Thug gets a slug !

[mansysinatra]

Trash raise trash...his definition of being a role model is hitting random strangers in front of his family...great lesson for his kids

Well they sure learned a lesson that day

So the core of your argument seems supportive of hard determinism (humans don't have free will; behavior is determined by external factors)...interesting.

How do you explain family members of the Westboro Baptist Church that have left and denounced it, and work to reconcile their actions?

That seems to nullify your argument/philosophy.

[God Bless America]

After reading this entire thread, I had to double check that I hadn't accidentally entered the Off-topic forum.

The thread title alone should have required removal to OT.

[ja308]

The thread title alone should have required removal to OT.

[BTFlyer]

So the core of your argument seems supportive of hard determinism (humans don't have free will; behavior is determined by external factors)...interesting.

How do you explain family members of the Westboro Baptist Church that have left and denounced it, and work to reconcile their actions?

That seems to nullify your argument/philosophy.

Work LE for any time and you will deal with generations of scumbag families that should be sterilized for the good of society...I can guarantee you that

Still no charges.....I think the law agrees with me not you

I wonder if scumbag girlfriend will park differently at the store from now on or always look to claim those 'Rock Star' spots which are reserved for disabled people but she states she can "park where she wants"?

[mansysinatra]

Work LE for any time and you will deal with generations of scumbag families that should be sterilized for the good of society...I can guarantee you that

Still no charges.....I think the law agrees with me not you

I wonder if scumbag girlfriend will park differently at the store from now on or always look to claim those 'Rock Star' spots which are reserved for disabled people but she states she can "park where she wants"?

Did we disagree about the law?

My first position (which I've reiterated) was that the shooting was legal. Where do you disagree with the legality?

I am strongly against forced sterilization. Sounds like you might be into fascism, but this country was founded with a focus on individual liberty...some well known saying by some old chump about those willing to sacrifice freedom for safety.

Since you didn't address my inquiry about your philosophy of hard determinism, I'll guess you support it.

In that case, if a person has no say/choice in their actions (being predetermined), the deceased had no choice but to shove the shooter. The woman had no choice but to park illegally, and the shooter had no choice but to have a confrontation and kill.

If the premise of no free will is correct, then it is irrational to assign any negative description/immoral categorization, because it's no different than a look hunting a gazelle, or a cat hunting a mouse.

[ja308]

We're on a public internet site for California gun owners and anyone interested.

My first post was saying the shot was legal per their laws, but I don't think it was a good call, and I think he shouldn't have been confrontational.

My post was replying to the poster who called the legal killing a "favor", then called not only the deceased a scumbag, but went on to call his widow a scumbag, and finally said the kids were probably scumbags too.

That person is a terrible representative of 2A people.

For the record Mr Mcglocton did not leave a widow as no where in any story does it state this pair with 3 children were married. In fact the word used was girlfriend.

While we can speculate why Mr McGlocton chose not to marry the mother of his 3 children. It's a safe bet it was not because she was a poor driver !

[mansysinatra]

For the record Mr Mcglocton did not leave a widow as no where in any story does it state this pair with 3 children were married. In fact the word used was girlfriend.

While we can speculate why Mr McGlocton chose not to marry the mother of his 3 children. It's a safe bet it was not because she was a poor driver !

I made a mistake. Let me correct that to "surviving girlfriend".

I don't think marital and child status is a good marker for character judgement. I've known people that are unwed with kids, and there have been good and bad couples. This applies to married and divorced couples with kids that I've known.

If it is, I wonder what type of people are worse: unwed romantic partners with kids, or divorced couples with kids.

Hell, given all these demarcations of what makes a scumbag/bad person, I never figured that a gun website would probably have such a negative view of Johnny Cash.

I mean, Hillary Clinton has a long-standing marriage with a child, so that must mean she's not too bad, per some of y'all's philopsophical framework.

[ja308]

I made a mistake. Let me correct that to "surviving girlfriend".

I don't think marital and child status is a good marker for character judgement. I've known people that are unwed with kids, and there have been good and bad couples. This applies to married and divorced couples with kids that I've known.

If it is, I wonder what type of people are worse: unwed romantic partners with kids, or divorced couples with kids.

Hell, given all these demarcations of what makes a scumbag/bad person, I never figured that a gun website would probably have such a negative view of Johnny Cash.

I mean, Hillary Clinton has a long-standing marriage with a child, so that must mean she's not too bad, per some of y'all's philopsophical framework.

Words have exact precise meanings and in this case Mcglocton with 3 kids and being unmarried just shows another facet of his life. As does the fact no boss or co-worker has chimed in with how he will be missed or how he was always prompt,etc.

