Convenient store stand-your-ground shooter charged

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So we are giving the death penalty for pushing someone now?

Law enforcement investigators and the Sheriff stated it was much more than a simple push.

It was a violent shove to the pavement.

They will be testifying the same under oath at the trial.

Makes for a hard case to prove when LE says it was self-defense.

For about the thousand time in this thread and others, you cannot shoot someone for pushing you to the ground. Open your ******* eyes and stop being a fool! The shooter is toast!

 

[Fang]

No one has been sentenced and no one will be....these commentators on here that think that were the same ones who thought Z would get convicted. They just do not know the law. The only way either Z or this guy in clearwater could be convicted is if the jury chooses to ignore the law on self defense like Florida has done now twice...bowing to political pressure. Again....this case in Clearwater just like the Z affair is nothing more than a show trial to appease the media .

We shall see

The jurors will have to put themselves in the shooters position and ask if they would have opened fire

The jurors have one task and one task only....to decide if the shooter was in reasonable fear of his life? No reasonable person can say he was not. He had been knocked to the ground and if he had not been able to use deadly force he would have been at the mercy of his attacker and no one knows what the black man would have done. He had a history of assault and battery.

You dipshit! The shooter would not have known that.

I am a very reasonable person and the shooting was not in any way justified, so you can kiss my ass!

Again you reveal you are coinfused. No one said the white guy knew the attacker had a history of assault...he knew nothing about his attacker...did not even see him coming. He was having a conversation with the black g/f and the next thing he knows he is on the ground with a black guy hovering over him. Thus he was in fear of his life and or of grievious bodily harm and fully covered by the law on self defense to use deadly force. That is the law and if you do not like it...try and change it. Good luck with that. hehheh

And by “conversation,” you mean yelling and cursing at her for parking in a spot he objected to.

Unfortunately I think the shooter gets off based on Stand Your Ground. But here's the issue with the law. I'm betting this guy felt emboldened to argue about a parking spot against a family and a guy that was bigger than him simply because he knew he was packing. I have no issue with the 2nd amendment and people who carry, what I have an issue with is people who create an unnecessary situation because they no longer fear anyone due to their gun. (It's why I thought George Zimmerman was at last guilty of manslaughter). This guy created the very situation that he is now on trial for. Stand Your Ground needs to be rewritten.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

According to Florida law McGlockton commited a battery offense at the time he pushed Drejka.

- Battery Under Florida Law:

1. Any actual and intentional touching or striking of another person against that person’s will (non-consensual), or
2. The intentional causing of bodily harm to another person.

However, the question is does Drejka's reaction fall under "Stand Your Ground".

- A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) is a justification in a criminal case, whereby defendants can "stand their ground" and use force without retreating, in order to protect and defend themselves or others against threats or perceived threats. An example is where there is no duty to retreat from any place where they have a lawful right to be, and that they may use any level of force if they reasonably believe the threat rises to the level of being an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm and/or death. In Dawkins v. State the court describes "[T]he 'stand your ground' law... provide that a person has a right to expect absolute safety in a place they have a right to be, and may use deadly force to repel an intruder... for a person to be justified in using deadly force, the person must not be 'engaged in unlawful activity".[1]


My personal opinion... Drejka should be in jail for what he did. Based on the video his life didn't appear to be in danger and it didn't look like McGlockton intended serious bodily harm. It depends on how well a lawyer can argue and convince a jury of Stand Your Ground. But I would also argue that Drejka created the situation by confronting McGlockton and his family over a parking spot.

Absolute nonsense. You have no analytical ability whatsoever. Now perhaps you are just letting your bias overrule any common sense you might have but either way...you are in error.

First of all you have the benefit of hind-sight which is always 20/20 but in real life the white fellow was on the ground and at the mercy of his attacker. A swift kick to the head could have killed him or given him brain damage. Many cases of people being beaten to death and often with no good reason. Those violently inclined often get a high from causing bodily harm and there is no real reason to belive he would have stopped his assault other than the fact the white guy whipped out a pistol. Geez what a shock that must have been...I almost feel sorry for the guy. Then he gets shot....his last though was probably something like this: damn that guy looked so harmless.

Using your incredible lack of logic, why didn't the victim just pull out a gun and shoot the guy on the ground? Oh wait, that couldn't happen because he didn't have a gun. It's just like all of your bullshit about kicking someone while backing away!

