Would you consider this a "good shoot"?

[harleypower69]

Uh-oh. This is not looking good:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In court documents, McCabe and Pinellas sheriff's Detective George Moffett cited three other drivers who said Drejka threatened them during confrontations that preceded his run-in with McGlockton. Two of them said he displayed a gun.

A black man who drives a septic truck told Moffett he parked in the same handicapped-accessible spot three months before the shooting, the documents show. The man said Drejka began yelling at him and said he would shoot him. The driver said he left, but as he pulled away Drejka shouted racial slurs. The man's boss told Moffett that Drejka later called, telling him "that he was lucky he didn't blow his employee's head off."

In separate 2012 cases, drivers reported that Drejka waved a gun at them during road rage confrontations. In both cases, officers stopped Drejka and found a gun in his car, but he denied showing it to the other drivers. In one case, the teenage driver didn't want to press charges. In the other, the driver left before the officer could get her information.

And none if it means s*** or matters in this case. Unless he threatened the lady with the gun none of that other stuff will be allowed. If it is I'll bet the attackers long violent criminal history will drowned it out. It will place doubt into the jury's mind that the attacker was really just walking away. After all the deadly force justification is in that second.



That said we all knew he was an arshole to begin with but that isnt justification for use of force by the dead guy. What his history will do is limit the experts who may be willing to testify on the use of deadly force as they went want to be connected with him. Thats important because in addition to weather the guy is walking back is the disparity issues and experts do very well with jury's when they explain this concept. If he doesn't have those experts and a good lawyer he may be f***.

Still think it was justified. I might have gone a different way then again I wouldn't put myself in that situation To begin with. This is a kick the protest and riots down the road indictment.

I agree 100 percent the others claiming trash talk will be irrelevant to this case. I am also going to say....I wonder if the other incidents were with "people of color". He may be a racist, that is not against the law. He defended himself as he saw necessary and I support that. Trial in courts not in media.

[Jack Dupp]

Well said, Suck my Glock. Agree 100%

[shooter444]

I have only judged that the video appears to show the shooter operated outside the law.

REALLY!!! Your post ,..."He would have been charged under Az law in the blink of an eye, and appropriately so.",... sure sounds a little more judgemental than you state now!

_________________________________________________________

"Re: Would you consider this a "good shoot"?
#71 Post by Suck My Glock » Yesterday, 12:25 am
As I said before, the video plainly shows that the altercation was over and the dead man was moving away from the shooter when he decided to fire. He would have been charged under Az law in the blink of an eye, and appropriately so."

____________________________________________________________

A jury has the ultimate reaponsibility to determine whether true or not. But while it is understandable as a gun person to feel the need to defend the right to defend,...I am also an advocate against mere passion of the moment rage vengence,...which is what I believe I see occuring in the video. Because that is what I believe I see, I cannot in decent moral conscience ignore it and the implications of ignoring it.

Isn't it interesting how two people can view the same event, yet,
have opinion of the event from extreme opposite ends of the spectrum!

The only,..."passion of the moment rage vengence,"... I viewed, in that video, was the younger dude body slamming the old guy for talking to his wife!

But thankfully, our trial system is supposed to allow for this man to make his argument as to why he believed he was justified. And I do indeed want to know more and would love to get more perspective of the event than just this video.

But going only from the video,...unless there is something else that can explain what is observed,...I have to truthfully state what it looks like. I wish it did not look like what it looks like,...but it does seem very plain.

Well said,much less judgemental than previous, imo,.... but, I would still, strongly advise postponing judgement based on a snippet of what something looks like, with preference for the WHOLE BODY OF EVIDENCE.

[Jack Dupp]

That's IT!

The attacker was moving in a direction you feel wasn't a threat anymore? So, that makes the victim of the physical attack a murderer because he didn't see it the way you Monday morning quarterbacked it?

REALLY?

And, what if,... the attacker was muttering, while turning to see how his wife was, saying, I'M GONNA KICK YOUR f***'N HEAD IN MOFO!!

OR, what if,... as the attacker turned from the victim on the ground, towards his wife, and she says, WHAT THE f*** ARE YOU DO'IN, BUST THAT f***'N CRACKERS ASS FOR DIS'N YOUR WOMAN!

Hmmm, what would your unqualified, guilty before innocent, JUDGEMENT be them?

Yes, we don't know if, those words, any words,or, no words, were said before the shooting,... which is exactly THE POINT!!!

Many states have ASSAULT & BATTERY LAWS on their books.

While many believe ASSAULT is just a legal violation of physicality,... not so,... the law specifies VERBAL ASSAULT type of attack, is a LAWFUL VIOLATION as well!

"In such jurisdictions, assault (also called attempted battery) is a threat or physical act that creates a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact, whereas battery is a physical act that results in that harmful or offensive contact."

Does,... JUST,... a VERBAL ASSAULT,... warrant a deadly defense?

Most would say absolutely not!

But, then there are incidents where there is A HISTORY of violence. Such as an abused woman, of many years, who finally mortally defends herself after just a VERBAL ASSAULT by her long time PHYSICAL BATTERY ABUSER.

Would you judge her guilty of murder?

How about a guy knocked on his ass, listening to his assailant say,...I just started mother f***er,the worst day of your f*** life is yet to come, you son of a b****!!!

Would you judge a deadly defensive reaction to that,... as murder?

My point,... a verbal assault, after a physical assault, can introduce mitigating circumstances in some violent confrontations, and, until ALL THE FACTS are revealed, judgement should be withheld while occurring within the jurisdiction and under the protection of the United States Constitution, imo.

