Would you consider this a "good shoot"?

[GunSmoke]

He's now been charged with manslaughter.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/08/13/us/sta ... cnn.com%2F

[knockonit]

this is media driven and racially driven, has nothing to do with what actually happened.

no one, knows what went on, after the shove and what was said, time to start a defense fund for this guy, hes in the right, no one should have to live the damage and indignity of what the fella did, i for one would have been i fear of additional damage to my self and handled it appropriately, you can bet there was some trash talking going in, its the nature of the beasts.

just saying
rj

[Jack Dupp]

He's now been charged with manslaughter.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/08/13/us/sta ... cnn.com%2F

Good!

[smithers599]

The charges are purely political, just like Zimmerman.
The question for the jury is whether a reasonable person would have thought it was immediately necessary to shoot, that is, whether the attacker was about to walk away, or was about to press the attack.
Some people who watch the video say "Clearly he was about to walk away; bad shoot." Some people who watch the video say "Clearly he was about to resume the attack; good shoot." The standard for criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt" -- no reasonable person could look at that video and say "good shoot." So, because reasonable people can differ, he is unlikely to get convicted, but the state still can screw his life up. When the Not Guilty verdict is announced, there will be riots and vandalism; the shooter will have to move and change his identity, and the thug will become a martyr, with T-shirts and movie rights. "Justice for Thug." Sharpton will rake in another fortune.

[smithers599]

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.

[Crippledtrigger]

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.

[TheAccountant]

They've determined he was using reloads.

[shooter444]

They've determined he was using reloads.

[Steve_In_29]

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.

They are attempting to try him in the court of public opinion and pave the way for the civil suit.

[smithers599]

Yup.

I have been unable to find Little Markeis' criminal record. I found a mugshot, but no info on what crimes he was accused of or whether convicted or acquitted.

[Suck My Glock]

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.

[shooter444]

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***,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.

[Suck My Glock]

Well, 444, we go by the evidence in hand, don't we?

[shooter444]

Well, 444, we go by the evidence in hand, don't we?

I,... try to.

And, when the evidence in hand tells me, more evidence exists, but is not in hand,... then I have a problem with any premature judgement.

[Suck My Glock]

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

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.