Why don't you just come out and be clear that you are a racist son of a *****?

Laughable and and thus you join the ranks of the ignorant and as a penalty you are demoted from admiral to 'out to sea on a dinghy'. heh heh

Lookee here boyo....the fact the black guy had no weapon has nothing to do with anything. Only a simpleton with little or no understanding of the law would mention that.

Taking a small step back and slightly to the right may look like blackie is retreating on the video a with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight whilst sitting in the safety and comfort of your abode but to a fellow who has just been violently assaulted and is down on the ground at the mercy of his attacker the view is quite different.

It was his life on the line and or the possibility of sustaining grievious bodily harm-- and thus no doubt the jury with the advice of expert opinion will have no trouble understanding that.

Also remember what you said about the Zimmerman case....which brings up the question--have you ever been right about anything?

I was 100% correct on Zimmerman. You are just a racist moron hiding behind your idiocy.

 

[MacTheKnife]

According to Florida law McGlockton commited a battery offense at the time he pushed Drejka.

- Battery Under Florida Law:

1. Any actual and intentional touching or striking of another person against that person’s will (non-consensual), or
2. The intentional causing of bodily harm to another person.

However, the question is does Drejka's reaction fall under "Stand Your Ground".

- A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) is a justification in a criminal case, whereby defendants can "stand their ground" and use force without retreating, in order to protect and defend themselves or others against threats or perceived threats. An example is where there is no duty to retreat from any place where they have a lawful right to be, and that they may use any level of force if they reasonably believe the threat rises to the level of being an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm and/or death. In Dawkins v. State the court describes "[T]he 'stand your ground' law... provide that a person has a right to expect absolute safety in a place they have a right to be, and may use deadly force to repel an intruder... for a person to be justified in using deadly force, the person must not be 'engaged in unlawful activity".[1]


My personal opinion... Drejka should be in jail for what he did. Based on the video his life didn't appear to be in danger and it didn't look like McGlockton intended serious bodily harm. It depends on how well a lawyer can argue and convince a jury of Stand Your Ground. But I would also argue that Drejka created the situation by confronting McGlockton and his family over a parking spot.

Absolute nonsense. You have no analytical ability whatsoever. Now perhaps you are just letting your bias overrule any common sense you might have but either way...you are in error.

First of all you have the benefit of hind-sight which is always 20/20 but in real life the white fellow was on the ground and at the mercy of his attacker. A swift kick to the head could have killed him or given him brain damage. Many cases of people being beaten to death and often with no good reason. Those violently inclined often get a high from causing bodily harm and there is no real reason to belive he would have stopped his assault other than the fact the white guy whipped out a pistol. Geez what a shock that must have been...I almost feel sorry for the guy. Then he gets shot....his last though was probably something like this: damn that guy looked so harmless.

Using your incredible lack of logic, why didn't the victim just pull out a gun and shoot the guy on the ground? Oh wait, that couldn't happen because he didn't have a gun. It's just like all of your bullshit about kicking someone while backing away!

Why don't you just come out and be clear that you are a racist son of a *****?

Laughable and and thus you join the ranks of the ignorant and as a penalty you are demoted from admiral to 'out to sea on a dinghy'. heh heh

Lookee here boyo....the fact the black guy had no weapon has nothing to do with anything. Only a simpleton with little or no understanding of the law would mention that.

Taking a small step back and slightly to the right may look like blackie is retreating on the video a with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight whilst sitting in the safety and comfort of your abode but to a fellow who has just been violently assaulted and is down on the ground at the mercy of his attacker the view is quite different.

It was his life on the line and or the possibility of sustaining grievious bodily harm-- and thus no doubt the jury with the advice of expert opinion will have no trouble understanding that.

Also remember what you said about the Zimmerman case....which brings up the question--have you ever been right about anything?

I was 100% correct on Zimmerman. You are just a racist moron hiding behind your idiocy.

I cannot help but notice you do not reveal what you said about Zimmerman....should I jog your memory?

 

[MacTheKnife]

We shall see

The jurors will have to put themselves in the shooters position and ask if they would have opened fire

The jurors have one task and one task only....to decide if the shooter was in reasonable fear of his life? No reasonable person can say he was not. He had been knocked to the ground and if he had not been able to use deadly force he would have been at the mercy of his attacker and no one knows what the black man would have done. He had a history of assault and battery.

