Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[CrusaderFrank]

The wife probably still fears for her safety

 

[beagle9]

1) We want to avoid shootings, you just want to have a clear justification. Being hunters and being around endless veterans, we take killing seriously. No one who went around armed screaming at people in parking lots would be supported, not at all. That's begging for a shooting

The investigation revealed he looked at her car for tags or placard and she got indignant. Eyewitness say there was no threat.
He was well away from car.

He's not a cop, and he shouldn't have been looking at anything unless he had no where else to park, and he was actually handicapped himself. This bullcrap of playing cop with a gun by super nerd heroes needs to end. The guy should be investigated, and then charged if found responsible for the situation. That's what appeals are for, and the family should appeal until further review of the case is made.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The shooter can go fuck himself. Completely and totally unjustified, in fact he provoked the attack.

Evidence does not support this.

Drejka should be charged with premeditated murder.

 

[beagle9]

I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...

... but ...

... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.

Here's a dollar, buy some perspective

Oversimplification

If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?

Would depend on what he did it for.. If I felt I deserved it, then I could take the hit no problem.. Of course I'm a former boxer in my youth, so taking hits would be no problem really. If I was in the right then I still wouldn't have shot him under the circumstances that transpired next.

Boxer or no if a much larger guy blindsided you you would not feel your life danger?

And it's easy to say what you would or wouldn't have done while sitting at a computer.

The fact is you have no idea what you would have done if it was you who was blindsided and knocked on your ass

Off work now, and no I wasn't sitting at a computer all day either.. To answer you in your post, all I will say is that "I got eyes don't I" ?????

Sometimes it don't take experiencing something to understand it, and seeing a video opens up many people's eyes in these cases. Same with the cops abusing their authority. The new age of compact video devices has changed the situation big time these days. Of course it matters upon who is interpreting the content of the video, but for the most part consensus is always met.

Who do you believe. Me, or your lyin eyes?

Yes, it's obvious in the video the victim was far enough away from the shooter, moving backwards and since he was unarmed he wasn't a threat. He just wanted the psycho away from his family. If the murderer hadn't been armed and screaming at people who park where it's none of his business anyway, this never would have happened.

The guy's woman and two kids were in the car and he had another son with him. Yet those princes of virtue say things like for him to get involved made him a "white knight" meaning he had no business interfering in a guy threatening his wife and two kids and he was "blindsided," again clearly presenting it as the guy accosting his family was none of his business.

The shooter set it up, initiated the aggression and executed him. It's murder one

Who are you asking your question too ??

Best go back and read my post, and then check the name I directed it too.

 

[kaz]

Oversimplification

If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?

Would depend on what he did it for.. If I felt I deserved it, then I could take the hit no problem.. Of course I'm a former boxer in my youth, so taking hits would be no problem really. If I was in the right then I still wouldn't have shot him under the circumstances that transpired next.

Boxer or no if a much larger guy blindsided you you would not feel your life danger?

And it's easy to say what you would or wouldn't have done while sitting at a computer.

The fact is you have no idea what you would have done if it was you who was blindsided and knocked on your ass

Off work now, and no I wasn't sitting at a computer all day either.. To answer you in your post, all I will say is that "I got eyes don't I" ?????

Sometimes it don't take experiencing something to understand it, and seeing a video opens up many people's eyes in these cases. Same with the cops abusing their authority. The new age of compact video devices has changed the situation big time these days. Of course it matters upon who is interpreting the content of the video, but for the most part consensus is always met.

Who do you believe. Me, or your lyin eyes?

Yes, it's obvious in the video the victim was far enough away from the shooter, moving backwards and since he was unarmed he wasn't a threat. He just wanted the psycho away from his family. If the murderer hadn't been armed and screaming at people who park where it's none of his business anyway, this never would have happened.

The guy's woman and two kids were in the car and he had another son with him. Yet those princes of virtue say things like for him to get involved made him a "white knight" meaning he had no business interfering in a guy threatening his wife and two kids and he was "blindsided," again clearly presenting it as the guy accosting his family was none of his business.

The shooter set it up, initiated the aggression and executed him. It's murder one

Who are you asking your question too ??

Best go back and read my post, and then check the name I directed it too.

The first line? I was making fun of him. That was unclear other than the rest of the post agreed with you

 

[Vastator]

I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...

... but ...

... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.

Here's a dollar, buy some perspective

Oversimplification

If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?

Would depend on what he did it for.. If I felt I deserved it, then I could take the hit no problem.. Of course I'm a former boxer in my youth, so taking hits would be no problem really. If I was in the right then I still wouldn't have shot him under the circumstances that transpired next.

