Convenient store stand-your-ground shooter charged

[TheGreenHornet]

Zimmerman 2.0

No comparison. Zimmerman broke off his stalking. Martin caught up with him and attacked, at which point the responsibility became his.

This guy was pushed to the ground (provocation could be argued), and that was it. The attack stopped. He drew and killed the guy without cause.

Zim broke off?? he followed him in his vehicle then got out and followed him on foot !!
TM was standing his ground--literally and lawfully from the aggressor Zim

He followed him on foot, and then broke off. Martin doubled back and attacked Zimmerman. It's a matter of record.

Yes....exactly.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Drejka is guilty of being ignorant and stupid.

He should have exercised his right to remain silent.

He should have answered no questions absent an attorney.

He failed to do both an suffered the consequences.

Zim was the same = stupid/idiot

Lots of stupid people about you are a good example...however unfortunately especially in your case it is not illegal to be stupid so you do not have to worry about being incarcerated because you are stupid.............next............puhleeze someone with some intelligence or common sense.

what's stupid is your post--grammatically incorrect....incoherent....babbling
hahahahhahahhaha

Regressive liberal ROE



1. Demand a link or an explanation of the truth they are objecting to.


2. Promptly reject all explanations as right wing lies. Smoke spin deflect


3. Ignore any facts presented.


4. Ridicule spelling and typos, punctuation.


5. Attack the person as being juvenile, ie: "are you 12 years old", question their education, intelligence, Age


6. Employ misdirection,


6a. smear people


6b. attack religion


6c. attack your rationality.


7. Lie


8. Play race/gender card/misogynist card


9. Play gay/lesbian card


10. Play the Nazi/Fascist/bigot card


11. Make up stuff/So you got nothing?


12. Deny constantly


13. Reword and repeat


14. Pretending not to understand, playing ignorant/what did I lie about


15. When losing, resort to personal attacks.


16. Russia


17. Fox News/Alex Jones/Brietbart/infowars/Stormfront/Gateway/hannity


18. You can’t read.


19. Trump Trump Trump TrumpTrump Trump

I'm far from liberal

Drejka is guilty of being ignorant and stupid.

He should have exercised his right to remain silent.

He should have answered no questions absent an attorney.

He failed to do both an suffered the consequences.

Zim was the same = stupid/idiot

Lots of stupid people about you are a good example...however unfortunately especially in your case it is not illegal to be stupid so you do not have to worry about being incarcerated because you are stupid.............next............puhleeze someone with some intelligence or common sense.

Zim could not add 1 + 1
he thought TM was staring at him because there was ''something wrong with'' TM
he couldn't figure out TM was staring because Zim was following him = IDIOT/stupid

Now he knows what people are thinking in other states in the past.

then the dumbass walks into a situation he can't handle ---while TM was standing his ground, --he walks into a situation he can't handle!!!
..he blindly walks around not knowing where TM is !!! = dumbass

Again...dumb no doubt....just like you. Fortunately for both of you it is not illegal. hehheh

 

[harmonica]

Zimmerman 2.0

No comparison. Zimmerman broke off his stalking. Martin caught up with him and attacked, at which point the responsibility became his.

This guy was pushed to the ground (provocation could be argued), and that was it. The attack stopped. He drew and killed the guy without cause.

Zim broke off?? he followed him in his vehicle then got out and followed him on foot !!
TM was standing his ground--literally and lawfully from the aggressor Zim

He followed him on foot, and then broke off. Martin doubled back and attacked Zimmerman. It's a matter of record.

he follows in a vehicle, gets out and follows of foot---and Zim is NOT the follower????
Zim is the aggressor--without a doubt
TM is doing NOTHING wrong and ZIm KEEPS following him

 

[harmonica]

Zim was the same = stupid/idiot

Lots of stupid people about you are a good example...however unfortunately especially in your case it is not illegal to be stupid so you do not have to worry about being incarcerated because you are stupid.............next............puhleeze someone with some intelligence or common sense.

what's stupid is your post--grammatically incorrect....incoherent....babbling
hahahahhahahhaha

Regressive liberal ROE



1. Demand a link or an explanation of the truth they are objecting to.


2. Promptly reject all explanations as right wing lies. Smoke spin deflect


3. Ignore any facts presented.


4. Ridicule spelling and typos, punctuation.


5. Attack the person as being juvenile, ie: "are you 12 years old", question their education, intelligence, Age


6. Employ misdirection,


6a. smear people


6b. attack religion


6c. attack your rationality.