You dipshit! The shooter would not have known that.

I am a very reasonable person and the shooting was not in any way justified, so you can kiss my ass!

Again you reveal you are coinfused. No one said the white guy knew the attacker had a history of assault...he knew nothing about his attacker...did not even see him coming. He was having a conversation with the black g/f and the next thing he knows he is on the ground with a black guy hovering over him. Thus he was in fear of his life and or of grievious bodily harm and fully covered by the law on self defense to use deadly force. That is the law and if you do not like it...try and change it. Good luck with that. hehheh

And by “conversation,” you mean yelling and cursing at her for parking in a spot he objected to.

Unfortunately I think the shooter gets off based on Stand Your Ground. But here's the issue with the law. I'm betting this guy felt emboldened to argue about a parking spot against a family and a guy that was bigger than him simply because he knew he was packing. I have no issue with the 2nd amendment and people who carry, what I have an issue with is people who create an unnecessary situation because they no longer fear anyone due to their gun. (It's why I thought George Zimmerman was at last guilty of manslaughter). This guy created the very situation that he is now on trial for. Stand Your Ground needs to be rewritten.

You do not understand what the stand your ground law is.

Then you reveal you have a mind reading capability--regardless of what actually happened. If you had watched the full video that has since been yanked you would see that the b/f was nowhere around, as in he was already in the store when the white guy arrived on the scene.

The white guy being a responsible citizen was simply performing a civic action of telling the woman illegally parked in a handicap spot that she should not do that...nothing illegal about that. And this b.s. about him creating an unnecessary situation is ridiculous. According to you we should all run around with blinders on and if we see someone violating the law just look the other way. Outrageous!!! Perhaps you also think the handicap law on parking spaces should also be repealed as it may have contributed to this situation?

If the b/f had not committed assault everyone would have went home and a life would not have been taken. If anyone felt emboldened in this case it was the b/f who felt so emboldened to committ assault....tell this board your opinion on why the black guy felt so emboldened to committ assault? You want to excuse the black guys assault and condemn the white guys civic action of informing the g/f she was illegally parked in a handicap spot. What b.s.

Do everyone a favor and look up what the stand your ground law is...i have posted it several times...I am not going to do your homework for you. After you understand what that law actually says get back with us and we will accept your apology for being so ignorant as to comment on a law which you do not even understand.

 

[MacTheKnife]

So we are giving the death penalty for pushing someone now?

Law enforcement investigators and the Sheriff stated it was much more than a simple push.

It was a violent shove to the pavement.

They will be testifying the same under oath at the trial.

Makes for a hard case to prove when LE says it was self-defense.

For about the thousand time in this thread and others, you cannot shoot someone for pushing you to the ground. Open your ******* eyes and stop being a fool! The shooter is toast!

What stupidity you present. Are you not even keeping up with what has been said? You cannot even make the above statement without being ignorant of the self defense law in Florida. Again...the law of self defense says that anyone in reasonable fear of their life or of grievious bodily harm is entitled to use deadly force in self defense. A no brainer, not complex at all...yet you either cannot understand it or else in your bias you want to ignore it.

There will be an expensive trial paid for by taxpayers to placate the media and there will be no conviction. In order to convict the white guy the jury would have to ignore the law of self defense. Now you might not like the fact that people have the right to defend themselves but that is the law.

The same folks on here who thought Z should have been convicted based on the fallacious belief in black victimhood are repeating their mistake.

 

[MacTheKnife]

So we are giving the death penalty for pushing someone now?

Law enforcement investigators and the Sheriff stated it was much more than a simple push.

It was a violent shove to the pavement.

They will be testifying the same under oath at the trial.

Makes for a hard case to prove when LE says it was self-defense.

For about the thousand time in this thread and others, you cannot shoot someone for pushing you to the ground. Open your ******* eyes and stop being a fool! The shooter is toast!

What stupidity you present. Are you not even keeping up with what has been said? You cannot even make the above statement without being ignorant of the self defense law in Florida. Again...the law of self defense says that anyone in reasonable fear of their life or of grievious bodily harm is entitled to use deadly force in self defense. A no brainer, not complex at all...yet you either cannot understand it or else in your bias you want to ignore it.