"mitigating circumstances. n. in criminal law, conditions or happenings which do not excuse or justify criminal conduct, but are considered out of mercy or fairness in deciding the degree of the offense the prosecutor charges or influencing reduction of the penalty upon conviction."

Lastly, as I have stated over and over again, I don't know if he is guilty, but, I do know,... he is INNOCENT until a jury of his peers say otherwise!

I'm done.

I thought you were done on page 5?

[shooter444]

Re: Would you consider this a "good shoot"?
#79 Post by Jack Dupp » Yesterday, 5:35 pm

"I thought you were done on page 5?"
___________________________________________________

Did you???

What I meant was,... I'm done,... with that POST!

You see,... this is a good example of judgement based on a snippet of evidence.

Interesting,... ?NO?,... how the truth of a situation can be interpreted to be the exact opposite, of what it actually is?

[shooter444]

Re: Would you consider this a "good shoot"?
#75 Post by Suck My Glock » August 15th, 2018, 9:27 am
WROTE:...
"I am also an advocate against mere passion of the moment rage vengence [sic],...which is what I believe I see occuring [sic] in the video."


May I STRONGLY advise you to SEE what is OCCURRING,... a little more CLOSELY!

I SEE absolutely NO PASSION or MOMENT of RAGE VENGEANCE occurring by the shooter,...NO facial expression and NO physical / body language from the body slammed defendant, indicating any of your listed reasons for prejudgment,... he merely sits up, pulls his defense weapon and shoots his attacker.

WITH,... TOTAL,...EMOTIONLESS,... DEMEANOR!!!

You say you are only going by what you see in the video,...then go by what is in the video!

As I stated before,... the only body language expressing PASSION, a MOMENT of RAGE, or VENGEANCE,... (since there is no audio),... is expressed by the attacker, imo.

_____________________________________________________

Re: Would you consider this a "good shoot"?
#75 Post by Suck My Glock » August 15th, 2018, 9:27 am
WROTE:...
"But thankfully, our trial system is supposed to allow for this man to make his argument as to why he believed he was justified."

Hmmm, well, not quite, but very close!

THANKFULLY, our trial system is supposed to treat every defendant, as innocent, until proven guilty.

Which puts the burden of proving the defendants GUILT,... on the prosecutor/state/federal gov.!

Not the other way around!

No defendant is required to present any defense as to their innocence,... NONE!

At least,... that is what I have been taught! Please, correct me, if wrong!

[Jack Dupp]

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/ask-an ... -shooting/

[knockonit]

lol, funny shiat, gunsamerica yeah, not really, the courts will decide what was real and not,at this point its moot to discuss, not all the facts are available, and for an article such as this to post legality issues, pretty stupid

jmo
happy sunday
Rj

[shooter444]

Knockonit, you got that right!

There are so many holes in that article,...or whatever it is,... it would take me a half hour just to type it all out. I'm too busy trying to figure out how to shrink some pistol ad pics, again!

Maybe later!

Suffice it to say, this falls under the proverbial saying,... assholes and opinions, everybody has one,... but, sometimes it's to hard to decipher which end the noises are emitting from!

[Miker12]

UPDATE: Michael Drejka, who invoked 'stand your ground' defense in shooting of unarmed man, guilty of manslaughter

https://abcnews.go.com/US/michael-drejk ... d=65121107

I attached this update to the original conversation we all had last year. Enjoy

[Crippledtrigger]

An interesting point or two from the trial.

The defense got every eye witness to change their story about threats. They were all forced to admit on the stand the old guy made no threats to the lady. Even the lady herself said he didnt threaten her. All witnesses said that they feel someone yelling at them is a threat. Neither the defense or judge addressed this.

The lady admitted the she was the only one to make anything like a threatening statement when she said "do I need to get my man out here to handle this."
This was also under cross by the defense. Their whole defense was apparently to show the guy made no threats, the woman did and then the boyfriend attacked.

The judge allowed the 5 year old complaint about a truck driver parking in the spot and the old guy calling his boss. He said people get shot over stuff like that. Sounds bad as the prosecutor clearly wanted to show he was on the prowl to kill parking violators. The defense did not address it, why? It could also easily show that one arguement 5 years ago doesn't a vigilante make.

The guys arrogant attitude and mouth hurt him.

Anyways just some thoughts. I dont think he got a good defense.

Oh, almost forgot. There was also testimony that the sign and parking space itself WAS NOT LEGALLY MARKED SIGNED OR WORDED TO BE A LEGAL DISABLED PARKING SPOT. Neither part knew this at the time but who ever wanted to could park there with no violation or ticketable issue.

Sue the store owner? Any ambo chaser worth his Kmart blue light special sport coat will file on that one.

[Suck My Glock]

None of that mattered. When he drew, the assault was over and attacker was staying put because of the gun. He then CHOSE to shoot him anyway.

That would have gone down here the same way. And if I were on that jury, I would have convicted him too. It was an unnecessary shooting after the assailant retreated from the weapon being pointed at him.

[Crippledtrigger]

A proper expert would have challenged that assertion. The victim gets a beat or two to realize the threat is over. Mas Ayoob has testified several times where the victim is charged with murder cause the attacker was shot in the back or side as he turned away. Just because you realize your willing easy victim was not so much doesnt mean the guy defending his self has to realise it at the same instant. There is alot going on.

Oh, those guys were all acquitted.

I'm just saying there could have been a better defense here.

[Suck My Glock]

If there was no video,...yes, there could have been a better defense. But the video trumps all. You see it like you were there. I see the guy pause after drawing,...I see him taking time to think through what he is doing,...I see him shoot AFTER the assault was over.

Case closed.

[Ballistic Therapy]

The guy that did the shooting also started the whole thing.
When you carry a gun starting arguments will not look good in court.