7. Lie


8. Play race/gender card/misogynist card


9. Play gay/lesbian card


10. Play the Nazi/Fascist/bigot card


11. Make up stuff/So you got nothing?


12. Deny constantly


13. Reword and repeat


14. Pretending not to understand, playing ignorant/what did I lie about


15. When losing, resort to personal attacks.


16. Russia


17. Fox News/Alex Jones/Brietbart/infowars/Stormfront/Gateway/hannity


18. You can’t read.


19. Trump Trump Trump TrumpTrump Trump

I'm far from liberal

Zim was the same = stupid/idiot

Lots of stupid people about you are a good example...however unfortunately especially in your case it is not illegal to be stupid so you do not have to worry about being incarcerated because you are stupid.............next............puhleeze someone with some intelligence or common sense.

Zim could not add 1 + 1
he thought TM was staring at him because there was ''something wrong with'' TM
he couldn't figure out TM was staring because Zim was following him = IDIOT/stupid

Now he knows what people are thinking in other states in the past.

then the dumbass walks into a situation he can't handle ---while TM was standing his ground, --he walks into a situation he can't handle!!!
..he blindly walks around not knowing where TM is !!! = dumbass

Again...dumb no doubt....just like you. Fortunately for both of you it is not illegal. hehheh

I agree--Zim is a dumbass

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Zimmerman 2.0

No comparison. Zimmerman broke off his stalking. Martin caught up with him and attacked, at which point the responsibility became his.

This guy was pushed to the ground (provocation could be argued), and that was it. The attack stopped. He drew and killed the guy without cause.

Zim broke off?? he followed him in his vehicle then got out and followed him on foot !!
TM was standing his ground--literally and lawfully from the aggressor Zim

He followed him on foot, and then broke off. Martin doubled back and attacked Zimmerman. It's a matter of record.

he follows in a vehicle, gets out and follows of foot---and Zim is NOT the follower????
Zim is the aggressor--without a doubt
TM is doing NOTHING wrong and ZIm KEEPS following him

What about "he broke it off" do you not understand?

 

[miketx]

Okay guys, put yourself in the place of the dude that was killed...................

You walk out of the store and find some random man yelling at your old lady. What would you do in that case? I'm pretty sure a shove or something like that would be done.

And, when the guy was pushed to the ground, he pulled out his gun and the man started to back away, then was shot, and went into the store and died.

No. The man with the gun should not have fired at the other guy when he was backing away. I think the manslaughter charge should stand.

We can't put ourselves in that dude that was killed, he is dead, and dead by his own actions.

 

[harmonica]

Zimmerman 2.0

No comparison. Zimmerman broke off his stalking. Martin caught up with him and attacked, at which point the responsibility became his.

This guy was pushed to the ground (provocation could be argued), and that was it. The attack stopped. He drew and killed the guy without cause.

Zim broke off?? he followed him in his vehicle then got out and followed him on foot !!
TM was standing his ground--literally and lawfully from the aggressor Zim

He followed him on foot, and then broke off. Martin doubled back and attacked Zimmerman. It's a matter of record.

he follows in a vehicle, gets out and follows of foot---and Zim is NOT the follower????
Zim is the aggressor--without a doubt
TM is doing NOTHING wrong and ZIm KEEPS following him

What about "he broke it off" do you not understand?

he's INTENT on getting this '''ASSHOLE --who is doing and did nothing wrong, and he breaks it off????!!!
...Zim CREATED a problem when there was none--no crime--nothing--nothing even suspicious = dumbass

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Given this verdict, every Florida resident who carries a concealed firearm should also carry with him a 911 script in the event he defends himself with lethal force:

“There’s been a shooting – please send an ambulance and the police to ……. I was attacked and feared for my life”

Give your description.

End the call, don’t engage with the 911 operator – the criminal case against you starts with your 911 call.

