Thug gets a slug !

[theLBC]

I think Sheriff read the law correctly and accurately

obviously the sheriff cannot say what was in the shooters head....

but the law states:
(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

if you believe it was reasonable...we will have to agree to disagree.

personally, i am not going to kill anyone for pushing me down.

[riderr]

Where does that come from?

I have seen the opposite: "The store owner tells ABC Action News that Drejka has a history of assaulting people in the very parking lot the shooting took place."

As to the rest of your overheated diatribe - settle down, Francis.

Probably, it would be more accurate to say that Drejka spent his time educating law violators. I don't recall any claim he ever approached a law-abiding driver.

[riderr]

obviously the sheriff cannot say what was in the shooters head....

but the law states:
(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

if you believe it was reasonable...we will have to agree to disagree.

personally, i am not going to kill anyone for pushing me down.

It is your personal decision to turn the other cheek. It is clear to me, Drejka was violently attacked and pushed to the ground. Such an attack could cause the great bodily harm or even death. McGlockton didn't stop the attack and kept approaching Drejka up to the moment the gun was withdrawn and pointed at the attacker.

Do you still find the shooting unreasonable?

[Steve1968LS2]

If you still think the thug was shot because he "embarrassed a parking Nazi who yelled at a woman," please make an immediate appointment with an optometrist.

People see what they want to see and I've found that those the scream RACISM the loudest are the most likely to be racist

The guy attacked the shooter violently..

The shooter was an *** that was looking for confrontation (IMO).. but doesn't give the other guy the right to attack him.

Two idiots meet.. one idiot is now dead.. and the other one is going to be financially raped in civil court (even if he wins).. there's a moral to this story that many are too stupid to get.

[theLBC]

It is your personal decision to turn the other cheek. It is clear to me, Drejka was violently attacked and pushed to the ground. Such an attack could cause the great bodily harm or even death. McGlockton didn't stop the attack and kept approaching Drejka up to the moment the gun was withdrawn and pointed at the attacker.

Do you still find the shooting unreasonable?

i didn't say i would turn the other cheek, only that i would not have killed him.

such an attack did NOT cause great bodily harm or death, as we all know (although it could have, in which case the point is moot, because the shooter would not have killed the man in that case).

[HK9]

Should be second-degree murder.

You won't even get Man II out of this because there is no legal foundation for it. The only way you get a lesser charge under Murder I, is with an incompetent judge, jury and defense attorney. Essentially, the system would have to completely fail, to hit this man with a criminal code and then actually prosecute it to a successful verdict.

His back was to the ground. His assailant was standing up and in a position to strike again. He was taken to the ground with malicious intent and the 'equivalent' of a sucker punch. He was completely defensive on the ground. He had no potential for egress and no path to take to secure his safety. Unless there was a mobile version of the Life Alert service on his person, he had no way to alert the police.

I look at it this way. The older man could have been my Mother or my Father. Would I want either of them to wait until their assailant strikes them again while on the ground? I would not want my Mother or Father to sit around and wait to be ruined in the ground. For that reason, I can't see prosecuting this man for defending himself.

This all boils down to Parenting. But, I know that is not a topic anyone wants to honestly discuss. Better Parenting would clean-up America like nothing ever could or would. It is sad, that this nation can't come to grips with that fact. Instead, we dance around bad Parenting and get angry whenever anybody brings it up as the Purple Elephant sitting in the middle of the living room.

We have a Parenting Crisis in this country and have had one for decades, if not a lot longer than that. But, I digress.

[God Bless America]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=syV2LkGpQB0

[riderr]

such an attack did NOT cause great bodily harm or death, as we all know (although it could have, in which case the point is moot, because the shooter would not have killed the man in that case).

This attack did not cause it, however an attack conducted in this manner could cause it. if the deliberate attack that can cause a great bodily injury or death is performed on a person (esp. unsuspecting person), it immediately triggers self-defense reaction.

[theLBC]

This attack did not cause it, however an attack conducted in this manner could cause it. if the deliberate attack that can cause a great bodily injury or death is performed on a person (esp. unsuspecting person), it immediately triggers self-defense reaction.

again, i am not trying to convince you are anyone else to change their mind.
i am simply stating my personal opinion.

if i was to take that shooters attitude to an antifa rally, one might say i was entitled to kill everyone i saw wearing a mask.

sorry, as much as i don't like them, i am not firing into that crowd, even though any of them could attack me and cause gbh at any time.