Boxer or no if a much larger guy blindsided you you would not feel your life danger?

And it's easy to say what you would or wouldn't have done while sitting at a computer.

The fact is you have no idea what you would have done if it was you who was blindsided and knocked on your ass

Off work now, and no I wasn't sitting at a computer all day either.. To answer you in your post, all I will say is that "I got eyes don't I" ?????

Sometimes it don't take experiencing something to understand it, and seeing a video opens up many people's eyes in these cases. Same with the cops abusing their authority. The new age of compact video devices has changed the situation big time these days. Of course it matters upon who is interpreting the content of the video, but for the most part consensus is always met.

Who do you believe. Me, or your lyin eyes?

Yes, it's obvious in the video the victim was far enough away from the shooter, moving backwards and since he was unarmed he wasn't a threat. He just wanted the psycho away from his family. If the murderer hadn't been armed and screaming at people who park where it's none of his business anyway, this never would have happened.

The guy's woman and two kids were in the car and he had another son with him. Yet those princes of virtue say things like for him to get involved made him a "white knight" meaning he had no business interfering in a guy threatening his wife and two kids and he was "blindsided," again clearly presenting it as the guy accosting his family was none of his business.

The shooter set it up, initiated the aggression and executed him. It's murder one

There is so much “wrong” with this post, it’s hard to know where to begin. So I guess the beginning will have to do.
.
You say...
“Yes, it's obvious in the video the victim was far enough away from the shooter, moving backwards and since he was unarmed he wasn't a threat.”
.
Okay; his distance at the time of the shooting is no surety of the victims safety, nor the intent of the aggressor. Further more the victim has no way of knowing if the assailant has finished his assault, or whether he is armed. And nether does anyone else until the dust settles. As for continuing to refer to the aggressor as the victim, is flagrantly dishonest. Simply watching the video, and pressing pause at the moment the first crime is committed is enough to dispense with this fallacy.
.
Then you say...
“He just wanted the psycho away from his family.”
Firstly there is nothing to suggest the victim is “psycho”. This is mere hyperbole. The hyperbole is necessary to justify, and to continue the false narrative. Furthermore if all he wanted was to get him away from his family (even though they are in public, and she felt plenty safe enough to leave her secured vehicle), he had countless other options besides committing a blind sided assault on a man speaking in a manner he didn’t like. Heretofore, even now no claim is made, even by the woman, that the victim threatened her.
.
Then you said...
“If the murderer hadn't been armed and screaming at people who park where it's none of his business anyway, this never would have happened”
Firstly he isn’t a murderer by all objective evidence, nor has he even been charged as such, less still convicted. This is more of that hyperbole your narrative requires to keep the story focused on the audiences feelings, and to distract from the facts. It’s rather unbecoming as well given the serious nature of the subject matter.
As for him approaching the vehicle to get a tag number when he saw the parking violation... He was perfectly within his rights to do so, and didn’t require anyone’s consent, or blessing. Even if the woman, assailant, or the readers of this thread don’t like it. One could just as easily see how this would never have happened if she had parked in the correct spot. Yet your rather silent on that aspect. I get it. It’s not conducive to the narrative.
.
Then you go on to say...

“The guy's woman and two kids were in the car and he had another son with him. Yet those princes of virtue say things like for him to get involved made him a "white knight" meaning he had no business interfering in a guy threatening his wife and two kids and he was "blindsided," again clearly presenting it as the guy accosting his family was none of his business”.
.
Lots going wrong here... First of all it’s improbable that the victim knew the relationships of each person to the other, nor was it even relevant to what he was doing by observing with the intent to report the parking violation. But worse yet is the acceptance of the assailants violent act, under the guise of “protecting”... well... anyone. To date no threat to any of the individuals in this story has been documented. And no matter how badly this twisted narrative requires “language one doesn’t approve of, in a tone they don’t like” to be tantamount to an eminent threat. It simply isn’t the case. And the police have recognized such.
.
But the most grievous, and irresponsible of all; is this one...
.
“The shooter set it up, initiated the aggression and executed him. It's murder one”
.
This last statement is pure fabrication supported by no facts whatsoever, and is absurd at face value alone. If you have evidence that the victim actively altered the environment, in order to deceive someone, and therefore “tricking” them into violating the law, in order to carry out some heinous act. You need to bring this evidence to the proper authorities. Because that’s a game changer. But hard to do when the woman admits she parks in spaces in this manner frequently. And how he manipulated the assailant into blindsiding him, is a feat of calculated psychological manipulation never before seen. This set-up, would be more complex than any Hollywood thriller. As for it being murder one? It’s not even close. Hell... The police and DA haven’t even seen enough misconduct on the victims part to bring even a single charge. Much less “Murder one”.
.
This incident should serve as a sobering and memorable object lesson for all the boards would be street lawyers, and white knights. Just because you think you know the law doesn’t mean you do. Even if you repeatedly misuse legal terminology. And just because you feel you’re in the right; doesn’t mean you are legally speaking.
Ohh and one more thing. Just because you think you got the drop on someone, and believe you will get away with assaulting them, or even come out on top... Doesn’t mean that is what’s really going to happen.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.