There will be an expensive trial paid for by taxpayers to placate the media and there will be no conviction. In order to convict the white guy the jury would have to ignore the law of self defense. Now you might not like the fact that people have the right to defend themselves but that is the law.

 

[Fang]

The jurors have one task and one task only....to decide if the shooter was in reasonable fear of his life? No reasonable person can say he was not. He had been knocked to the ground and if he had not been able to use deadly force he would have been at the mercy of his attacker and no one knows what the black man would have done. He had a history of assault and battery.

You dipshit! The shooter would not have known that.

I am a very reasonable person and the shooting was not in any way justified, so you can kiss my ass!

Again you reveal you are coinfused. No one said the white guy knew the attacker had a history of assault...he knew nothing about his attacker...did not even see him coming. He was having a conversation with the black g/f and the next thing he knows he is on the ground with a black guy hovering over him. Thus he was in fear of his life and or of grievious bodily harm and fully covered by the law on self defense to use deadly force. That is the law and if you do not like it...try and change it. Good luck with that. hehheh

And by “conversation,” you mean yelling and cursing at her for parking in a spot he objected to.

Unfortunately I think the shooter gets off based on Stand Your Ground. But here's the issue with the law. I'm betting this guy felt emboldened to argue about a parking spot against a family and a guy that was bigger than him simply because he knew he was packing. I have no issue with the 2nd amendment and people who carry, what I have an issue with is people who create an unnecessary situation because they no longer fear anyone due to their gun. (It's why I thought George Zimmerman was at last guilty of manslaughter). This guy created the very situation that he is now on trial for. Stand Your Ground needs to be rewritten.

You do not understand what the stand your ground law is.

Then you reveal you have a mind reading capability--regardless of what actually happened. If you had watched the full video that has since been yanked you would see that the b/f was nowhere around, as in he was already in the store when the white guy arrived on the scene.

The white guy being a responsible citizen was simply performing a civic action of telling the woman illegally parked in a handicap spot that she should not do that...nothing illegal about that. And this b.s. about him creating an unnecessary situation is ridiculous. According to you we should all run around with blinders on and if we see someone violating the law just look the other way. Outrageous!!! Perhaps you also think the handicap law on parking spaces should also be repealed as it may have contributed to this situation?

If the b/f had not committed assault everyone would have went home and a life would not have been taken. If anyone felt emboldened in this case it was the b/f who felt so emboldened to committ assault....tell this board your opinion on why the black guy felt so emboldened to committ assault? You want to excuse the black guys assault and condemn the white guys civic action of informing the g/f she was illegally parked in a handicap spot. What b.s.

Do everyone a favor and look up what the stand your ground law is...i have posted it several times...I am not going to do your homework for you. After you understand what that law actually says get back with us and we will accept your apology for being so ignorant as to comment on a law which you do not even understand.

Yet every news outlet refers to this as the "Stand Your Ground" case. LOL I can't waste my time with your dumb ass anymore.

 

[MacTheKnife]

You dipshit! The shooter would not have known that.

I am a very reasonable person and the shooting was not in any way justified, so you can kiss my ass!

Again you reveal you are coinfused. No one said the white guy knew the attacker had a history of assault...he knew nothing about his attacker...did not even see him coming. He was having a conversation with the black g/f and the next thing he knows he is on the ground with a black guy hovering over him. Thus he was in fear of his life and or of grievious bodily harm and fully covered by the law on self defense to use deadly force. That is the law and if you do not like it...try and change it. Good luck with that. hehheh

And by “conversation,” you mean yelling and cursing at her for parking in a spot he objected to.

Unfortunately I think the shooter gets off based on Stand Your Ground. But here's the issue with the law. I'm betting this guy felt emboldened to argue about a parking spot against a family and a guy that was bigger than him simply because he knew he was packing. I have no issue with the 2nd amendment and people who carry, what I have an issue with is people who create an unnecessary situation because they no longer fear anyone due to their gun. (It's why I thought George Zimmerman was at last guilty of manslaughter). This guy created the very situation that he is now on trial for. Stand Your Ground needs to be rewritten.

You do not understand what the stand your ground law is.