After the police arrive, say the following:

“My gun is laying over there, and that is the gun that I used to shoot my attacker in self-defense because I feared for my life. I do not want to say anything else until I have had time to talk to my attorney. I want to cooperate with the investigation completely, but I'm very upset right now and I need to talk to my attorney first. I hope you understand.”

10 things you should NEVER do after a self defense shooting | Buckeye Firearms Association

Make sure that before the police arrive you either holster your weapon or place it on the ground – the latter being the better option.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Nonsense. He had a disabled family member so he was justifiably irritated by folks parking illegally in handicapped spaces. He had every right to talk to the black woman and point out the fact she was illegally parked...and her reaction was to go off on him.

I wish I could find the old webpage for the Florida department that issues their concealed weapons licenses because they made a point of stating that a license to carry a concealed weapon is not a license to use it and that it conveys no police powers or authority.

Too many people act like just because they're packing that suddenly they have the right to confront people whose behavior they take exceptions with. Sometimes there are circumstances which cause the alleged violations seen but without that information and considered that they aren't law enforcement, they should stay out of it and instead call 911 if the situation warrants it.

This guy is said to have often harassed people for parking in the handicap spot even though he's not the property owner.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

He was perfectly within the law to confront the woman about her illegally parking in a handicapped spot. I do not think he should be condemned for that but obviously it was used by the state against him and to his harm.

A reasonable person sitting in a car illegally parked would not respond the way the black woman did. Most people would say I am sorry and I will move the car. That is not what the black woman did however. She went off on drjka and even threatened him. Which resulted in a heated argument.

When her b/f got wind of something going on in the parking lot--he rushed out--did not bother to ask any questions. He simply and immediately feloniously assaulted drjka without a clue as to what was really happening.

The state obviously was able to convince the jury he had a right to do this. That he was protecting his family.

Nonsense but they prevailed basically because of todays political climate.

How was he within the law to confront her? Explain that please! He had no power to enforce the law. What he should have done is notified the store owner/manager whose property they were both on.

Let me ask you a simple question. Were you in the courtroom for the trial? If not, where are you getting all of this information? I can only assume that you are simply making it up as you go.

BTW, pushing someone is not felonious assault by any stretch of the imagination.

You are making shit up as you go.

I did watch the trial. It was brought out in the trial that violently shoving someone to the ground is a felonious assault--unfortunately the jury must have ignored that.

BTW citizens to have the right to make a citizen arrest, though he did not attempt to do that. All he was doing was pointing out to her she should not park in a handicap spot. The black woman took great offense to that.

As Americans we can approach anyone and talk to them. He in no way threatened her. Watch the video and you will note he was several feet away from her. He talked to her and pointed his finger at her. The prosecution claimed that was threatening behavior. Ridiculous.

Now, I do agree with the benefit of hindsight that as soon as he realized he was dealing with a black person he should have walked away. Some people are just politically clueless--do not understand the double standard when it comes to blacks.

So you sat in the courtroom for the trial? The entire trial?

Here is law on felonious assault. It does not apply:

(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

You cannot arrest someone for parking in a handicapped parking space.

I have repeatedly shown that you are simply wrong on many of the excuse you have offered.

I still maintain that you are a racist. Your attitude oozes it all over your posts.

I watched the entire trial on livestream video.

FL v. Michael Drejka: Guilty of Manslaughter - Court TV

In the defense lawyers summation he stated it was a felonious assault. Each state is different regarding the laws on assault. Perhaps the lawyer was from a different state. But he definitely said it was a felonious assault.

I think he is a very good lawyer, but it is possible he made a mistake. Even good lawyers make mistakes.

I am not sure what the correlation is between a felonious assault and a aggravated assault.

drjka did not attempt to arrest the woman. He merely talked to her. Absolutely and for sure there is no law against that.

It was also brought out in the trial that the black guy had a very high level of the drug called ectasy in his system. The defense's expert witness showed how that can contribute to aggressiveness.

He according to the state was trying to defend his family but he was driving around whilst high on drugs. What was wrong with this jury?

Nothing. The defense lawyer was wrong. You know lawyers from other states cannot try a case in Florida unless they are familiar with Florida law. Right?