The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.

It's murder.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.

The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.

It's murder.

Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.

Said it was self-defense. No charges.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.

The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.

It's murder.

Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.

Said is it was self-defense. No charges.

So far.

 

[OODA_Loop]

So far.

Did you watch the press conference and the Sheriff categorically lay out the lawful action and the defense ?

No way a Sheriff makes those statements without prior consult of the State Attorney.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Sheriff may well have made those statements without consulting the DA.

We will see.

 

[Vastator]

The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.

The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.

It's murder.

Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.

Said it was self-defense. No charges.

If the battle of facts versus feelings, taking place on this board are any indicator of what a jury pool would look like... The case is a loser and no sane DA would bring it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The feelz, Vastator, are for the shooter. The facts are that the shooter verbally assaulted the woman, was properly pushed away, the pusher was backing away and no threat to the shooter, and the shooter shoot the woman's husband.

Get it to a jury, and the facts will convict.

 

[OODA_Loop]

If the battle of facts versus feelings, taking place on this board are any indicator of what a jury pool would look like... The case is a loser and no sane DA would bring it.

Thus the reason for SYG laws.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The feelz, Vastator, are for the shooter. The facts are that the shooter verbally assaulted the woman, was properly pushed away, the pusher was backing away and no threat to the shooter, and the shooter shoot the woman's husband.

Get it to a jury, and the facts will convict.

Except the investigation and evidence doesnt show that and the investigators are saying it was lawful self-defense

 

[JakeStarkey]

The feelz, Vastator, are for the shooter. The facts are that the shooter verbally assaulted the woman, was properly pushed away, the pusher was backing away and no threat to the shooter, and the shooter shoot the woman's husband.

Get it to a jury, and the facts will convict.

Except the investigation and evidence doesnt show that and the investigators are saying it was lawful self-defense

The evidence does show it, and the investigators (how many) are not the ones who have the final say.

The family can go to the feds for charges if necessary.

 

[Vastator]

The feelz, Vastator, are for the shooter. The facts are that the shooter verbally assaulted the woman, was properly pushed away, the pusher was backing away and no threat to the shooter, and the shooter shoot the woman's husband.

Get it to a jury, and the facts will convict.

Except the investigation and evidence doesnt show that and the investigators are saying it was lawful self-defense

The fact that “verbally assaulted” is a hyperbolic term, that has no legal value, which means it can’t be used as a defense for physically assaulting someone doesn’t help either...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The feelz, Vastator, are for the shooter. The facts are that the shooter verbally assaulted the woman, was properly pushed away, the pusher was backing away and no threat to the shooter, and the shooter shoot the woman's husband.

Get it to a jury, and the facts will convict.

Except the investigation and evidence doesnt show that and the investigators are saying it was lawful self-defense

The fact that “verbally assaulted” is a hyperbolic term, that has no legal value, which means it can’t be used as a defense for physically assaulting someone doesn’t help either...

Is that opinion or the law in that state. The counter argument can be made that the murdered was in fear that his was about to be physically assaulted.

 

[Lewdog]

The feelz, Vastator, are for the shooter. The facts are that the shooter verbally assaulted the woman, was properly pushed away, the pusher was backing away and no threat to the shooter, and the shooter shoot the woman's husband.

Get it to a jury, and the facts will convict.

Except the investigation and evidence doesnt show that and the investigators are saying it was lawful self-defense

The fact that “verbally assaulted” is a hyperbolic term, that has no legal value, which means it can’t be used as a defense for physically assaulting someone doesn’t help either...

Actually there is a crime you can make from yelling at someone.

Terroristic Threat Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Is that opinion or the law in that state. The counter argument can be made that the murdered was in fear that his was about to be physically assaulted.

Evidence doesn't support that. If it did different story.