Then you reveal you have a mind reading capability--regardless of what actually happened. If you had watched the full video that has since been yanked you would see that the b/f was nowhere around, as in he was already in the store when the white guy arrived on the scene.

The white guy being a responsible citizen was simply performing a civic action of telling the woman illegally parked in a handicap spot that she should not do that...nothing illegal about that. And this b.s. about him creating an unnecessary situation is ridiculous. According to you we should all run around with blinders on and if we see someone violating the law just look the other way. Outrageous!!! Perhaps you also think the handicap law on parking spaces should also be repealed as it may have contributed to this situation?

If the b/f had not committed assault everyone would have went home and a life would not have been taken. If anyone felt emboldened in this case it was the b/f who felt so emboldened to committ assault....tell this board your opinion on why the black guy felt so emboldened to committ assault? You want to excuse the black guys assault and condemn the white guys civic action of informing the g/f she was illegally parked in a handicap spot. What b.s.

Do everyone a favor and look up what the stand your ground law is...i have posted it several times...I am not going to do your homework for you. After you understand what that law actually says get back with us and we will accept your apology for being so ignorant as to comment on a law which you do not even understand.

Yet every news outlet refers to this as the "Stand Your Ground" case. LOL I can't waste my time with your dumb ass anymore.

You think the media understands that law? Obviously you watch too much fake news...instead of relying on a lying media to instruct you on the law...look it up yourself..too lazy to do that? ...thus once again you failed to do your homework as I instructed you. Not that hard-- anyhow you are running away instead of getting informed and apologizing...not suprising, moral cowards are prone to do that.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

According to Florida law McGlockton commited a battery offense at the time he pushed Drejka.

- Battery Under Florida Law:

1. Any actual and intentional touching or striking of another person against that person’s will (non-consensual), or
2. The intentional causing of bodily harm to another person.

However, the question is does Drejka's reaction fall under "Stand Your Ground".

- A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) is a justification in a criminal case, whereby defendants can "stand their ground" and use force without retreating, in order to protect and defend themselves or others against threats or perceived threats. An example is where there is no duty to retreat from any place where they have a lawful right to be, and that they may use any level of force if they reasonably believe the threat rises to the level of being an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm and/or death. In Dawkins v. State the court describes "[T]he 'stand your ground' law... provide that a person has a right to expect absolute safety in a place they have a right to be, and may use deadly force to repel an intruder... for a person to be justified in using deadly force, the person must not be 'engaged in unlawful activity".[1]


My personal opinion... Drejka should be in jail for what he did. Based on the video his life didn't appear to be in danger and it didn't look like McGlockton intended serious bodily harm. It depends on how well a lawyer can argue and convince a jury of Stand Your Ground. But I would also argue that Drejka created the situation by confronting McGlockton and his family over a parking spot.

Absolute nonsense. You have no analytical ability whatsoever. Now perhaps you are just letting your bias overrule any common sense you might have but either way...you are in error.

First of all you have the benefit of hind-sight which is always 20/20 but in real life the white fellow was on the ground and at the mercy of his attacker. A swift kick to the head could have killed him or given him brain damage. Many cases of people being beaten to death and often with no good reason. Those violently inclined often get a high from causing bodily harm and there is no real reason to belive he would have stopped his assault other than the fact the white guy whipped out a pistol. Geez what a shock that must have been...I almost feel sorry for the guy. Then he gets shot....his last though was probably something like this: damn that guy looked so harmless.

Using your incredible lack of logic, why didn't the victim just pull out a gun and shoot the guy on the ground? Oh wait, that couldn't happen because he didn't have a gun. It's just like all of your bullshit about kicking someone while backing away!

Why don't you just come out and be clear that you are a racist son of a *****?

Laughable and and thus you join the ranks of the ignorant and as a penalty you are demoted from admiral to 'out to sea on a dinghy'. heh heh

Lookee here boyo....the fact the black guy had no weapon has nothing to do with anything. Only a simpleton with little or no understanding of the law would mention that.

Taking a small step back and slightly to the right may look like blackie is retreating on the video a with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight whilst sitting in the safety and comfort of your abode but to a fellow who has just been violently assaulted and is down on the ground at the mercy of his attacker the view is quite different.

It was his life on the line and or the possibility of sustaining grievious bodily harm-- and thus no doubt the jury with the advice of expert opinion will have no trouble understanding that.