[ja308]

Where does that come from?

I have seen the opposite: "The store owner tells ABC Action News that Drejka has a history of assaulting people in the very parking lot the shooting took place."

As to the rest of your overheated diatribe - settle down, Francis.

ABC altered pictures of George Zimmermans injuries to down play his claim of self defense and enflame racial tensions.

are you sure they are a source you want to quote ?

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/022232.html

"
the revelation comes as his attorney and prosecutors prepare for Zimmerman’s bail hearing today, which could result in his being released from a Florida jail. Zimmerman, 28, is being held on charges of second-degree murder for the Feb. 26 shooting of Martin, 17, which could carry a life sentence if he is convicted.
Why didn’t ABC News show this photograph several weeks ago, when the Zimmerman/Martin case became a national issue?
The answer lies in the technique of the prevailing left liberalism. The liberal media put out monstrous lies about George Zimmerman, stirring up black America to threats of mass violence and to actual murderous violence against individual white people, as seen in the violent assaults by blacks on whites in Sanford and elsewhere, as when blacks in Sanford pulled a white man out of his car and beat him within an inch of his life. These lies also result in the indictment of Zimmerman for 2nd degree murder. Then, after Zimmerman has been indicted for murder, the liberal media starts to bring out the truth that tends to exonerate Zimmerman and that the media previously suppressed. But will the charges against Zimmerman therefore be dropped? Not necessarily. The same authorities who demanded the criminal indictment of Zimmerman, because otherwise black America would rise up in a nation-wide version of the 1992 Los Angeles riots, will now say that even though there is no basis for the charges against Zimmerman, the trial against him must still go forward and he must be found guilty, because otherwise black America will rise up.

So, first the liberal media through their evil lies create the black rage which requires the persecution and prosecution of Zimmerman, and then when the media admit the exculpatory truth about Zimmerman, it won’t necessarily save him, because the violent black rage created by the white liberals’ lies must still be placated.

[riderr]

if i was to take that shooters attitude to an antifa rally, one might say i was entitled to kill everyone i saw wearing a mask.

sorry, as much as i don't like them, i am not firing into that crowd, even though any of them could attack me and cause gbh at any time.

Seeing a person wearing a mask can't cause any bodily damage. Being violently pushed to the ground is a complete different perspective

[TMB 1]

It is your personal decision to turn the other cheek. It is clear to me, Drejka was violently attacked and pushed to the ground. Such an attack could cause the great bodily harm or even death. McGlockton didn't stop the attack and kept approaching Drejka up to the moment the gun was withdrawn and pointed at the attacker.

Do you still find the shooting unreasonable?

In the video I watched McGlockton was backing up as soon as Drejka reached for gun then backed up more when gun was raised. McGlockton shouldn't have shoved Drejka to ground, but at the point Drejka shot, McGlockton was no longer a threat.

[HK9]

Too many gun owners have not done the proper homework to ensure that they even understand the laws that govern their use of lethal force during self-defense. Based on many of the replies here, it is clear that many of you desperately need proper Self-Defense Training Involving Firearms.

Maybe you'll listen and pay attention to this guy:

[riderr]

In the video I watched McGlockton was backing up as soon as Drejka reached for gun then backed up more when gun was raised. McGlockton shouldn't have shoved Drejka to ground, but at the point Drejka shot, McGlockton was no longer a threat.

I see McGlockton's attack, advance move to Drejka, then the gun is withdrawn, McGlockton makes a step back, the gun is fired a second or two later.


It's a reasonable and legit self-defense in my view.

[theLBC]

Seeing a person wearing a mask can't cause any bodily damage. Being violently pushed to the ground is a complete different perspective

he seemed fine when he took the shot. was he grievously injured?
he killed the man (i assume) because he felt threatened.

i would feel threatened in a crowd of antifa idiots, more so than i would with my gun drawn and pointed at the dead dude. so why can't i kill them all?
because it isn't reasonable.