They would not have to be licensed to practice law in the state in which the trial is held, in this case Florida?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The bottom line is this: racist assholes like you see what you want to see and ignore the truth.

The shooter was known for his racist attitudes and had prior incidents, You are merely following in his footsteps.

Poor butthurt crime lover.

No, you are just another racist asshole. We have seen it before. The fact remains you cannot kill someone for pushing you down and then backing away. The jury nailed it!

Even the experts disagreed on whether the black man high on drugs was backing away and you expect Drejka to be able to see that in a couple of short seconds after being knocked down, dazed and in jeopardy of great bodily harm or losing his life. Get real.

You did not even watch the trial.

He shot in anger, not self defense

One can be angry whilst engaging in self defense. If someone knocked you on your butt and I am sure you have experience with that--were you not angry?

The law doesn't allow a person to shoot someone because they are angry, or because they got knocked on their ass as humiliating as that might be for some. The lawful threshold for lethal self-defense is imminent (happening right now) threat of death or grevious bodily harm.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

First, he is not that old.

Second, read my comments about proportional response?

Third, I hope you don't ever jaywalk and some loser with a CC pops a cap on your dumb ass!

BTW, I love your sig pic!

Listen, idiot, jaywalking is not a violent offense. Knocking someone to the ground is. You off your meds again?

OK, how about someone cold cocking you with a baseball bat for jaywalking? Proportional response - it's not only just a good idea, the law is based on it.

Obviouosly you know nothing of the law on self defense. Look it up and get back with us....hint: it says nothing about proportional defense.

Now in the military that concept is floated about as in when Trump refused to retaliate on Iran ...saying killing a bunch of Iranians would not be proportional to what they did.

Listen dickhead, how many law classes have you taken?

Show us anything in the law on self defense that talks about proportionality.....prove me wrong if you can.

It's also known as escalation of force in that the response to a threat must be proportional to the threat.

Example: I attempt to serve you legal papers and you refuse to accept them so I toss them at your feet. For some reason this startles you, you swing your hands upward, make contact with the papers and suffer a paper cut. Because you consider ourself as having been "assaulted" you pull out your weapon and shoot.

That is a dispproportionate use of force in relation to the "perceived" threat.

 

[miketx]

Listen, idiot, jaywalking is not a violent offense. Knocking someone to the ground is. You off your meds again?

OK, how about someone cold cocking you with a baseball bat for jaywalking? Proportional response - it's not only just a good idea, the law is based on it.

Obviouosly you know nothing of the law on self defense. Look it up and get back with us....hint: it says nothing about proportional defense.

Now in the military that concept is floated about as in when Trump refused to retaliate on Iran ...saying killing a bunch of Iranians would not be proportional to what they did.

Listen dickhead, how many law classes have you taken?

Show us anything in the law on self defense that talks about proportionality.....prove me wrong if you can.

It's also known as escalation of force in that the response to a threat must be proportional to the threat.

Example: I attempt to serve you legal papers and you refuse to accept them so I toss them at your feet. For some reason this startles you, you swing your hands upward, make contact with the papers and suffer a paper cut. Because you consider ourself as having been "assaulted" you pull out your weapon and shoot.

That is a dispproportionate use of force in relation to the "perceived" threat.

Fake news. You don't know what you are talking about. Some asshole breaks in my house and he's dead. Self defense. Why do libs love to try to paint self defenders as murderers?

 

[miketx]

Poor butthurt crime lover.

No, you are just another racist asshole. We have seen it before. The fact remains you cannot kill someone for pushing you down and then backing away. The jury nailed it!

Even the experts disagreed on whether the black man high on drugs was backing away and you expect Drejka to be able to see that in a couple of short seconds after being knocked down, dazed and in jeopardy of great bodily harm or losing his life. Get real.

You did not even watch the trial.

He shot in anger, not self defense

One can be angry whilst engaging in self defense. If someone knocked you on your butt and I am sure you have experience with that--were you not angry?

The law doesn't allow a person to shoot someone because they are angry, or because they got knocked on their ass as humiliating as that might be for some. The lawful threshold for lethal self-defense is imminent (happening right now) threat of death or grevious bodily harm.