Also remember what you said about the Zimmerman case....which brings up the question--have you ever been right about anything?

I was 100% correct on Zimmerman. You are just a racist moron hiding behind your idiocy.

I cannot help but notice you do not reveal what you said about Zimmerman....should I jog your memory?

Go right ahead. I'll await your apology when you fail.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So we are giving the death penalty for pushing someone now?

Law enforcement investigators and the Sheriff stated it was much more than a simple push.

It was a violent shove to the pavement.

They will be testifying the same under oath at the trial.

Makes for a hard case to prove when LE says it was self-defense.

For about the thousand time in this thread and others, you cannot shoot someone for pushing you to the ground. Open your ******* eyes and stop being a fool! The shooter is toast!

What stupidity you present. Are you not even keeping up with what has been said? You cannot even make the above statement without being ignorant of the self defense law in Florida. Again...the law of self defense says that anyone in reasonable fear of their life or of grievious bodily harm is entitled to use deadly force in self defense. A no brainer, not complex at all...yet you either cannot understand it or else in your bias you want to ignore it.

There will be an expensive trial paid for by taxpayers to placate the media and there will be no conviction. In order to convict the white guy the jury would have to ignore the law of self defense. Now you might not like the fact that people have the right to defend themselves but that is the law.

The same folks on here who thought Z should have been convicted based on the fallacious belief in black victimhood are repeating their mistake.

It all comes down to one point that you ignore because you are a racist POS. Would a reasonable person be in fear for their life in that situation? The answer is "no". Being pushed down does not warrant shooting someone with absolutely no hesitation.

If you disagree, it is because you simply are not reasonable.

When the jury comes back and convicts, what will you whine about then?

You still haven't provided what you think I said about Zimmerman. Why? Is it simply too hard for your little brain to fabricate something I did not say?

 

[MacTheKnife]

So we are giving the death penalty for pushing someone now?

Law enforcement investigators and the Sheriff stated it was much more than a simple push.

It was a violent shove to the pavement.

They will be testifying the same under oath at the trial.

Makes for a hard case to prove when LE says it was self-defense.

For about the thousand time in this thread and others, you cannot shoot someone for pushing you to the ground. Open your ******* eyes and stop being a fool! The shooter is toast!

What stupidity you present. Are you not even keeping up with what has been said? You cannot even make the above statement without being ignorant of the self defense law in Florida. Again...the law of self defense says that anyone in reasonable fear of their life or of grievious bodily harm is entitled to use deadly force in self defense. A no brainer, not complex at all...yet you either cannot understand it or else in your bias you want to ignore it.

There will be an expensive trial paid for by taxpayers to placate the media and there will be no conviction. In order to convict the white guy the jury would have to ignore the law of self defense. Now you might not like the fact that people have the right to defend themselves but that is the law.

The same folks on here who thought Z should have been convicted based on the fallacious belief in black victimhood are repeating their mistake.

It all comes down to one point that you ignore because you are a racist POS. Would a reasonable person be in fear for their life in that situation? The answer is "no". Being pushed down does not warrant shooting someone with absolutely no hesitation.

If you disagree, it is because you simply are not reasonable.

When the jury comes back and convicts, what will you whine about then?

You still haven't provided what you think I said about Zimmerman. Why? Is it simply too hard for your little brain to fabricate something I did not say?

 

[MacTheKnife]

That is the question the jury will have to decide....was the white guy in reasonable fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm?

First of all he had already been violently assaulted that in and of itself was enough to have caused grievious bodily harm and the white guy was fortunate that he apparantly suffered no serious injury from that....but he had no idea what was to follow...he was in fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm by the mere fact of the violent assault...he had no reason to believe the attack would stop...he was on the ground and very vulnurable to further violent actions by the black guy such as a kick to the head etc.

People getting beaten to death is not an uncommon event. And, thus it is very reasonable to conclude the white guy was in fear of his life or grievious bodily injury. I am confidant the jury will understand that and with the help of expert testimony-- the state's case is very,very weak. Even the initial investigation agreed the white guy was in compliance with the law. It was only when political pressure was brought to bear that the state attorney decided to reverse the decision of the investigative officers.

Thankfully, in America we have a system of trial by jury of one's peers.

You refuse to repeat what you said about Zimmerman---why is that? Do you not remember?