That being the case we can assume this 28 year old healthy male was not working and probably never did have a real job which again shows another facet of his life.

Speaking statically married people do have a better record of successfully raising children. That's why many in the black community blame fatherless family's as the root of many problems.

[God Bless America]

You seem to have an odd affinity to the deceased drug dealer,convicted career criminal,anti social violent thug!

Who are you talking about? Not McGlockton.

It’s fortunate that you do not represent the USA gun culture where we abhor violent predators!

A violent predator? Pushing somebody down on their butt for harassing a loved one is not "violent predation." Unless you are truly a fragile snowflake. And it is not a shooting offense, sorry to inform you those cowboy movies were fictional.

I cannot help but to conclude that you believe Drejka did the world a favor by shooting somebody with a record,
because a woman parked in a handicapped spot and her boyfriend pushed Drejka down "violently."

So tell us why you feel it’s OK to violently assault an unsuspecting citizen.

I didn't, and he wasn't or should not have been "unsuspecting."

The dead criminal had a very bad record of assault and battery.

What criminal? His most recent trouble was 7 years ago. What "very bad record"?

[heidad01]

For the record Mr Mcglocton did not leave a widow as no where in any story does it state this pair with 3 children were married. In fact the word used was girlfriend.

While we can speculate why Mr McGlocton chose not to marry the mother of his 3 children. It's a safe bet it was not because she was a poor driver !

Usually, and after every such shootings, a dozen or two of the relatives, pastor, coworkers and friends will show up to attest to the dead man's good character and moral values and how he was providing for his wife and kids. Not to mention that the decreased criminal had changed his ways, has a job, and was going to go to college too.

Speculation is that he had not worked a meaningful job ever and did not marry the mother of his three children because of the benefits.
A single mother of three kids collects more than enough in social assistance to support the baby daddy as well. So, he was just going low key or lucky to not get arrested recently for other stuff.

So, please do not make a saint or saviour out of the deceased. He certainly was not. And, had he changed his ways, he would have come out of the store and simply asked the old guy about what the problem was.

Walking over and violently pushing an old guy to the ground does not usually end up well. In this case, Glockton attacked some one who could defend himself and got what he deserved.

A person under attack can not be expected to wait and see what happens next, do a quick review of the legal stuff in his mind, and then decide to protect his life in a way that would suit the DA and the attacker's family and friends.

Hence, do not complain or get all upset if you attack some one and the victim shoots you. He is just saving his own life.

[IVC]

A violent predator? Pushing somebody down on their butt for harassing a loved one is not "violent predation."

The law disagrees. If you don't believe me, try that trick on a cop. Or, try it on your significant other.

Just because there is a subculture that considers it acceptable doesn't mean it is. Worse, perpetuating that subculture is what is getting people killed daily.

[God Bless America]

The law disagrees. If you don't believe me, try that trick on a cop. Or, try it on your significant other.

Just because there is a subculture that considers it acceptable doesn't mean it is. Worse, perpetuating that subculture is what is getting people killed daily.

Djerka is not the law and it is not his job.

Furthermore, once we have done our time, our debt to society is considered paid. That's not a "subculture," that's American society. And it's the law.

Furthermore, McGlockton's past had nothing to do with the fact that an angry, uninvited, violent busybody shot somebody because he was embarassed.

His life was in no danger and there is no evidence that it was. McGlockton never killed anybody.

[BTFlyer]

McGlockton never killed anybody.

Not yet....and now he will never attack or hurt anybody again

[IVC]

Djerka is not the law and it is not his job.

Agree on both counts.

That wasn't the point, though. The point was that what we saw in the video was an assault. I am talking about legal definition of the word.

Furthermore, once we have done our time, our debt to society is considered paid.

Not true at all. There are many consequences that happen *after* one "has done the time." Probation happens *after* one is released. Sex offenders have to register *after* they are released. Criminal record remains *after* one is released.

Right or wrong, that's how it works...

That's not a "subculture," that's American society. And it's the law.

No, it's not "American society" and it's certainly not "the law" to assault people during communication.

Furthermore, McGlockton's past had nothing to do with the fact that an angry, uninvited, violent busybody shot somebody because he was embarassed.

Well, his past has nothing to with the incident as far as legal issues are concerned. It does explain his idea of handling the situation by assaulting a person, though.

As for "shot somebody because he was embarrassed," that's factually incorrect. He shot someone because he was assaulted and in fear for his life. We know this because he said so.

His life was in no danger and there is no evidence that it was.

Except for that video that says otherwise.

McGlockton never killed anybody.

Didn't you just say that his past didn't matter?

[Doheny]

Thug gets a slug !

........