And that's exactly what happened. The black drug head you are defending attacked a guy and got shot. He deserved it.

 

[lennypartiv]

And that's exactly what happened. The black drug head you are defending attacked a guy and got shot. He deserved it.

Florida has some bizarre people. In 2000 they couldn't read a simple ballot, and now 12 of them on a jury came to a really crazy, bizarre conclusion.

 

[Aletheia4u]

Okay guys, put yourself in the place of the dude that was killed...................

You walk out of the store and find some random man yelling at your old lady. What would you do in that case? I'm pretty sure a shove or something like that would be done.

And, when the guy was pushed to the ground, he pulled out his gun and the man started to back away, then was shot, and went into the store and died.

No. The man with the gun should not have fired at the other guy when he was backing away. I think the manslaughter charge should stand.

I would of had told him to get away from them like how an officer would of have done. And if he refuses. Then push him away.
But you have to see it from the view of the guy that was push, All he sees is an angry man pushing him for arguing at someone that was parked in a handicap zone. Which I believe that they should get rid of all handicap parking. And just tell them to travel like the rest of the people. Those parking spots causes so much problems. If they can drive. So then they don't need any special place to park.
And the government are creating too many No parking zones, that there is not enough places to park. Which these no parking zones are causing all sorts of problems. The government needs to let the people park where ever they want.







Top 10 Cities with Highest Revenues from Parking Violations | Parking Panda Blog

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

OK, how about someone cold cocking you with a baseball bat for jaywalking? Proportional response - it's not only just a good idea, the law is based on it.

Obviouosly you know nothing of the law on self defense. Look it up and get back with us....hint: it says nothing about proportional defense.

Now in the military that concept is floated about as in when Trump refused to retaliate on Iran ...saying killing a bunch of Iranians would not be proportional to what they did.

Listen dickhead, how many law classes have you taken?

Show us anything in the law on self defense that talks about proportionality.....prove me wrong if you can.

It's also known as escalation of force in that the response to a threat must be proportional to the threat.

Example: I attempt to serve you legal papers and you refuse to accept them so I toss them at your feet. For some reason this startles you, you swing your hands upward, make contact with the papers and suffer a paper cut. Because you consider ourself as having been "assaulted" you pull out your weapon and shoot.

That is a dispproportionate use of force in relation to the "perceived" threat.

Fake news. You don't know what you are talking about. Some asshole breaks in my house and he's dead. Self defense. Why do libs love to try to paint self defenders as murderers?

Why are you substituting a different scenario for the one under discussion?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

And that's exactly what happened. The black drug head you are defending attacked a guy and got shot. He deserved it.

And the shooter deserves the guilty of manslaughter verdict he received because he did not meet the legal threshold for the use of deadly force, the race of the individuals not withstanding.

 

[miketx]

And that's exactly what happened. The black drug head you are defending attacked a guy and got shot. He deserved it.

And the shooter deserves the guilty of manslaughter verdict he received because he did not meet the legal threshold for the use of deadly force, the race of the individuals not withstanding.

Bullshit. The appeal will show otherwise. Drug head criminal blacks need to be in prison.

 

[miketx]

Obviouosly you know nothing of the law on self defense. Look it up and get back with us....hint: it says nothing about proportional defense.

Now in the military that concept is floated about as in when Trump refused to retaliate on Iran ...saying killing a bunch of Iranians would not be proportional to what they did.

Listen dickhead, how many law classes have you taken?

Show us anything in the law on self defense that talks about proportionality.....prove me wrong if you can.

It's also known as escalation of force in that the response to a threat must be proportional to the threat.

Example: I attempt to serve you legal papers and you refuse to accept them so I toss them at your feet. For some reason this startles you, you swing your hands upward, make contact with the papers and suffer a paper cut. Because you consider ourself as having been "assaulted" you pull out your weapon and shoot.

That is a dispproportionate use of force in relation to the "perceived" threat.

Fake news. You don't know what you are talking about. Some asshole breaks in my house and he's dead. Self defense. Why do libs love to try to paint self defenders as murderers?

Why are you substituting a different scenario for the one under discussion?

Deflection fail. You don't have any idea what you are talking about.