 

[Manonthestreet]

That is the question the jury will have to decide....was the white guy in reasonable fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm?

First of all he had already been violently assaulted that in and of itself was enough to have caused grievious bodily harm and the white guy was fortunate that he apparantly suffered no serious injury from that....but he had no idea what was to follow...he was in fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm by the mere fact of the violent assault...he had no reason to believe the attack would stop...he was on the ground and very vulnurable to further violent actions by the black guy such as a kick to the head etc.

People getting beaten to death is not an uncommon event. And, thus it is very reasonable to conclude the white guy was in fear of his life or grievious bodily injury. I am confidant the jury will understand that and with the help of expert testimony-- the state's case is very,very weak. Even the initial investigation agreed the white guy was in compliance with the law. It was only when political pressure was brought to bear that the state attorney decided to reverse the decision of the investigative officers.

Thankfully, in America we have a system of trial by jury of one's peers.

You refuse to repeat what you said about Zimmerman---why is that? Do you not remember?

Judging by the poll that was done here....the guy has no shot and should take a plea deal if offered

 

[MacTheKnife]

That is the question the jury will have to decide....was the white guy in reasonable fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm?

First of all he had already been violently assaulted that in and of itself was enough to have caused grievious bodily harm and the white guy was fortunate that he apparantly suffered no serious injury from that....but he had no idea what was to follow...he was in fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm by the mere fact of the violent assault...he had no reason to believe the attack would stop...he was on the ground and very vulnurable to further violent actions by the black guy such as a kick to the head etc.

People getting beaten to death is not an uncommon event. And, thus it is very reasonable to conclude the white guy was in fear of his life or grievious bodily injury. I am confidant the jury will understand that and with the help of expert testimony-- the state's case is very,very weak. Even the initial investigation agreed the white guy was in compliance with the law. It was only when political pressure was brought to bear that the state attorney decided to reverse the decision of the investigative officers.

Thankfully, in America we have a system of trial by jury of one's peers.

You refuse to repeat what you said about Zimmerman---why is that? Do you not remember?

Judging by the poll that was done here....the guy has no shot and should take a plea deal if offered

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa laughable. In case you have not noticed this discussion on the clearwater incident reveals a lot of ignorance.....first of all what the law says....and so many on here have no capacity to understand that law as simple as it is.

Do not take any poll conducted on this board as any indicator of anything....other than that so many on here are biased and believe the fake news that is drummed into them daily.

No ability to think for themselves logically or even in a common sense mode.

Pathetic is the woid dat comes to mind boyo.

 

[Manonthestreet]

But we for

That is the question the jury will have to decide....was the white guy in reasonable fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm?

First of all he had already been violently assaulted that in and of itself was enough to have caused grievious bodily harm and the white guy was fortunate that he apparantly suffered no serious injury from that....but he had no idea what was to follow...he was in fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm by the mere fact of the violent assault...he had no reason to believe the attack would stop...he was on the ground and very vulnurable to further violent actions by the black guy such as a kick to the head etc.

People getting beaten to death is not an uncommon event. And, thus it is very reasonable to conclude the white guy was in fear of his life or grievious bodily injury. I am confidant the jury will understand that and with the help of expert testimony-- the state's case is very,very weak. Even the initial investigation agreed the white guy was in compliance with the law. It was only when political pressure was brought to bear that the state attorney decided to reverse the decision of the investigative officers.

Thankfully, in America we have a system of trial by jury of one's peers.

You refuse to repeat what you said about Zimmerman---why is that? Do you not remember?

Judging by the poll that was done here....the guy has no shot and should take a plea deal if offered

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa laughable. I case you have not noticed this discussion on the clearwater incident reveals a lot of ignorance.....first of all what the law says....and so many on here have no capacity to understand that law as simple as it is.

Do not take any poll conducted on this board as any indicator of anything....other than that so many on here are biased and believe the fake news that is drummed into them daily.

No ability to think for selves logically or even in a common sense mode.

Pathetic is the woid dat comes to mind boyo.

But we for sure should believe your expert opinion. Yeah pathetic would describe that

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So we are giving the death penalty for pushing someone now?

Law enforcement investigators and the Sheriff stated it was much more than a simple push.

It was a violent shove to the pavement.

They will be testifying the same under oath at the trial.

