against her, just because she was a prostitute. Even douchebags, and scumbags can be victims of crime.

Yes true, but the details of this case might force the issue of looking at the shooters past just to make sure that he wasn't looking for a fight or stalking this store parking lot for that fight.

It may. But his past isn’t likely to be proven to have triggered his own assault.

No his current actions did a great job enough of that. No past required...

Victim blaming now? Maybe the rape victim should have dressed less provocatively as well, eh?

 

[Vastator]

Also notice that the guys wife was outside the car and the shooter stepped up into her face before he was pushed to the ground. That is flat out murder.

Pretty gross. The way the murderer just sits there and calculates the shot before pulling the trigger... as the guy is backing away.

It’s called aiming. Would you have preferred a blind mag dump?

We have nothing left to talk about. If he can see to aim, he can see a man clearly backing away, as can you.

Till you’re on your back, and possibly concussed, while fearing for your own life; that’s all speculation...

Fell sideways hitting upon his side and shoulder. Head didn't hit which is how he retained his alertness to draw his weapon, but the shot shouldn't have been taken. That's the delema here.

There is no way you can possibly assess the extent of the victims injury, or state of mind from watching the OP video.

 

[beagle9]

Also notice that the guys wife was outside the car and the shooter stepped up into her face before he was pushed to the ground. That is flat out murder.

Pretty gross. The way the murderer just sits there and calculates the shot before pulling the trigger... as the guy is backing away.

It’s called aiming. Would you have preferred a blind mag dump?

We have nothing left to talk about. If he can see to aim, he can see a man clearly backing away, as can you.

Till you’re on your back, and possibly concussed, while fearing for your own life; that’s all speculation...

If Im on my back and clear enough to go down into my waist, unsafety my piece, point and aim at a guy backing away..... and then pulling the trigger, I dont belong on the streets.

If done intentionally. Otherwise his motives were wrong when took the shot.

 

[beagle9]

Pretty gross. The way the murderer just sits there and calculates the shot before pulling the trigger... as the guy is backing away.

It’s called aiming. Would you have preferred a blind mag dump?

We have nothing left to talk about. If he can see to aim, he can see a man clearly backing away, as can you.

Till you’re on your back, and possibly concussed, while fearing for your own life; that’s all speculation...

Fell sideways hitting upon his side and shoulder. Head didn't hit which is how he retained his alertness to draw his weapon, but the shot shouldn't have been taken. That's the delema here.

There is no way you can possibly assess the extent of the victims injury, or state of mind from watching the OP video.

Just like all the other projection here right ?? Good grief.