Makes for a hard case to prove when LE says it was self-defense.

For about the thousand time in this thread and others, you cannot shoot someone for pushing you to the ground. Open your ******* eyes and stop being a fool! The shooter is toast!

What stupidity you present. Are you not even keeping up with what has been said? You cannot even make the above statement without being ignorant of the self defense law in Florida. Again...the law of self defense says that anyone in reasonable fear of their life or of grievious bodily harm is entitled to use deadly force in self defense. A no brainer, not complex at all...yet you either cannot understand it or else in your bias you want to ignore it.

There will be an expensive trial paid for by taxpayers to placate the media and there will be no conviction. In order to convict the white guy the jury would have to ignore the law of self defense. Now you might not like the fact that people have the right to defend themselves but that is the law.

The same folks on here who thought Z should have been convicted based on the fallacious belief in black victimhood are repeating their mistake.

It all comes down to one point that you ignore because you are a racist POS. Would a reasonable person be in fear for their life in that situation? The answer is "no". Being pushed down does not warrant shooting someone with absolutely no hesitation.

If you disagree, it is because you simply are not reasonable.

When the jury comes back and convicts, what will you whine about then?

You still haven't provided what you think I said about Zimmerman. Why? Is it simply too hard for your little brain to fabricate something I did not say?

Like I said before, learn to quote properly, dumbass!

 

[Manonthestreet]

Lot of conservatives here who would convict the guy ....the film is damning.......side angle especially.............

 

[MacTheKnife]

But we for

That is the question the jury will have to decide....was the white guy in reasonable fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm?

First of all he had already been violently assaulted that in and of itself was enough to have caused grievious bodily harm and the white guy was fortunate that he apparantly suffered no serious injury from that....but he had no idea what was to follow...he was in fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm by the mere fact of the violent assault...he had no reason to believe the attack would stop...he was on the ground and very vulnurable to further violent actions by the black guy such as a kick to the head etc.

People getting beaten to death is not an uncommon event. And, thus it is very reasonable to conclude the white guy was in fear of his life or grievious bodily injury. I am confidant the jury will understand that and with the help of expert testimony-- the state's case is very,very weak. Even the initial investigation agreed the white guy was in compliance with the law. It was only when political pressure was brought to bear that the state attorney decided to reverse the decision of the investigative officers.

Thankfully, in America we have a system of trial by jury of one's peers.

You refuse to repeat what you said about Zimmerman---why is that? Do you not remember?

Judging by the poll that was done here....the guy has no shot and should take a plea deal if offered

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa laughable. I case you have not noticed this discussion on the clearwater incident reveals a lot of ignorance.....first of all what the law says....and so many on here have no capacity to understand that law as simple as it is.

Do not take any poll conducted on this board as any indicator of anything....other than that so many on here are biased and believe the fake news that is drummed into them daily.

No ability to think for selves logically or even in a common sense mode.

Pathetic is the woid dat comes to mind boyo.

But we for sure should believe your expert opinion. Yeah pathetic would describe that

I am merely telling you what the law says. The law grants the defendant the legal right to use deadly force if he felt his life was in danger and or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm. Yet so many seem unable to grasp that???

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That is the question the jury will have to decide....was the white guy in reasonable fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm?

First of all he had already been violently assaulted that in and of itself was enough to have caused grievious bodily harm and the white guy was fortunate that he apparantly suffered no serious injury from that....but he had no idea what was to follow...he was in fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm by the mere fact of the violent assault...he had no reason to believe the attack would stop...he was on the ground and very vulnurable to further violent actions by the black guy such as a kick to the head etc.

People getting beaten to death is not an uncommon event. And, thus it is very reasonable to conclude the white guy was in fear of his life or grievious bodily injury. I am confidant the jury will understand that and with the help of expert testimony-- the state's case is very,very weak. Even the initial investigation agreed the white guy was in compliance with the law. It was only when political pressure was brought to bear that the state attorney decided to reverse the decision of the investigative officers.

Thankfully, in America we have a system of trial by jury of one's peers.

You refuse to repeat what you said about Zimmerman---why is that? Do you not remember?

You are so confused. Get your shit straight before calling me out again, dumbass! You tell me what I said. The reason you are stalling is that you can't find anything that disagrees with my statements in this incident.